Battle of Plum Point Bend 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 16, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the casualties suffered at the
Battle of Plum Point Bend were very light given the amount of ordnance expended? |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Plum Point Bend article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I recommend that the name of this article be changed to Battle of Plum Point Bend, which seems to be the consensus among historians writing about it, when they bother to name it at all.
To defend the present name, I can find no sources other than Captain Walke's drawing that accompanies the article referring to it as the "Battle of Fort Pillow." PKKloeppel ( talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Fort Pillow (Naval) → Battle of Plum Point Bend — More widely-used name; see above — PKKloeppel ( talk) 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Plum Point Bend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zawed ( talk · contribs) 06:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I will take a look at this one. Zawed ( talk) 06:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Lead
Background
Battle
Sources
Other stuff
I made a few little tweaks as I went through the article, but otherwise that's it for me. Cheers, Zawed ( talk) 10:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Bruxton (
talk) 13:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Hog Farm ( talk) and Zawed ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 18:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of Plum Point Bend; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Battle of Plum Point Bend 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 16, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the casualties suffered at the
Battle of Plum Point Bend were very light given the amount of ordnance expended? |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Plum Point Bend article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I recommend that the name of this article be changed to Battle of Plum Point Bend, which seems to be the consensus among historians writing about it, when they bother to name it at all.
To defend the present name, I can find no sources other than Captain Walke's drawing that accompanies the article referring to it as the "Battle of Fort Pillow." PKKloeppel ( talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Fort Pillow (Naval) → Battle of Plum Point Bend — More widely-used name; see above — PKKloeppel ( talk) 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Plum Point Bend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zawed ( talk · contribs) 06:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I will take a look at this one. Zawed ( talk) 06:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Lead
Background
Battle
Sources
Other stuff
I made a few little tweaks as I went through the article, but otherwise that's it for me. Cheers, Zawed ( talk) 10:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Bruxton (
talk) 13:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Hog Farm ( talk) and Zawed ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 18:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of Plum Point Bend; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.