Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Louisiana Regulars Infantry Regiment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

1st Louisiana Regulars Infantry Regiment edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

1st Louisiana Regulars Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A history of a unit whose history parallels the rise and fall of the Confederacy, but in some ways not your average Confederate with most of the rank and file Irish immigrants. In four years of war, casualties and desertions reduced this unit from a regiment to platoon strength. Kges1901 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle edit

  • Following the victory of Lincoln in the 1860 election, - Per WP:GLOBAL, this would be better as "Following the victory of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 U.S. presidential election" as some users may not be familiar with Lincoln.
  • Done
  • Louisiana Governor Thomas O. Moore moved rapidly to assure the secession of his state from the union. "Union" is a bit of an obfuscation referring to the constitutional union of states. Would be best if plainly said "the United States", "the country", or similar.
  • Done
  • Bradford took control of the New Orleans Marine Hospital at the New Orleans army barracks on 12 January and had its patients removed to another hospital in order to free space for newly mustered in regulars, an action much sensationalized in Northern newspapers. As in, creating space for where sick recruits could be hospitalized, or creating barrack space for them to live in?
  • Clarified
  • After a picket discovered the Confederate approach early in the morning of 9 October, the camp was charged by Colonel John K. Jackson's 3rd Battalion of the force and its occupants fled. This is a little confusing. The federal picket discovered the Confederate force, but the Confederates, presumably on the move, attacked the camp? Conflating the camp (stationary thing) and picket (group of soldiers) is the issue here. Recommend changing to say the Confederates discovered the picket (if accurate) or saying "their camp" (the feds') was charged.
  • The sequence is that one of the Union sentries gave the alarm as the Confederates approached, but the Union troops in the camp itself were unprepared to defend it so they fled as the Confederates attacked. Kges1901 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some minor changes to this text which I think help with clarity. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lindsay commanded a 550-man force in a predawn sortie on 27 March that drove in the Union pickets from Slack's Brigade of Veatch's Division, but were forced to retreat greatly outnumbered by two more brigades. The latter part of this sentence seems to be missing an additional word or punctuation.
  • Simplified
  • With regards to the infobox. is it truly accurate to say this unit's allegiance was to Louisiana, and not the Confederacy as a whole? I've heard of of the problems of unity in the Confederate forces, but overall I don't know the particulars of military hierarchy and law in the CSA, so I'm just asking to be sure.
  • Good point, since this unit was in Confederate service.

Comments from Georgejdorner edit

I ran this article through the suite of checks in the Toolbox. The automated Peer Review raises the following concerns:

Inadequate lede. Needs additional paragraphs, and adequate summary of main text.

Article could use more links.

May need to be reconfigured to summary style with subpages.

Weasel word alert.

Recommendation for copyediting.

All other Toolbox checks raised no concerns.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I'm not sure as to the efficacy of automated peer review tools as some of these recommendations would not make sense. For example, the article is actually not long enough to need subpages. Kges1901 (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor am I a believer. I listed its reactions in case you could find them of use. Certainly, I am not going to disapprove your nomination over this.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the long hiatus.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

End of first sentence: Suggest "United States" for "country". More accurate, more impact.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last para: Patient removal "sensationalized", eh? Could it have been "propagandized"?06:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Formation

A very strong section. I was struck by the analysis of conditions driving recruitment.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola

Very nicely done.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to Corinth and scouting

Again, nicely done. However, I would encourage a footnote explaining bucking and gagging at end of para 1.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude and 6 April

A lucid and organized account. Beautiful vivid useful maps! That maps must be useful is a given; that it is a treat to the eye is a great bonus.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7 April

Well written, engaging.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corinth

Para 1, sentence 6 - "...mounting a series of skirmishes and burning bridges..." is awkward. Why not simply..."skirmishing and burning bridges..."?Georgejdorner (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Kentucky and Stones River

I found myself wanting the addition of 'flank' to such brevities as arriving on someone's left, right, etc. 'Left flank' or 'right flank' is more easily understood.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find myself wondering whether Cheatham was relieved and/or courtmartialed for his drunken incompetence. (Curiosity question only)Georgejdorner (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chickamauga

Para 1, sentence 5 - "...between 19 and 20 September." could more gracefully be "on 19 and 20 September."00:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Atlanta campaign

"Reduced to less than a hundred..." might better be "Reduced to fewer than a hundred"....Georgejdorner (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Para 3, sentence 3 - "...where he ordered he attempted a counterattack..." Which was it?Georgejdorner (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville

Para 1, sentence 7 needs a rewrite to restore chronology--first the troops suffer short rations and cold beds, then they are resupplied.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile and Surrender

Shouldn't that title read 'surrender'?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last para, penultimate sentence - ...'numbered close to 35 men.' is more properly 'numbered about 35 men.'Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

That's an awful short lead for a long article. And again, the second para prob should be split. Granted, the basic actions of the unit are given, but in a very basic form. I believe the lead needs to be pumped up a bit; by supplying more info, you also enhance the unit's notability.

Suggested improvements

I offer the below with the aim of improving an already excellent text. These are not approval/disapproval items.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 24 hour clock is a bit much for many readers wedded to the 12 hour system. I suggest the insertion of 'hours' to cue the unwary, This is the 24 hour system. Thus '1030 hours', '2200 hours', etc.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, sprinkling an occasional added year marker in the text would slightly improve an already excellent chronology.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might look at splitting some of your big blocky paras into two or three for readability.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of commentsGeorgejdorner (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Kges1901 can you have a look into these reviews? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CPA edit

Will do this after George's comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Origins section isn't mentioned in the lead?
  • "consisting of an infantry and an artillery regiment modeled" This is a MOS:EGG.
  • "in combat during the Mexican–American War" Overlink here.
  • "ordered to Pensacola on the Florida Gulf Coast" Is this a proper noun? If so try to link it.
  • "As 1861 turned to summer and then fall" Try to avoid using seasons per MOS:SEASONS.
  • "raid on the night of 13 to 14 September" Per MOS:DATETOPRES we should use an en dash or slash.
  • "Santa Rosa Island on the night of 8 October" Is this the night of 7/8 or 8/9?
  • "on the night of 29 May before the retreat ended at Tupelo" Same as above?
  • "artillery in the spring and summer of that year" MOS:SEASONS here?
  • "At 11:30 on the morning of 19 September" I don't think the morning part is needed.
  • I see both the 24-hour military and 12-hour civilians times maybe standardise them?
  • "into the early spring of 1864" MOS:SEASONS here?
  • In the infobox the circa needs a template.

As promised that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kges can you have a look in my comments? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Why is the title of Williams (1981) not in title case?
  • Optional: standardise the hyphenisation of the ISBNs.
  • I ran a Bot job to do this for you. But where is Norman? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a page range for Bergeron (2002)?
  • And do you actually mean "Several brigade officers became casualties encouraging their men to attack" to be read as the high officer casualties caused their men to become more aggressive? If not, perhaps 'While encouraging their men to attack several brigade officers became casualties' or similar?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/1st_Louisiana_Regulars_Infantry_Regiment&oldid=1122639252"