Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment


 * 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.

Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment
The article has passed GA review and has subsequently been expanded to make it more comprehensive in its coverage of the unit's service history. I believe it's now ready for A-Class review. Many thanks!Tfhentz (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments on references - (this version)
 * Refs that need page #'s...[7], [8], [29], [35], [51], [61].
 * Page ranges (i.e. pp. 17–32) need to use both pp. format (i.e. p. 10 OR pp. 10–12) and endashes.
 * To be a little clearer =) : references to single pages of text use p. references to page ranges use pp.
 * The "Brodhead to Washington" refs...can we have a link to the specific message please? (in the sources)
 * I'm not sure if your references follow MoS...but I'll leave that up to the more experienced reviewers to decide...
 * Hope these helped. Cheers! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I have revised them all. I must admit that I couldn't find the proper formatting in the MoS for the National Archives and state archives documents, so I devised a way that hopefully is logical and uniquely identifies each of these sources. Tfhentz (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Another comment about references; the same references should be grouped by naming them. I.e. and then repeated references of the same author and page number should be cited as follows:. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed that. I've now got the repeated references grouped.Tfhentz (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevant page about that is WP:REFNAME, just as an FYI for ya Tfhentz. :) — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support
 * I'd recommend using full headers for the sections (2 equals on either side instead of three)
 * First, thanks for taking the time for the review. I tried using full headers and didn't like the way the header lines intersected the figures -- purely an aesthetic issue for me.—Tfhentz (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd advise against abbreviating Brig. Gen., it sounds like jargon to someone not familiar with military ranks.
 * Neither the WikiProject Military history/Style guide nor the main Wiki MoS discusses the usage of military-rank abbreviations, but the convention of The Chicago Manual of Style is to abbreviate the rank if the person's full name follows (e.g., Lt. Col. John Smith) and to spell out the rank if only followed by the last name (e.g., Lieutenant Colonel Smith). I've used this convention with a number of rank designations throughout the article. To change this one usage that you pointed out would introduce an inconsistency in the article.—Tfhentz (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned that one because it was the first one I saw, but I suppose that if that's what Chicago says you can keep it that way.– Joe Nu  tter  17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "As indicated by the rolls, the units had lost a number of men over the winter months primarily through desertion and a few deaths due to illness or wounds." This is awkward, please rephrase it.
 * I rephrased it.—Tfhentz (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that "pp" is not used in references for multiple pages.
 * On the Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style page, the book-citation example uses the "pp." abreviation for "pages," so I assume this is the proper Wikipedia style. Moreover, the first reviewer above requested that I use this style.—Tfhentz (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * True, I suppose that's right. It's fine then. – Joe Nu  tter  17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

However, otherwise I can find no problems not mentioned above and support it, but please fix these.– Joe Nu  tter  22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. The article is informative and well-written and seems to meet A-class requirements. Nice work. If you plan to take this to featured status, I'd suggest more explanatory prose to help fill in background details for readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. For example, you could explain early on how riflemen were different from musketmen and what this meant on the battlefield. Without some color commentary, you risk losing the average reader in a sea of names and dates. —Kevin Myers 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Your suggestion to add more explanatory prose is sage advice. This can be easily done. I've been working on this unit history so long, with the emphasis being on ferreting out dates, events, etc., and their synthesis, that I've neglected much of the "color" background.—Tfhentz (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - Fine article, deserves to be an A-Class article! Skinny87 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.