Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Price's Lost Campaign: The 1864 Invasion of Missouri

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 - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Price's Lost Campaign: The 1864 Invasion of Missouri

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Here's a bit of a different one from me: a military history book. This is my first book-related GA, and only the second book article I've ever written, but I think it's ACR-able, and hopefully I'm not wrong. The book itself is about Price's Raid, a topic which might be familiar to the reviewers of the Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment and Battle of Marais des Cygnes ACR reviews. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Only image meets non-free requirements (t · c) buidhe 00:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I am claiming this but will wait to see if other reviewers want any significant changes to the article. (t · c) buidhe 00:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

Looks like a nice article:

" to posterity as a lesser raid" what does 'lesser raid' mean here?
- Rephrased
"Elements of praise for the book include " how about "the book was praised for its"
- Done
", focusing on the Civil War " comes before you spell out and link American Civil War
- Fixed.
I find it odd that you don't specify more than '1864' when the raid occured
- Clarified it a little bit as "late 1864". Not sure how best to describe Sept. - Dec. beyond "late"
"how he responded to the" I'd prefer "his response to the raid"'
- Done
"; this book completes the story of the campaign" why not just ", completing the story of the campaign"?
- Done. I tend to overuse semicolons.
I think this might benefit from a paragraph of context or background about the raid itself
"He considered that the omission of Westport and Mine Creek " -> "the battles of Westport and Mine Creek", I don't think they've come up enough to assume a reader knows
- Done
"While recognizing that the book had these shortcomings," what does this add?
- Removed.
" initially designed as an invasion, became known to posterity as a simple raid" Feels like we've seen variations of this "invasion -> simple raid" a lot. Consider if you can eliminate some of the repetition?
Might be worth giving WP:RECEPTION a read through; i.e. "Clampitt criticized Lause's weak prose " suggests that Lause's prose is weak, but really I imagine Clampitt just considers it weak. There are a couple of things like this-- there's an incredible amount of repetition about the two maps as well.
"epilogue discussing how the campaign was remembered in posterity was lacking." as in there was an epilogue and it was lacking, or it lacked an epilogue completely?
"noted the lack of a bibliography " did he just note it or did he criticize it?
"Overall, Piston described Price's Lost Campaign as "well-written" " from what you give, I would not have considered Piston to have such a positive overall opinion-- are you giving too much weight to his criticism?
"Alex Mendoza reviewed the book for America's Civil War stated" missing word?
- Added.

Nice work as usual, I'll probably come back and give it another pass later. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this. I've started replying, I'll be working on this over the next couple days. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 - Sorry to state this after you've put in the effort to review, but after looking over this again, I'm not particularly sure this is really that close to the criteria for the prose standards. The rest of the month is gonna be fairly busy for me (working retail over the Christmas holiday), so I'd probably be better off withdrawing this one and nominating one much closer to the standards. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Hog Farm! thanks for all the work you've been doing this year. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:24, 10 December 2020 (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.