Talk:Fort Davidson/GA1
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Zawed in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 07:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Zawed (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Lead
- American Civil War linked twice in lead
- Fixed
- Suggest mentioning the fort is near Pilot Knob. Otherwise the mention of Battle of Pilot Knob State Historic Site comes a little out of left field. Shouldn't Fort Davidson also appear at the top of the infobox?
- Done
History
- ...were constructed: one of the north suggest to "one to the north"
- Oops. I'm a rather poor copyeditor.
- shallow or deep.[4][3] suggest reordering the refs
- Done
- 32-pounder cannon is there a link for this like the other gun?
- The source for that is too vague to provide a link - could be one of several things.
- RE the naming, I would have thought that this favoured the 1863 construction date - is there anything to explain the discrepancy between sources in year of construction and wall height?
- I've found an ebook that gives a little more detail after some searching. The way the page numbers are set up is really weird, so it might be slow going puzzling them out. Apparently Sinisi was conflating an earlier, nearby structure known as "Fort Hovey" or "Fort Curtis" with the 1861 date. But details of the rest of his description are definitely referring to Davidson, not Curtis. Also added another estimate of moat depth. Will continue to look into this.
Battle of Fort Davidson
- challenging Union control of Missouri, Missouri is repeated twice in close succession, suggest this second mention be amended to "challenging Union control of the state,"
- Done
- to capture the Union post same issue as above, suggest "to capture the town"
- Went with the simpler "it"
- consisted of 1,456 of shouldn't that be "consisted of 1,456 soldiers of". I'm struggling to parse whether the 150 civilians is part of the 1,456 or not.
- Yes, it should be "of soldiers of". I've also removed the words "a further" to try to make it clearer that the 150 civilians were part of the 1456
- Price, meanwhile, order part of his army grammar issue here, "Price, meanwhile, ordered part of his army"
- Fixed
- Who buried the dead?
- Clarified
Battle of Pilot Knob State Historic Site
- As of 2019, ... I notice the lead says "as of 2020", so this seems inconsistent
- It's comparing slightly different things. The visitor's center and museum is from an as of 2020 source. The as of 2019 bit is the overall improvements at the site, the visitation number, and the budget.
- I'm sure it would have been mentioned if it was available, but is there anything about the history of the site prior to 1968? Any preservation work or the like?
- There was a good bit in the new book I found, I've added it.
Other stuff
- Image tags check out OK
- No dupe links other than that mentioned in the lead
- Sources/references look appropriately formatted.
That's all I have for now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not my best work (I wrote a lot of this at midnight while on quarantine), but I'll keep scrapping at this to try to improve it more. Hog Farm Bacon 23:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- And the more I look, the more divergent stuff about the various dimensions I see. Hog Farm Bacon 03:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not my best work (I wrote a lot of this at midnight while on quarantine), but I'll keep scrapping at this to try to improve it more. Hog Farm Bacon 23:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Let me know when it is ready to be looked at again. I've had a look at your changes to date and they are looking good but I do have a couple of suggestions. I think it best to enter those when you have completed your work. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Zawed - I think at this point, the best solution may be to just present the different dimensions and all given and then attribute them. The more sources I find, the more variation it brings up. Hog Farm Bacon 03:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, coming back to this now. I was going to suggest that the final sentence of the first paragraph should be the first of the second paragraph but looking at this again I see the current paragraph construction makes sense in light of the iron ore and railroad. This is looking good for GA now so am passing as I believe it meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)