This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
Classified as a list for WP:MILHIST, but did not assess all areas because at least part of the article is now being restructured. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bolding and unit names
The recent changes to the naval portion were a great improvement. It seems to me that the unit names should be in the list under their proper names. The first element of this is easier, while IMHO bolding the name of each unit is overuse of bolding, bolding the term of enlistment as well is improper and should be undone. In taking a brief look at this, I came across links for units that have their own Wikipedia articles to find their names in the articles differ from those in the links (and remember no links combined with bolding). The most obvious of these is the Mormon Battalion, whose article explains that it was listed as an Iowa unit entirely through a clerical error. I'm not familiar enough of these issues to make the corrections myself, although they appear not to be too difficult for someone more familiar with this. I'll give it a rating as is, but I'd certainly be willing to upgrade it later. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, there's more
Also, the MOS disfavors citations being placed with section names. I've never found a satisfactory universal solution to this, but the placement of citations affects B1. which asks that citations be "appropriate.' As to grammar, there are a lot of "for during"s. Take your pick, but one's enough. This impacts B4. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]