Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Basil W. Duke

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

Basil W. Duke edit

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is just about ready for FA, but it's best if an A-class review takes place first.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda short...is that all there is on this guy?
Dual "See also" sections? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—~~references (mostly) satisfy MoS.~~ Nitpick: can we get "pg." to "p.", "pp." or just the plain page #, no p-anything? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Hold on...if I'm not mistaken, should you not have different citations for different references...i.e. "<ref>Brown p.27, 28, Christensen p.264</ref>" should be "<ref>Brown p.27, 28</ref><ref>Christensen p.264</ref>"
  - Second...page ranges need an endash, not a comma. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can elaborate on the guy to add length. I fixed the problems you saw.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still need endashes for the page ranges per MOS:ENDASH.

Also, there are image sandwiches in the article that should be avoided per WP:MOSIMAGE. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
- "most noted for his service as a brigade commander in 1863's Morgan's Raid; Duke would later wrote a popular account of this raid." This might be better phrased as "Morgan's Raid, because of Duke's popular account of the raid," or something like that.
- "On January 7, 1861, after so many pro-Northern politicians were elected in St. Louis, he and four others created Minute Men, a pro-secession organization," The "after so many" phrase seems awkward, I would advise changing it to "after mostly," "after many" or something. Also, shouldn't Minute Men be linked to "Minutemen (secessionist)" as it is in Minutemen (disambiguation)?
- "but would be elected as a Second Lieutenant." Elected? Isn't this unusual, or did most Confederate Units do this and I just don't know about it? If it's unusual, please explain it.
  - Electing of company- and even field-grade officers (colonel on down) occured in both Confederate and Union armies in the war. I believe the Confederates continued this practice at least into 1863. Kresock (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1902 or 1903 he ceased doing work for the L&N." This is a fairly unusual statement, if the exact date is not known, I would recommend saying so.
- Is the See Also section really necessary? There's just one link, and last I heard they were discouraged, and since this one doesn't seem too vital it might be better to remove it.
  
  Besides those, however, it looks pretty good. Good job. Joe (Talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe. I fixed your concerns.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withhold judgment. At least one statement better be changed; I could have done it, but I didn't have the heart, as it adds a new twist to the English language: When he died, he was one of the few high-ranking Confederate officers still alive. PKKloeppel (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.