Fort Davidson 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: November 21, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Historic sites Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Missouri Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Fortifications / North America / United States / American Civil War 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 Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Fort Davidson was copied or moved into Battle of Fort Davidson with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Fort Davidson was copied or moved into Battle of Fort Davidson with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Davidson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 07:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Zawed (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Lead[reply]

• American Civil War linked twice in lead
  • Fixed
• Suggest mentioning the fort is near Pilot Knob. Otherwise the mention of Battle of Pilot Knob State Historic Site comes a little out of left field. Shouldn't Fort Davidson also appear at the top of the infobox?
  • Done

History

• ...were constructed: one of the north suggest to "one to the north"
  • Oops. I'm a rather poor copyeditor.
• shallow or deep.[4][3] suggest reordering the refs
  • Done
• 32-pounder cannon is there a link for this like the other gun?
  • The source for that is too vague to provide a link - could be one of several things.
• RE the naming, I would have thought that this favoured the 1863 construction date - is there anything to explain the discrepancy between sources in year of construction and wall height?
  • I've found an ebook that gives a little more detail after some searching. The way the page numbers are set up is really weird, so it might be slow going puzzling them out. Apparently Sinisi was conflating an earlier, nearby structure known as "Fort Hovey" or "Fort Curtis" with the 1861 date. But details of the rest of his description are definitely referring to Davidson, not Curtis. Also added another estimate of moat depth. Will continue to look into this.

Battle of Fort Davidson

• challenging Union control of Missouri, Missouri is repeated twice in close succession, suggest this second mention be amended to "challenging Union control of the state,"
  • Done
• to capture the Union post same issue as above, suggest "to capture the town"
  • Went with the simpler "it"
• consisted of 1,456 of shouldn't that be "consisted of 1,456 soldiers of". I'm struggling to parse whether the 150 civilians is part of the 1,456 or not.
  • Yes, it should be "of soldiers of". I've also removed the words "a further" to try to make it clearer that the 150 civilians were part of the 1456
• Price, meanwhile, order part of his army grammar issue here, "Price, meanwhile, ordered part of his army"
  • Fixed
• Who buried the dead?
  • Clarified

Battle of Pilot Knob State Historic Site

• As of 2019, ... I notice the lead says "as of 2020", so this seems inconsistent
  • It's comparing slightly different things. The visitor's center and museum is from an as of 2020 source. The as of 2019 bit is the overall improvements at the site, the visitation number, and the budget.
• I'm sure it would have been mentioned if it was available, but is there anything about the history of the site prior to 1968? Any preservation work or the like?
  • There was a good bit in the new book I found, I've added it.

Other stuff

• Image tags check out OK
• No dupe links other than that mentioned in the lead
• Sources/references look appropriately formatted.

That's all I have for now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not my best work (I wrote a lot of this at midnight while on quarantine), but I'll keep scrapping at this to try to improve it more. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the more I look, the more divergent stuff about the various dimensions I see. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me know when it is ready to be looked at again. I've had a look at your changes to date and they are looking good but I do have a couple of suggestions. I think it best to enter those when you have completed your work. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Zawed - I think at this point, the best solution may be to just present the different dimensions and all given and then attribute them. The more sources I find, the more variation it brings up. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, coming back to this now. I was going to suggest that the final sentence of the first paragraph should be the first of the second paragraph but looking at this again I see the current paragraph construction makes sense in light of the iron ore and railroad. This is looking good for GA now so am passing as I believe it meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]