Talk:Second Battle of Newtonia

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Eddie891 in topic GA Review
Featured articleSecond Battle of Newtonia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 16, 2020Good article nomineeListed
April 27, 2021WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
June 22, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Second Battle of Newtonia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 01:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Will review, shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments
  • "the two main objectives" Given that you don't specify what the two main objectives were, maybe just "main objectives"?
    • Done
  • "drove in his skirmishers" What does 'drove in' mean here?
    • Does "drove back" make more sense here?
  • "did begin pursuit until October 30" think something's missing here?
    • Two words missing and a wrong tense
  • "it continued until the Arkansas River was reached" can you rephrase to eliminate 'was reached'? Maybe 'they reached the AR'?
    • Done
  • "Price has lost" perhaps just "had lost" or even "lost"
    • Went with had. Typo
  • "1864 United States Presidential Election" we generally capitalize it "presidential election" afaik
    • Done. Wasn't quite sure which was right.
  • "who promoted ending the war" -> "favored ending the war"?
    • Done
  • "General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department," I don't consider it immediately clear what side Smith is on
    • Added that he was Confederate.
  • "effect as the proposed transfer of troops" and what was that?
    • Clarified
  • "aid McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln" add "in the election"?
    • Added
  • "ting Lincoln; on September 19" Suggest splitting instead of semicolon-ing here
    • Split
  • "Jefferson City, a secondary target" II think you can re-link here
    • Added, although I wouldn't be surprised if someone blindly wielding AWB will nix it by year's end.
  • "to strong to attack in early October" wrong too, I think, and it's unclear if you mean "too strong to attack in October" or "in october they decided taht it was too strong to attack"
    • Yeah, it's the wrong too, I'm terrible with to/too and their/there/they're. And yep, its unclear later, so I've added a few more words to clarify.
  • "By October 23, Union Major General Samuel R. Curtis and the Army of the Border caught" I think you need to either cut the by (and replace with On) or add "had caught up"
    • Went with on to lead off, as it conveys a more exact meaning that using by
  • withdraw after being "badly cut up" who are you quoting here
    • Good thing you brought this up. In looking in the sources to determine who the quote is from, I found that I had a few page numbers wrong. Quoting Curtis, attributed.
  • "November 8 at the Arkansas." Is this right?
    • Yes. Is there a phrasing issue here that makes it read weird? I can rephrase this if need be.
      • my bad...

That's a first pass. Comments are suggestions as always, open to discusssion. Very nice work. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply