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.

Army of the Tennessee[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hartfelt (talk)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that extensive work over the last month has brought the article to the A-Class level. The Army of the Tennessee played an important role in the Civil War; its leaders included Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. The article was started and given its basic structure by others; the leading editors up to the 17,000 bytes range were Jeremy Bentham and Hal Jespersen. I have now expanded the article to 75,000 bytes, with input of various kinds at the peer-review level from PKKoeppel, The ed17, and Yellow Monkey. The info box is based on that of the Army of the Cumberland. Thank you. Hartfelt (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Three disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. One external link registers as suspicious on the external link check, please make sure it is functioning properly. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar: (1) Thank you for your interest. (2) The five external links all work properly for me -- using IE, I can open the links and return to the article with the IE back button. (3) I am not 100% certain I understand the disambiguation problem you mention. If you mean that some of the wikilinks are to disambiguation pages, rather than to the intended subject page, I will try to find them. May I ask how you know that such mis-links exist and that there are three of them? (If you mean something else, please explain what the problem is so that I can attempt to address it.) Thanks again. Hartfelt (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry for the delayed response, as noted at my talk page, I am in school at the moment, and school comes first. At any rate, everything seems to be in good order, and I find no compelling reason to oppose. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Would suggest moving the footnotes that are explanatory notes into a seperate category as 'Notes' - I find that's more informative. #Skinny87 (talk)
- Hartfelt: see WP:REFGROUP. Also, Joe N (talk · contribs) requested here that this assessment not be closed until he returns from his vacation so that he can give an in-depth review of it. So it has three supports and will pass, but not yet, ok? :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs)
Support YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.