Talk:22nd Massachusetts Infantry Regiment

(Redirected from Talk:22nd Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Historical Perspective in topic Col Grove's image
Featured article22nd Massachusetts Infantry Regiment is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 28, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 17, 2010WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
April 29, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 15, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Casualties

edit

The introduction states that only 125 "returned" of the 1,100 men who were in the regiment when it was mustered. This gives the impression that none of the others returned, which I doubt is true. While only 125 were still on active duty when the regiment was mustered out, I am certain that many of the others were discharged as wounded, sick, or otherwise unavailable for duty (deserted, promoted up and out (perhaps to U.S. Colored Troops), etc.). The introduction should be changed to reflect this. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I've added information on casualties according to the regimental history. Historical Perspective (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Col Grove's image

edit

I suggest that Col. Grove's image be moved to be near either the text relating his taking command of the regiment or the text relating his death. This is where readers would have an interest in seeing his image. It is now positioned much further down the page. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I had considered this but was worried about crowding too many images near the beginning of the article. However, I think I've managed to put him in a place where he fits at the start of the Peninsular Campaign section. This places him in the appropriate chronological position, which I agree is important. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply