Talk:10th Massachusetts Battery
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 10th Massachusetts Battery article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Naming conventions for Massachusetts battery articles
editI'm putting some feelers out here because this was the first of the Massachusetts battery articles. This comment, though, is relevant to all Massachusetts battery, or light artillery articles. Recently there was a conversation here regarding a shift in the naming convention for ACW units and Massachusetts regiments in particular. The gist of the consensus reached was that the Wikipedia standard of "common name" should be applied to the extent possible. That is, the names typically used in recent histories (as opposed to the full, formal titles of the 19th century). It occurs to me that the current convention "Nth Massachusetts Light Artillery" (which I've actually been perpetuating in recent new articles) is not only historically incorrect, it also is not the "common name" used in histories. I'm proposing to move all the light artillery articles to "Nth Massachusetts Battery." This is consistent with works by Gordon Rhea, such as this, Stephen Sears, such as this, and Bradley M. Gottfried, such as this. In addition to common use, in strictly literal terms, these units were "batteries" not "light artilleries." I acknowledge that "10th Massachusetts Light Artillery" can sometimes be found in print but I believe it is not common in either 19th or 21st century sources. If there are any issues with this proposal, please comment here. If not, I'll make the switch to "10th Massachusetts Battery" in a few days. Thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- You've made good calls in the past, so I agree to your proposal. If anyone dissents, they should speak now.Hhfjbaker (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Full support here - these articles should be brought in line with common name. Kges1901 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Article Evaluation
edit10th Massachusetts Battery: 10th Massachusetts Battery I chose this article because I remember learning about the Civil War a little in high school and it interested me. I want to see how Massachusetts was involved because I really don't know much about how we were involved.
The Lead doesn't really summarize the article. It's really general and kind of just states the obvious saying that the battery fought in the civil war. It is a very concise lead and does not have any information not in the article but too general.
The content is relevant to the topic, it gave detailed descriptions of where the battery was in the war, who died in the battery, and the commanders. This article seemed like it should have written about battles that they fought in and how they influenced the war but it didn't have this, but it does give a link to another article that talks about this. The content is up to date as it was last edited June 14, 2020.
The article is neutral and does not give any claims, it all looks like facts without any bias. The article doesn't attempt to persuade in any way, it just gave a list of where the battery was at different points in the war and some details about the commanders and a couple other things.
All the facts are backed up by a reliable source, the article has references to books on the war and a article from 1909 on the battery. The sources are not current, one was written in 1909 by one author and the other in 1908 by a press company. The links in the article seem to work.
The article is more of just a list of where the battery went in the war. It's a short article but it does give good details of where the battery went and for how long. There aren't spelling errors and is well organized.
There are not any images in this article.
There is a comment about edits that could be made to the article and how to make the information more accurate. People have commented and said that they'd be ok with the changes.
The article overall is pretty short, it wasn't what I thought it was going to be about, but it does give a lot of information about where the battery went. It gives very good details about where they were during a given time period. I think the article could be improved by talking more about the battles that they were in and how they influenced the war, however they do give a link to another article that talks about this stuff. I think overall this article is a little underdeveloped, it gives accurate information but it is a very short article and there could be more.