Talk:Price's Lost Campaign: The 1864 Invasion of Missouri/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 13:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Other themes of the book include debunking the myth that the Confederates refused to engage in total war as well as examining Union Major General William S. Rosecrans' motivations behind how he responded to the raid: that he was more concerned with sheltering the Missouri economy than protecting civilians." Long sentence alert. Also, the last clause doesn't work. Try 'Lause suggests that he was ...'.
    • Split
  • "Professor Terry L. Beckenbaugh, reviewing the book for Annals of Iowa noted that, while logically justifiable, the decision to end the coverage of the campaign when the Confederates abandoned their attempt on Jefferson City prevented the book from providing the complete story, noting that the omission of Westport and Mine Creek would be "a disappointment" to some readers. He also noted" Another long sentence alert. "noted that" in it twice and the next starting with "He also noted". Try this.
    • Split the sentence, and I've rephrased two of the three noteds.
  • I am not sure if it is usual or not, but I really want to know a little more about the author.
    • I don't know if it's usual or not, either. I've added that he's a history professor at the University of Cincinnati? Is this enough? I'm not sure that much more would really be on-topic.
  • You sure that he's not at Cincinnati?
  • If you mentioned him in any other article, even in passing, I would want a brief introduction. So this seems a bare minimum to me. You wanna mention any of his other works? (Optional,)
  • It took a bit of digging, but I turned up his University of Cincinnati faculty profile. I've added that he's got a PhD from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and that he's been published multiple times, largely on the topics of labor and class history.
  • "dated to the 1800s". The 1800s were before the war started. (In British English anyway.) Try '19th century'.
    • Doesn't really work in American English, either. Changed
  • The image has a couple of problems - see the stuff on its Commons page. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline may help.
    • The bit about needing to upload a detailed fair-use rationale is boilerplate that comes with the template. I added the detailed fair-use description when I uploaded it, so that part is fine. It does need to be resized. I thought the bot would do it, like it suggested on there, but it's been a week and that ain't happened. I have no idea how to resize it, so I'll post something at the technical part of the village pump.
  • For GAN I can live with that not being resolved, so long as it is ongoing.
  • It's been resolved for this one, although there's apparently a backlog of 2600+ articles waiting for a bot to decide to rise from the dead

You don't leave a lot for a reviewer to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: - This one's also short enough there wasn't much space to make errors. I've replied to all above, although the image one is gonna require a village pump query. Hog Farm Bacon 03:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a GAN point, but you still have "noted" six times in one paragraph.
  • Halved, and I tried to nix a little more repetitive language
  • Optional: "concerned with sheltering the Missouri economy than protecting civilians" → 'concerned with protecting the Missouri economy than sheltering civilians
  • Went with something similar
  • Gog the Mild - I've tried to work through these above. Is it obvious that this is only the second book article I've written? Hog Farm Bacon 20:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, how clunky is the prose on this one? I'm considering giving another check to make sure I got all the RS reviews, and then possibly making an ACR run with this one. My one concern is my lack of experience with literary topics, so the prose may be as ugly as heck. Hog Farm Bacon 20:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hog Farm, the prose is fine. Not perhaps as polished as in your ACW articles, but above average for GAs. Certainly ACRable, IMO; the folk there will polish the language up for you. There may be issues missing because it about a book. If so, I have missed them too. It is only the fifth or sixth book article I have reviewed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Price%27s_Lost_Campaign:_The_1864_Invasion_of_Missouri/GA1&oldid=987556520"