Talk:Harris's Missouri Battery (1864)

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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Harris' Missouri Battery (1864) was formed in a reorganization that may not have been authorized? Source 1 in the text
  • ALT1:... that Harris' Missouri Battery (1864) lost all of its cannons at the Battle of Mine Creek? Sources 15 and 16 in the test.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Corn Exchange, Chichester
• Comment: The (1864) disambiguator is important, there was a Harris' Missouri Battery in 1862 (not the same).

Moved to mainspace by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 22:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough, and already a GA I see. The hook facts for both hooks are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. I prefer ALT1. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harris' Missouri Battery (1864)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I plan to review this (and your other nomination) friday or over the weekend. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• "The battery fought in the Camden Expedition in early 1864, fighting" the change in tenses is very odd to me

• • Fixed, as well as with a similar issue later in the lead.

• I'd like to see Harris' name linked in the lede?

• • Added Harris' name to lead. I'm not going to link Harris, as he is an utter NSOLDIER and GNG fail.

• No image you could add?

• • Added an image of Price's Raid

• "may not have been officially sanctioned" any more detail??

• • Source does not provide any more detail, and McGhee is very detailed about formations (and is considered one of the top authorities on Missouri Confederate units). Unfortunately, the relevant primary source records for the Trans-Mississippi Confederate units don't all exist, which limits what is known about some of these details.

• "Harris' Missouri Battery (1862) could be linked

• • Done

• "fter the reorganization, the battery " unclear whether you are talking about the 1864 regiment or the 1862 one

• • I relegated the aside about the 1862 unit to a footnote, which it really is probably

• "were of "old and inferior pattern"." I like to see attribution to quotes in the text

• • Done

• Are you sure Gallups is a real place? A google search would suggest otherwise

• • Unlinked. Source isn't clear if it's a place or a named natural feature, like a landing or something. Possibly a small village that no longer exists. A Google search brings up nothing.

• "Harris' Battery was usually used to refer to the unit." perhaps 'was still used"?

• • Done

• "When the paroles were issued, there were found to be 136 men in the battery on the date of the surrender." perhaps?

• • Done

Article is in very good shape I think Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is now well referenced, written, neutral, reasonably comprehensive, contains no copyvio and otherwise meets the GA criteria. Passing (on the short side, but meets the criteria) Nice work! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)