Talk:10th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/GA1

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • A map showing the areas that the regiment fought in would be really useful.
    • Map added. Doesn't have a lot of the most detailed places available, but it's the best I could find on Commons.
  • Link brigade in the lede
    • Done
  • Move the bit about the 12th Missouri in front of the sentence about being paroled to keep things roughly chronological.
    • Moved to between Helena and Pleasant Hill
  • We know that all of the counties are in Missouri. Pipe the links to the counties so that they just read "County X"
    • Part of Company F was actually from Arkansas, and I think it's important to keep the distinction clear. What do you think is the best way to handle this?
      • I think that if you'll be fine if you add the Arkansas county and state just for them.
  • Don't think that the names of the company commanders are really appropriate or needed. When Moore is elected, just mention that he was the former commander of A Company
    • Done
  • I don't understand this bit: Parsons' brigade was advanced to left of the Confederate main line Did Parson's Brigade (capitalize that as it's part of a proper name) begin the battle on the left and in front of the main line? Or did it advance on the left during the battle?
    • I have no idea why I wrote that as I did. Corrected to my actual intent.
    • Corrected the instances I found to Parsons' Brigade and Burns' Brigade
  • fought against try engaged, exchanged fire with, etc.
    • Went with engaged
  • Parsons' line broke "The brigade's line broke" or maybe just "the brigade broke", would be better phrasing, IMO.
    • Went with "the brigade broke"
  • Missing commas after Louisiana and Arkansas.
    • I corrected two points in the 1864 section, did you see any others
      • No, just one of each.
  • Any particular reason for the election?
    • Not sure. McGhee doesn't say, and the Official Records, a collection of military reports that's considered the most thorough ACW primary source, doesn't seem to mention the election
  • A lot of these comments will apply in the review of the 16th Missouri as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply