Talk:List of United States military and volunteer units in the Mexican–American War
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
List edit
Classified as a list for WP:MILHIST, but did not assess all areas because at least part of the article is now being restructured. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Bolding and unit names edit
The recent changes to the naval portion were a great improvement. It seems to me that the unit names should be in the list under their proper names. The first element of this is easier, while IMHO bolding the name of each unit is overuse of bolding, bolding the term of enlistment as well is improper and should be undone. In taking a brief look at this, I came across links for units that have their own Wikipedia articles to find their names in the articles differ from those in the links (and remember no links combined with bolding). The most obvious of these is the Mormon Battalion, whose article explains that it was listed as an Iowa unit entirely through a clerical error. I'm not familiar enough of these issues to make the corrections myself, although they appear not to be too difficult for someone more familiar with this. I'll give it a rating as is, but I'd certainly be willing to upgrade it later. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Wait, there's more edit
Also, the MOS disfavors citations being placed with section names. I've never found a satisfactory universal solution to this, but the placement of citations affects B1. which asks that citations be "appropriate.' As to grammar, there are a lot of "for during"s. Take your pick, but one's enough. This impacts B4. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)