Talk:9th Missouri Sharpshooter Battalion

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:9th Missouri Sharpshooter Battalion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 23:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Initial review

I plan to review this article. For class B reviews, I normally make minor fixes myself. But for class GA reviews, I expect the author to fix every typo that I discover. I will list these later. Djmaschek (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many typos - I blame the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Hog Farm _Talk 23:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Review 1

Here is my first pass. Please fix or argue your case if you disagree. Djmaschek (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Introduction paragraph 2: Tense: "When a Confederate force attack the" > attacked.
  • Fixed
• Introduction paragraph 2: Tense: "The steamboat carrying the unit back to Missouri sunk" > sank. (You could write "was sunk", but that implies that someone sank it or that it was sunk deliberately. The word is used correctly in this article's final paragraph - "The vessel sank".)
  • Switched to sank
• Background and formation, paragraph 2: "On April 21, the CS Congress" (I think you mean 1862, but please be specific.)
  • Added the year
• Background and formation, paragraph 2: "if practical" (I think it works better if you move it to the end of the sentence.)
  • Done
• Background and formation, paragraph 2, last sentence: If you know the name of the defunct artillery or partisan ranger companies, please include that.
  • Named
• Prairie Grove, map: The V in Van Buren and the F in Fort Smith are truncated on my computer. Suggest: Remove Fort Smith since I believe it's not referred to in the text, and position Van Buren to the right.
  • Done (Ft. Smith is only mentioned as the place the unit formed
• Prairie Grove, paragraph 2, note a: Typo: "report did not addressed" > address.
  • Done
• Prairie Grove, paragraph 3: "until the Confederate withdrew" > Confederates (plural).
  • Fixed
• Helena and Little Rock: paragraph 1, sentence 2: "July 3" > July 3, 1863. (The year 1863 is missing from the section.)
  • Done
• Helena and Little Rock: paragraph 2: "the Confederate who had taken Graveyard Hill were" > Confederates (plural).
  • Corrected
• Pleasant Hill and Jenkins' Ferry, paragraph 2: This refers to the Battle of Pleasant Hill starting with sentence 2 (I think), but there needs to be (1) a blue link to Battle of Pleasant Hill and (2) date it was fought.
  • Worked in both
• Pleasant Hill and Jenkins' Ferry, paragraph 2: "Pindall's unit lost 10 men in the fighting at Pleasant Hill: two slain and the others wounded." (Suggest: Pindall's unit lost 2 killed and 8 wounded ...")
  • Done
• Pleasant Hill and Jenkins' Ferry, paragraph 4, sentence 2: Typo: "August 30" > April 30.
  • Fixed. Major oops there
• Pleasant Hill and Jenkins' Ferry, paragraph 4, last sentence: "one man killed and four wounded" > 1 man killed and 4 wounded. (Consistency: In other places, casualties are expressed in digits.)
  • Switched over to the digits
• War's end, paragraph 2: "Over the course of the unit's existence, about 550 men served in it at one point or another." ("at one point or another" is redundant)
  • removed redundant clause

Review 2

Second pass. Djmaschek (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Infobox should include: dates = Nov. 29, 1862 – May 26, 1865 (or June 7), size = battalion, notable_commanders = Lebbeus A. Pindall.
  • Added for the date. I've always understood the notable commanders and meaning wikinotable, which I don't think Pindall is
• Prairie Grove, paragraph 2: "three casualties" > 3 casualties. Note that when I first started writing Wikipedia articles, we were supposed to write out numbers below 10 (eight, nine, 10, 11). Then it changed and we were supposed to be consistent and use digits (Out of 10,000 men, losses were 1 killed, 6 wounded, and 407 captured.) So, I would say if you list casualties, always use digits/numbers.
  • Done

@Djmaschek: - I've addressed all of the comments made so far. Thanks for the review! Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm:  Done I made a few very minor edits. GA class. Djmaschek (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Flag of the type carried by the battalion

• Source: Offline ref, can provide quote if desired
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/WPNR-FM

Created by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC).

• IDK if this meets the interestingness requirement, don't militaries traditionally train people in skills they don't have to begin with?
  • @Buidhe: - The author treats it as unusual, although I can see where your concern is coming from to. Would it be better for me to hammer out a hook related to the boat carrying them home sinking? Hog Farm _Talk 00:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment, but I suppose that one could work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Then I guess

• ALT1 ... that the steamboat carrying the 9th Missouri Sharpshooter Battalion back from its military service sank in the Red River of the South?

Hog Farm _Talk 01:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hog Farm, another excellently written American Civil War article. Review: article moved to mainspace on 9 October and far exceeds minimum length; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; the sources are almost entirely offline, for which I am happy to AGF there is no overly close paraphrasing from; ALT1 is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to the source cited; image is fine at this scale and appropriately licensed; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to go - Dumelow (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)