Talk:9th Missouri Infantry Regiment
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Yoninah in topic Did you know nomination
 | 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 7, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 July 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that when originally organized, the 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment contained only eight companies, which violated Confederate regulations? source 1 in the text
- ALT1:... that a number of the men who served in the 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment were actually from Arkansas? source 1 in the text
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ryan T. Anderson
- Comment: If it's deemed that ALT1 doesn't make any sense to readers without a background knowledge of US geography, I'm fine with striking it. I'm working on a series of Missouri Confederate articles, I think this is like the 13th DYK nom in the series, and I'm kinda running out of interesting things to say about these units.
Moved to mainspace by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 03:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC).
Hi Hog Farm, review follows: article created 19 June; article is of good length, well written and cited inline throughout to offline, reliable sources; all sources are offline but I am happy to AGF there is no copyright violation from these; both hooks are mentioned in the article and cited reliably and both are interesting (to me at least!); a QPQ has been carried out. Another excellently written and interesting article, thanks for your work on these - Dumelow (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)