This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mizzou, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Missouri on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MizzouWikipedia:WikiProject MizzouTemplate:WikiProject MizzouMizzou articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
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.
I am not really sure either hook works for DYK. The first one is not particularly unusual or interesting to someone who wasn't already interested in the book. The second one is likely to be appreciated only by those who already have a good grasp of Civil War history and know, for instance, what Price's Raid is and why it is significant. DYK definitely works well for some books but not all of them, depending on the subject matter. (t · c) buidhe09:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
This hook is definitely promising, but the hook makes it sound single-handed while the cited source actually says "helped to debunk". How about the following variation:
Gog the Mild went with the two words, cause that's how our article spells out. I have no idea if the one and two word forms suggest different things. And yes, I made a copy editing error when writing about copy editing errors Hog FarmBacon23:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Other themes of the book include debunking the myth that the Confederates refused to engage in total war as well as examining Union Major GeneralWilliam S. Rosecrans' motivations behind how he responded to the raid: that he was more concerned with sheltering the Missouri economy than protecting civilians." Long sentence alert. Also, the last clause doesn't work. Try 'Lause suggests that he was ...'.
Split
"Professor Terry L. Beckenbaugh, reviewing the book for Annals of Iowa noted that, while logically justifiable, the decision to end the coverage of the campaign when the Confederates abandoned their attempt on Jefferson City prevented the book from providing the complete story, noting that the omission of Westport and Mine Creek would be "a disappointment" to some readers. He also noted" Another long sentence alert. "noted that" in it twice and the next starting with "He also noted". Try this.
Split the sentence, and I've rephrased two of the three noteds.
I am not sure if it is usual or not, but I really want to know a little more about the author.
I don't know if it's usual or not, either. I've added that he's a history professor at the University of Cincinnati? Is this enough? I'm not sure that much more would really be on-topic.
You sure that he's not at Cincinnati?
If you mentioned him in any other article, even in passing, I would want a brief introduction. So this seems a bare minimum to me. You wanna mention any of his other works? (Optional,)
It took a bit of digging, but I turned up his University of Cincinnati faculty profile. I've added that he's got a PhD from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and that he's been published multiple times, largely on the topics of labor and class history.
"dated to the 1800s". The 1800s were before the war started. (In British English anyway.) Try '19th century'.
Doesn't really work in American English, either. Changed
The bit about needing to upload a detailed fair-use rationale is boilerplate that comes with the template. I added the detailed fair-use description when I uploaded it, so that part is fine. It does need to be resized. I thought the bot would do it, like it suggested on there, but it's been a week and that ain't happened. I have no idea how to resize it, so I'll post something at the technical part of the village pump.
For GAN I can live with that not being resolved, so long as it is ongoing.
It's been resolved for this one, although there's apparently a backlog of 2600+ articles waiting for a bot to decide to rise from the dead
Not a GAN point, but you still have "noted" six times in one paragraph.
Halved, and I tried to nix a little more repetitive language
Optional: "concerned with sheltering the Missouri economy than protecting civilians" → 'concerned with protecting the Missouri economy than sheltering civilians
Just out of curiosity, how clunky is the prose on this one? I'm considering giving another check to make sure I got all the RS reviews, and then possibly making an ACR run with this one. My one concern is my lack of experience with literary topics, so the prose may be as ugly as heck. Hog FarmBacon20:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hog Farm, the prose is fine. Not perhaps as polished as in your ACW articles, but above average for GAs. Certainly ACRable, IMO; the folk there will polish the language up for you. There may be issues missing because it about a book. If so, I have missed them too. It is only the fifth or sixth book article I have reviewed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I am not really sure either hook works for DYK. The first one is not particularly unusual or interesting to someone who wasn't already interested in the book. The second one is likely to be appreciated only by those who already have a good grasp of Civil War history and know, for instance, what Price's Raid is and why it is significant. DYK definitely works well for some books but not all of them, depending on the subject matter. (t · c) buidhe 09:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Article approved; new reviewer needed to approve ALT2b only. (t · c) buidhe 22:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Approving ALT2b, and otherwise relying on Buidhe's review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I was so tempted to make a joke when I saw what you had done, but I thought that I would leave it as an exercise for the class. 
