Talk:Wade's Missouri Battery

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 Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the men of Wade's Battery attempted to tunnel beneath enemy lines during the Siege of Vicksburg? Source 16 in text, a book.
  • ALT1:... that Wade's Battery lost its cannons at the Battle of Big Black River Bridge because the battery's horses were on the wrong side of the river? Source 15 in text

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pratapgarh Kingdom

Moved to mainspace by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 21:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

• Hi Hog Farm, review follows: article moved to main space 24 May; article exceeds minimum length; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; all sources used are offline books, happy to AGF there is no overly close paraphrasing from these; hooks are interesting enough for me, mentioned in the article and cited inline; again, happy to AGF on hook sourcing; a QPQ has been carried out. No issues here, that I can see - Dumelow (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Name of battery comment

To the author: Thanks for writing this much-needed article! If you write more articles about Civil War artillery batteries, I suggest naming them like this: "Wade's Missouri Battery" because the state name is almost always included in orders of battle. I see that Virginia battery articles don't include the state name, but almost all Union batteries do. Djmaschek (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wade's Battery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 10:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Go on, I'll take a look at this one too. Harrias ^talk 10:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Prose

• "..the battery would be engaged at the Battle of Pea Ridge." Wouldn't "was" work better than "would be" here?
  • Fixed. Use of "would" is a really bad habit of mine
• Dab "Army of the West" to Army of the West (1862).
  • Done
• "..in what one historian has referred to as "wild disorder."" Do we know which historian? If so, name them.
  • Named. Also adjusted for the fact that the reference was to a co-authored book, so it was two of them.
• Remove the link to Guibor's Battery in Corinth, it was already linked earlier.
  • Removed
• "In December, Captain Wade would be promoted.." Again, I'd prefer "was" to "would be".
  • Fixed
• I'm confused about the first paragraph of the 1863 section. It finishes by saying "After Wade's death, Lieutenant Richard C. Walsh assumed command of the battery.", but this had already happened in the previous paragraph hadn't it?
  • Oops, removed the redundancy
• Also, the penultimate sentence of that paragraph starts "Wade's battery was attached..": capitalise "Battery".
  • Fixed
• Remove the link to John S. Bowen in 1863, it was already linked earlier.
  • Removed

Images

• Both images are appropriately captioned and licensed.

Sourcing

• All references are to reliable sources, and citations are consistently formatted in an appropriate style.

Again, a nice and neat article with little work needed to meet the GA criteria. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 12:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Harrias: - Thanks for the review! I've responded to all points so far. Hog Farm (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Cheers, passing this one too. Although, I've just noticed that this will take you back past me in the WikiCup! Harrias ^talk 20:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)