Talk:First Battle of Springfield

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Battle of Springfield. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108182845/http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/CWSII/MissouriBattlefieldProfiles/Newtonia%20I%20to%20Wilsons%20Creek.pdf to http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/CWSII/MissouriBattlefieldProfiles/Newtonia%20I%20to%20Wilsons%20Creek.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (This does not mean there is a consensus for "Battle" over "battle." Rather, that issue may be further discussed by proposing that this article and Second Battle of Springfield be changed to lower-case "battle.") (non-admin closure) SilverLocust (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Action at Springfield → First Battle of Springfield – Article was moved in 2019 w/o discussion under the basis that this is how the name appears in the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies in the War of the Rebellion, but the nomenclature hasn't been carried over into 20th and 21st century sources. For what it's worth, that ORs also refer to an number of other actions, including the Second Battle of Springfield by names such as "Engagement at Springfield" or "Skirmish at Springfield", so I don't think this naming is entirely unambiguous. A skim of the relevant literature suggests that "First Battle of Springfield" or the variant "Springfield I" is in greater use than "Zagonyi's Charge", so I think First Battle of Springfield is the best possible title here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 01:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support First battle of Springfield. I have done several searches (google, google scholar, google books, google ngram and JSTOR) for the different possible names. "Action at" and "battle of" have several referents but frequently are for the Revolutionary War. "First battle of Springfield" can also refer To Springfield NJ; however, there is no actual title conflict at WP, since the proposal is already a redirect here. My searches do not contradict the proposal except in respect to capitalisation. There is sufficient evidence from google books to indicate mixed capitalisation in prose for this battle. Per MOS:CAPS, in such a case, "first" and "battle" would be lowercase, subject to sentence case being applied to capitalise "first". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Battle or battle? CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 01:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The current title is no disambiguation at all, as all battles are "actions". Second Battle of Springfield is capitalised, as are all other First, Second, etc, Battles, so I see no reason to lowercase it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:First Battle of Springfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 09:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Prelim

• No duplicated links
• No edit wars
• File:Hungarians in the American civil war (1913) (14762685895).jpg could probably do with another, more standard, us pd
  • Added
• Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

• "on a scout towards Springfield" "scouting mission"?
  • Rephased
• "north at around dark" > "north when darkness fell"?
  • Have rephrased this. "At around dark" seems the most natural to me, but some searches on google for that exact string suggests that this is primarily a regional or colloquial use.
• Why does the lede exclusively use "Federal" instead of "Union", as the infobox does?
  • So I've introduced this in the article as Federal (Union) now. Union is the traditional term, but Federal is starting to come into vogue now.
• Worth mentioning in the Lede the connection between the MSG and CSA
  • done
• "Frémont’s Body-Guard" this spelling of bodyguard is only used in the infobox
  • Based on the sources "Body Guard" without the hyphen is the historically accurate spelling, so I've switched over to that in the article
• Don't need ranks in the infobox
  • Removed, although they'll be invariably added back by somebody reading the article in the future, as pretty much always happens when I remove them from infoboxen
• Infobox reads as if the Prairie Scouts were a part of the bodyguard which I don't think was the case?
  • Should be a bit clearer now
• "Praire Scouts" sp
  • Oops
• You might want to fix the Operations to Control Missouri navbox; this battle isn't currently bolded out because it's a redirect
  • Fixed

Prelude

• Give Zagonyi his rank
  • Done
• Link Missouri River
  • Done

Battle

• "Late on October 24, Zagonyi and the bodyguard" try not to begin sections with dates
  • Added another sentence in here to lead off
• "the Federal ran into a small party" something missing here
  • Fixed
• "swung his troops to a detour to approach Springfield from the west"
  • removed
• Lede says Zagonyi's report was "at the expense of the Prairie Scouts" but main text only says "at the expense of other Federal soldiers"
  • Have made this a bit more consistent now
• "has two companies charging with Zagonyi charging through a gap"
  • Done

Aftermath

• Could give Johnston his rank, but it's post-war so not necessary
  • I don't think it's necessary, given that this is long postwar
• Would it be appropriate to add some of these casualty figures to the infobox?
  • I don't know how helpful it would be, given the divergency among the sources. Anything from Zagonyi's report is suspect, and I personally doubt that Johnston would have any particular way of knowing much about this battle

References

• References look good. AGF for print sources.
• This provides some information about modern memorialisation of the battle
  • Have added a sentence about this

@Hog Farm: Hi, that's all I have for now. Will await your responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Thanks for the review! I've responded above. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. My apologies for taking so long to get back to this! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)