# Talk:Harris's Missouri Battery (1864)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harris' Missouri Battery (1864)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I plan to review this (and your other nomination) friday or over the weekend. Eddie891  Talk Work  21:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"The battery fought in the Camden Expedition in early 1864, fighting"  the change in tenses is very odd to me
Fixed, as well as with a similar issue later in the lead.
I'd like to see Harris' name linked in the lede?
Added Harris' name to lead.  I'm not going to link Harris, as he is an utter NSOLDIER and GNG fail.
No image you could add?
Added an image of Price's Raid
"may not have been officially sanctioned" any more detail??
Source does not provide any more detail, and McGhee is very detailed about formations (and is considered one of the top authorities on Missouri Confederate units).  Unfortunately, the relevant primary source records for the Trans-Mississippi Confederate units don't all exist, which limits what is known about some of these details.
"Harris' Missouri Battery (1862) could be linked
Done
"fter the reorganization, the battery " unclear whether you are talking about the 1864 regiment or the 1862 one
I relegated the aside about the 1862 unit to a footnote, which it really is probably
"were of "old and inferior pattern"." I like to see attribution to quotes in the text
Done
Are you sure Gallups is a real place? A google search would suggest otherwise
Unlinked.  Source isn't clear if it's a place or a named natural feature, like a landing or something.  Possibly a small village that no longer exists.  A Google search brings up nothing.
"Harris' Battery was usually used to refer to the unit." perhaps 'was still used"?
Done
"When the paroles were issued, there were found to be 136 men in the battery on the date of the surrender." perhaps?
Done
Article is in very good shape I think Eddie891  Talk Work  13:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
This article is now well referenced, written, neutral, reasonably comprehensive, contains no copyvio and otherwise meets the GA criteria. Passing (on the short side, but meets the criteria) Nice work! Eddie891  Talk Work  23:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)