Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

This article recently received a peer review at WP:PR and with the subsequent changes I'm hoping it's getting close to possible FAC. The reviewer suggested I seek another review with the Military History Project to see what can be done to further improve the article with an aim towards FAC. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

Here are my comments:

suggest full spelling of rank, rather than abbreviations;

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are all the commanders in the infobox really notable? Clark is, but the others may not be. I'd suggest moving them to a section by itself and just including the notable ones in the infobox

Done. Good point. Clark was really the only "notable" commander. The others are mentioned in the body of the text, so I think I'll leave it with just Clark in the infobox. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per the WP:MOS numbers less than ten should probably be spelled, for example in the Battle of Camden section you have "4 killed, 11 wounded, and 1 missing" - this should probably be changed to "four killed, 11 wounded and one missing". (There are other examples of this also)

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the references that are to the same page number could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS, although I don't think this is a requirement for a higher rating (I might be wrong, though)

I see your point here. I think I'll see what they suggest when I submit it for FAC. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not a big fan of the consolidated references. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check the spelling of "manoeuvres" in the Organization and early duty section. I think that this is British/Australian spelling of the word, when you have later (in Battle of Chantilly section) used the US "maneuvre", which I think is correct in this case given that it is about an American topic

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

page ranges in References should have endashes per WP:DASH;

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

should "reenlist" be hyphenated to be "re-enlist"?

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that is it from me. Overall a good article in my opinion. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I'll get to work on those changes. Historical Perspective (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a citation error in the Battle of New Bern section. I tried to fix it, but I didn't know the page number so I couldn't. (It is at the end of the section). Can you take a look please? Cheers. Good work with the improvements, by the way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for catching that. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Jespersen (talk)

You may wish to consult the style guide used by the Civil War task force. Although these guidelines are optional, by using them you will find yourself more closely aligned with the style of many hundreds of American Civil War articles. Regarding ranks, I use the common English abbreviation of ranks almost exclusively, although a small number of editors choose to spell them out. However, you should strive to use actual ranks rather than honorifics. For example Ambrose Burnside was a major general, not a general, so he is typically listed in our articles as Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside, not "Gen" (which for some reason you are abbreviating and not using a period after the abbreviation). And the American spelling is maneuver. A couple of comments about references: although you may not be a fan of the consolidated citations, I think you will find it impossible to become a featured article without conforming to that. Also, the abbreviated citations (such as "Bowen, 329") are more typically found by organizing a Notes section followed by a fully formatted References section in the style of a bibliography, rather than mixing the two in a single section. The references usually are given with ISBN numbers. I have a pretty large list of Civil War references in my personal file that may help you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the style guide and the references will be quite helpful, I am sure. On the ranks, I will revert to abbreviations (in the two instances where "Gen" occurs it was simply a typo). And I will break out Notes and References as suggested. Historical Perspective (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wikilink templates you created for U.S. army ranks were very handy. Thank you. I have replaced all ranks with abbreviations, inserting a wikilink where each rank is used for the first time. I left ranks fully spelled out where used in quotes or where it was not part of a proper title. Hope this conforms to the style guide now. Historical Perspective (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've got the notes all in consolidated format now. Hoping the Notes and References sections now conform to expectations for an FAC. Historical Perspective (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]