This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
@Harrias, Gog the Mild, CPA-5, AustralianRupert, Peacemaker67, and Buidhe: All y'all were involved in the GA review and ACR review of this article. It looks like the ACR has been marked as passed. I've never done an FAC before, so I'm not familiar with the process. Do y'all think this is close enough to FA-status that a FAC wouldn't be an embarrassment? Sorry to be a bother. Hog FarmBacon 19:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very short, so you would have to make sure it meets the "comprehensiveness" criteria of FAC, which is stricter than at ACR. (t · c) buidhe 22:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Buidhe, with the proviso that if another close examination of the reliable sources indicates you have included everything about the battery and its operations other than undue detail, then it could well get through FAC, because it can hardly include info that doesn't exist in reliable sources. One area that seems lacking to me is an understanding of how many and what type of guns it had at what stage. The article is currently slightly deficient in that respect, and given it is an artillery unit, it seems like that is fundamental info. This may not be the article you want to take to FAC first unless this can be resolved. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I were choosing a first FAC article, it wouldn't be this one. A number of reasons, including the prose, IMO, meeting the ACR "concise and articulate English" level, but not the FAC "engaging and of a professional standard". You have numerous other well written articles; why not one of them? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just felt the best about this article out of any of the ones I've worked on. First Battle of Newtonia did poorly on it's ACR source review, and frankly most of my other ones are missing some fine detail, or have an image with iffy licensing issues (Battle of Blackburn'sFord). Most of my regimental articles either have even bigger prose issues than this one or don't have good coverage of the Battle of Helena. I don't think I'll hit great prose ever, my English level is basically illiterate redneck. Hog FarmBacon 22:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt re this edit, perhaps you understand their thinking over at DYK, but when you click on the event linked to the date in the article milestones, you should see be able to see the entry at DYK, which was on the 26th. Clicking on 25 does not show the entry (and that causes a real problem at month end). Whatever they are doing over there, that is not working over here, and should be corrected by their bot. Meanwhile, over here, we need to see the DYK entry when we click-- not something meaningless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that "thinking" is just that it is the easiest for them (to not think, not pipe ...): to take the clock as the archiving edit is done. This has been so (and criticised again and again on WT:DYK) for as long as I know DYK (2009 that is). On my user page, I adjust, linking to the archived day (to see the hook in question in the archive), but piping to the day when on the Main page. Right now, it's the same day in half of the cases, because we run 12-hour-cycle. In the (preferred) periods of 24-hour-cycles, as the rest of the Main page, it's a different day each time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So can we correct it here so that it works here ? I am writing this up over at bot request page as we speak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - not easily at least, because you'd need two dates, the one of archiving and the one of showing, or you can perhaps teach a bot to look at the hour, and realise that when it's 00:00 is can't have been shown that day. I'd ask RexxS if he was well enough. - You can check how I do it, [[Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/February#26 February 2020|25 Feb]],- resulting in 25 Feb - when shown 25 February but archived 26 February. (Needless to say, both days would be 25 if archived at mid-day.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, can we correct the date here so that we get a meaningful link ON THIS page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know how, at least as it's coded now. - Also, do you want this article be right, while thousands out there are wrong? That's what's called inconsistency, no? Johnbod was also among the critics, as far as I remember. I'll be out soon, and am no bot expert anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s easy. Just because DYK has Bot issues does not mean readers to this page should not be able to find the right page.[1]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
