Talk:Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas
Latest comment: 2 years ago by PCN02WPS in topic GA Review
Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 14, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas 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 GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 16:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'll review this nomination. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, given the nominator, I didn't find a lot to comment on or fix here, but what I did find is listed below. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @PCN02WPS: - how does this look now? Hog Farm Talk 13:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- There wasn't a ton that had to be fixed but it's all good now - happy to give this a pass. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @PCN02WPS: - how does this look now? Hog Farm Talk 13:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Lead and infobox
edit- "Skirmish of Brownsville" (as opposed to "Battle") is used in the infobox and one of the sources' titles but not anywhere else in the article
- Swapped out for "battle" in the infobox. Either one would probably work
- "Part of the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War" → at its article, "Trans-Mississippi Theater" uses the lowercase for "trans" - however, I am not sure how important this is
- I personally think based on an informal scan of sources that the capitol "t" may be the better usage
- I have not seen "circa" used with anything other than approximating dates, and MOS:CIRCA mentions only dates as well; is there precedent for using "circa" (or {{circa}}) for approximating quantities, like numbers of soldiers?
- I've used it before in a few FAs - Capture of Sedalia, Second Battle of Independence, Battle of Glasgow, Missouri. If it's an issue, I can remove the template
- The lead itself is very good - it gets a little repetitive at times as "Arkansas" is mentioned numerous times and "commanded by" is repeated too, though for each of these there's not a ton that can be done about that. If you can cut down a little on the repetition that would be great but it's not a dealbreaker for me by any means.
- Have cut down on the uses of "commanded by"
Background
edit- "Commanding the Confederate troops in the region was Major General Sterling Price, who was in command as Theophilus Holmes was ill." → just a touch repetitive here, emphasis is mine
- Rephrased
- "although the two officers did not get along well" → this sentence is not sourced; also is there a specific reason noted for this?
- It's covered by the ref [7] to Christ 2010; will try to come up with
- Have added a brief bit to explain this (it goes back to Helena)
- It's covered by the ref [7] to Christ 2010; will try to come up with
Battle
edit- "The initial Confederate plan of battle" → could this be simplified to "The initial Confederate battle plan"?
- Done
- "A sabre charge by a small force " → couldn't hurt to link sabre here
- Done
Aftermath
edit- "The tensions between Marmaduke and Walker boiled over on September 6, with Marmaduke fatally shooting Walker in a duel on September 6." → could this portion of the paragraph be restructured slightly so that this is mentioned before the Skirmish at Ashley's Mills, which happened the day after, just to keep it in chronological order?
- Done