Talk:6th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that part of the 6th Missouri Infantry (Confederate) was composed of the men of two artillery batteries that had been reclassified to infantry? Source 1 in the text, McGhee 2008
  • ALT1:... that a mine was detonated under the position of part of the 6th Missouri Infantry (Confederate) on July 1, 1863, during the Siege of Vicksburg? Source 23 in text, Tucker 1993

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Source control (respiratory disease)

Moved to mainspace by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 02:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A good regimental article which covers the origins, organisation, main battle honours and significant operations during the ACW well. New enough, long enough and well sourced. The hooks are cited and are taken in good faith. Certainly the details check out against Sifakis who gives a brief synopsis. I think this is good to go; I would marginally prefer ALT1 to the main hook, but either is fine. Bermicourt (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: We're close to July 1; would you like ALT1 to run on that day? Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: That would be fine with me, if it's not too much of a hassle. Hog Farm (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:6th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 06:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Hello, Hog Farm. I'll be doing this review and will use the checklist above to register progress. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Report

This is very good and easily passes all the checks above. I would think there is room for expansion to increase the breadth of coverage but it has already achieved an acceptable width and, most important, is both within scope and in summary style. It's a very interesting piece of history. I'm promoting it to GA. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)