Talk:Uniforms of the Confederate States Armed Forces

Article naming

I saw this page get moved to Uniforms of the Confederate military to better comply with the naming policy, but I believe to should be Uniforms of the Confederate States military forces, or better yet the usage found in the CSA's constitution, in the OR's, or another such source. Any thoughts? Kresock (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Uniforms of the Confederate States military forces/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Note: Because the GA nomination was withdrawn, I am not placing a failed GA template on this page, as the article did not fail a GA review. I hope that my suggestions will be of use in future improvements to this article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This article could use a good copyedit and some sourcing. Many sections are unsourced, and there are writing problems evident throughout the article. A few examples will suffice for now:

The liberty rifles have done a lot of general research on this topic and can sourced as evidence for the presence of "uniformed appearance" in their "INTERPRETING RICHMOND DEPOT CLOTHING FROM A MATERIAL CULTURE PARADIGM" which has general lawton's report to congress mention the well uniformed natured of Confederate forces in Feburary 1865 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asetpath (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

1. "grey" and "gray" - should be consistent
2. unnecessary capitalization of military ranks in the middle of sentences
3. "their sworn enemies" - doesn't seem encyclopedic
4. Periods should come before references, not before and after.
5. The numbers for stripes are very confusing. If someone wears one stripe that is one-quarter inch long, "one 1/4 stripe" is easier to understand than "1 1/4 stripe", which seems to indicate a stripe on one and one-quarter inch.
6. "They of different colors" - errors like this should be caught before a GA review
7. "They of different colors red for artillery officers" - punctuation after "colors"?
8. The description on the image page for the Confederate belt buckle needs to be updated.
9. "not fit for the heat of the lower decks of a ship" - this doesn't seem to be covered in the reference
10. "Then a Master, the same as the Lieutenant, except that they have no star." - not a sentence
11. "a foul anchor" - what is this?
12. The online references in the sources and notes sections are missing information. See Template:Cite web. The video reference should also be formatted with Template:Cite video, and more information is needed.
13. "junior-officers" shouldn't be hyphenated

I'm going to stop there, as this should be sufficient to get a sense of what needs to be fixed. On top of this, there also seems to be a shortage of information. Many sections are very brief, so the article has very little detail. Although the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, little of what is mentioned in the lead is repeated later in the article (detail on these topics would be helpful, as they sound interesting and would make this more of an article and less of a list).

I am going to put this nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Please note that this is not a comprehensive list of what needs to be done for GA status but rather an indication of the direction the article needs to go. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is still in need of a copyedit and more detail. The list above was not a complete list of every problem with the article, but more to show what sorts of problems exist. I recommend adding to the information and then seeking an editor who has not worked on this article to perform a thorough copyedit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review 2

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The references do not follow the relevant part of the MoS. The list of footnotes should be first, titled either "Notes" or "Footnotes", and the full references should follow them, in a section titled "References".

   Numerous grammatical and punctuation errors throughout the article. A general absence of commas is particularly noticeable, making the text difficult to read in places.

   Redundant capitalisation throughout the text for military ranks and colours.

   The "Belt" section could be clearer; I get what you're trying to say here, but the term "CS or CSA belt" should be more clearly explained at the beginning of the paragraph. Clarification: It's not that the meaning of the initials is unclear, it's that it is unclear as to what makes a "CSA belt" different from any other sort of belt - I can figure it out from the picture, but it's not clear in the text.

   The section on the CSMC makes it sound as if Russia was a part of the British Empire.

   Possessive apostrophes are not needed in the citations.

   General inconsistent formatting in the citations.

   The detailed references are not in alphabetical order, making them difficult to refer to. Comment: Much better now, but Van Doren is still out of order.

   There is some overlinking in places, with the same term being wiki-linked twice within the same section (notably the naval ranks).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The link in the citation for heatstroke is to a book that does not appear to be related to the subject at hand (and may, therefore, not be a reliable source for it).

   The reference titled "Basic Confederate Uniform" is to a personal webpage, which is not considered a reliable source. It may be appropriate as an External Link, but only if it provides information that could not reasonably be included in the Wikipedia article.

   Video and web citations do not use the correct format.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems to cover all the pertinent facts.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   A few instances of recent vandalism (but what page doesn't?) but no edit warring.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Some of the captions could be clearer; the "example of Confederate cavalry uniform", for instance, could be labelled with a more specific description (e.g. rank).

   One of the images is used twice in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article needs a fair bit of work to bring up to standard, especially to grammar and punctuation, but there is no reason that this should not be achievable within one week. Placed on hold.

Further comment: Good work so far, but there are still a number of grammatical errors (for example, in the first and last sentences of the first "Overview" paragraph) and clumsy phrasing, and some of the other problems still need to be addressed. Looks like you'll get this fixed, though! Anaxial (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Final comment: I think we're OK now. But I would suggest a thorough sweep for grammatical and punctuation issues (and general style) before nominating articles for GA in future, as it will save time during the review.Anaxial (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pawn stars belt buckle.

Is the CS buckle with a mine ball in it on a recent episode of Pawn Stars a fake or not? Bizzybody (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Camouflage

"Grey was not the best choice for camouflage, although at the time the usefulness of camouflage was not generally recognized"

That being the case, what is the value of bringing it up, other than being a smarty-pants?--172.190.128.81 (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)