- 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) 15:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
11th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)
Moved to mainspace by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 19:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
An interesting and well constructed article that is new enough, long enough and neutrally written. I'm taking the material and the hooks in good faith. My only comment is that I'm slightly uncomfortable with ALT1 because, as is rightly pointed out, it was not the 11th but the 8th Missouri that took part in the Battle of Helena. I know it's only a name change, but it technically isn't correct and could cause confusion. Perhaps it could be reworded along the lines of ALT1:... that the 8th Missouri Infantry, later renamed the 11th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate), suffered 159 casualties at the Battle of Helena? Bermicourt (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hog Farm, Bermicourt: Hi. I came by looking for hooks to promote, and neither of these are particularly interesting. Perhaps:
- ALT2: ... that a Missouri Confederate infantry regiment lost many men on Graveyard Hill?
- That wording also gets around the 8 vs 11 issue. Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- That wording works for me if Bermicourt will review it. I've done a bunch of these regimental articles, and I'm honestly running out of interesting things to say about them. Hog Farm (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with that either. Let's go with ALT2 then. Bermicourt (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
-
- @Yoninah: I've added a citation after the sentence mentioning Graveyard Hill. Is the one after the 159 casualties sufficient in combination? Hog Farm Bacon 13:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: thank you, but we also need a cite after the heavy casualties sentence. Yoninah (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Done by combining sentences. Hog Farm Bacon 13:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks. Restoring tick per Bermicourt's review. Yoninah (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
An interesting and well constructed article that is new enough, long enough and neutrally written. I'm taking the material and the hooks in good faith. My only comment is that I'm slightly uncomfortable with ALT1 because, as is rightly pointed out, it was not the 11th but the 8th Missouri that took part in the Battle of Helena. I know it's only a name change, but it technically isn't correct and could cause confusion. Perhaps it could be reworded along the lines of ALT1:... that the 8th Missouri Infantry, later renamed the 11th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate), suffered 159 casualties at the Battle of Helena? Bermicourt (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Please add an inline cite for the Graveyard Hill fact. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)