Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of St. Charles/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 10 January 2022 [1].

Battle of St. Charles

edit
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a Union army gets bogged down without a supply line in northern Arkansas, a mixed navy and army force moves upriver to resupply them. During a brief action with Confederate fortifications on the bluffs above the river, a stray shot hits one of the Union ships in the boiler, horrifically killing or injuring almost everyone aboard with scalding steam. The Confederates are flushed out, but low water levels keep the ships from successfully resupplying the Union army in northern Arkansas, which eventually extricates itself on its own. Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Query by WereSpielChequers

edit

Support, thanks for responding to my pedanticisms. Nicely written. Have you considered breaking Battle_of_St._Charles#Kilty_moves_up_the_White into two sections, Union and Confederate actions in the lead up to the battle? In the current format the second paragraph starts "meanwhile", but then talks of dates preceding the first paragraph. ϢereSpielChequers 15:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: - Thanks for taking a look at this! I've generally rejigged that region of the article to have one section for Union movements, and the other for the Confederates. Hog Farm Talk 07:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog Farm, "Fry demanded that the remaining Union sailors aboard to surrender" reads awkwardly to me, I was thinking of removing the "to" but hesitated as this might for all I know be an American English thing. however wouldn't "Fry offered the remaining Union sailors aboard the chance to surrender" be a more normal phrasing for this situation? Afterall they were combatants who hadn't hoist a white flag, and he wasn't in a position to know that he was firing at a boat full of dead and dying men.
I've removed the "to", as it was an error. I've also tried to clarify in the text that it was fairly obvious the ship was a wreck, with scalded men on the decks and steam billowing out of all orifices. The source does refer to Fry's statement as a demand. Also clarified that Fry's firing order was to shoot at those trying to swim away in the river Hog Farm Talk 18:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. Firing at men who are swimming from a wreck is clearly worse than firing at a damged ship that hasn't surrendered. ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be worth mentioning that unusually for US Civil War actions the dead of both sides are listed on the memorial. ϢereSpielChequers 10:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added (sorry it took so long to get to this) Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry for my far longer dallying away from this. ϢereSpielChequers 15:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" those that were armed had only single-shot pistols that had already been emptied at Mound City's survivors." Such guns take a little time to reload, but had this all happened so quickly that people couldn't reload? ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Barnhart source, there hadn't been time to reload, so clarified using that. Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day WereSpielChequers, are you likely to support here? If not, I will take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to support. ϢereSpielChequers 15:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "to attack the works on land". Most readers won't understand "works". Maybe stick with 'fortifications'? And elsewhere in the text.
    • Done, using a variety of synonyms
  • "A small offensive across the Little Red on May 27 was successful, but lack of supplies forced Curtis to withdraw back across both rivers". What is the second river?
    • The White and the Little Red. Clarified
  • Any chance of what an "ironclad" and a "timberclad" were? Maybe "steamboat" and "ram" too. Even a brief operational history of the river war 1861-1862?
    • I've footnoted an explanation of ironclad vs timberclad. I would assume that what a ram was should be fairly obvious based on the name. Steamboat I'm not sure about - My guess is that it's a pretty widely-known term in the United States, not sure how well known elsewhere. I've added a brief synopsis of the general bit of river warfare relevant to here - mainly the Union push down the river and capturing beyond Memphis.
  • A campaign box with a single article in it strikes me as less than useful.
  • "and a third piece". Piece of what?
    • Clarified it as "artillery piece", is this still too much jargon?
  • Link sharpshooters.
    • Done
  • Could we have an in line explanation of steam drum? Given the role it plays.
    • This was harder to find a decent source for that I expected, but done
  • "Fry had the lower battery abandoned and its guns spiked". Maybe put the events into chronological order.
    • Done
  • Battery is duplinked.
    • Fixed
  • Maybe an in line explanation of "spiked", as it crops up several times.
    • Done

That's all from me. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Sorry it took me so long here. I've tried to implement almost everything, although the synopsis of the river warfare going on can almost certainly be done better - I was having trouble coming up with where to put it. Hog Farm Talk 05:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
  • Marking my spot. At first glance, Memphis is duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link more terms and names in image captions?
    • I've linked the St. Louis and the White River. I've also linked the places within the pushpin map, although the way the map works you have to click on the red dot instead of the name.
  • Add "killed" after "c. 160" under union casualties for clarity? It is a bit ambiguous now because the confederacy casualties are broken down in categories.
    • It's killed and wounded combined, as the sources don't make a good breakdown for the Union losses, so I've specified that it's c. 160 killed and wounded
  • Perhaps the first map need a caption? At first glance at the article, I'm not really sure what to focus on in the map, so some direction would be nice.
    • I've added one, does it make the purpose of the map sufficiently clear?
Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Given the different casualty counts reported in text, how did you decide on the specific figures in the infobox?
    • I've removed these from the infobox. For the Confederates - the 29 + Fry captured isn't really debated, and the 8 killed is corroborated both by Christ's statement and the burial of the dead (Hindman's statement can be ignored here, as the officially reported numbers for battles in this war were often wrong, especially given that Hindman wasn't even present at this battle). Kennedy doesn't give specific details, but with her number of ~40, there's not enough room for 30 captured + 8 dead + Christ's number of 24 wounded. For the Union, sources mainly focus on the loss solely on Mound City, so there's not much to compare to Kennedy's statement of ~160. Hog Farm Talk 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1: perhaps it's a date formatting issue, but I don't think that date matches the source?
    • Appears to have been a typographic error of 12/13 instead of 12/03
  • Given Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_168#historynet.com, what makes HistoryNet a high-quality reliable source?
    • This is actually a copy of a piece originally published in the Civil War Times, a respected and long-running magazine in this area. In the linked discussion, Carrite points to a list of magazines related to historynet that are reliable, and CWT is one of them. (historynet.com and CWT both seem to be owned now by Weider, so this isn't a COPYLINK issue, either). The author Barnhart has been repeatedly published in sources such as CWT and America's Civil War on the topic of naval actions in the American Civil War. I think this particular piece is usable for the subject at hand. Hog Farm Talk 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming that's a reference to Shea being listed above McPherson; I've corrected that

@Nikkimaria: - Are these sourcing-related items okay, or do I need to make additional changes here? For spot-checking purposes, I can provide scans for all the print sources except Shea 1994, which is back at the library. Hog Farm Talk 19:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Back after the above review is settled. 20:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pendright, FYI, settled. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you. Pendright (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The Battle of St. Charles was fought on June 17, 1862, during the American Civil War. A Union Army force commanded by Major General Samuel R. Curtis moved against Little Rock, Arkansas, after winning the Battle of Pea Ridge in March, but became bogged down in the Batesville area due to lack of supplies. The Union leadership decided to send a naval force from Memphis, Tennessee, up the White River to resupply Curtis's men.
  • Why not inform readers up-front that St Charles is in Arkansas and it was a Confederate state?
  • Done
  • Could use a transistional phrase to bridge the 1st with the 2nd sentence
  • Added
  • "after winning the Battle of Pea Ridge in March" -> This detail could be dropped w/o affectimg the meaning of the sentence.
  • Removed
  • During the fighting, a Confederate solid shot struck the ironclad USS Mound City, puncturing the ship's steam drum.
The ship had more than one steam drum - might frame it as "a" steam drum?
  • Went with a slightly different phrasing "one of the"
  • The 46th Indiana overran the Confederate defenses on land, and the position was taken.
Drop the comma
  • Done

Early activity:

  • After the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States in 1860, several southern states considered seceding [from the union].
Add "from the union"
  • Done
  • The southern state of Arkansas held a statewide election on February 18, 1861 to create a convention to vote on secession, with anti-secessionist delegates initially holding the majority.
  • Add a comma after 1861
  • Added
  • After opening on March 4, the convention adjourned on March 21 without reaching a conclusion.
  • opening -> convening
  • Done
  • Lincoln was also sworn in that day -> Could it be woven into the sentence or perhaps reported as a footnote?
  • Added
  • The bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 12 swung political opinion to secession, and the convention was recalled on May 6, voting to secede later that day.
  • The bombardment of Fort Sumter on April -> Who bombarded Ft. Sumter and what triggered it?
  • Clarified briefly
  • recalled -> reconvened
  • Done
  • In early March 1862, Major General Earl Van Dorn of the Confederate States Army formed the Army of the West from forces commanded by Missouri State Guard Major General Sterling Price and Confederate Brigadier General Ben McCulloch.
The dates of the above sucessvive sentences suggest that no military action had taken place in almost a year?
  • I have very briefly stated that stuff was going on in Missouri during 1861 so it's clearer that this was a continuation of prior fighting. There was more important stuff in Virginia, but it would be rather off-topic to delve into that here.
  • They re-entered Arkansas on April 29, heading for Batesville.[4]
Drop the comma after April 28 add replace "heading" with "and headed"
  • Done
  • Curtis absorbed Steele's men into his force and began to move on the state capital of Little Rock.[5]
of Litte Rock - at Litte Rock
  • Done
  • On May 19, a small Union force crossed the Little Red River to forage, but was attacked by Confederate cavalry near Searcy; some of the Union soldiers, including wounded men, were murdered while attempting to surrender.
Might be a good place for a citation?
  • Added, as this is a strong claim supported by the source (same as the next one)
  • Curtis was informed the next day that his line of supply was at the breaking point, and decided that further advance without a new supply line was untenable.
and "he" decided?
  • Done
  • The message was forwarded to Major General Henry W. Halleck, who then asked Flag Officer Charles H. Davis to send a flotilla up the White River to Jacksonport to resupply Curtis, as the roads in that region of Arkansas were too poor for easy resupply by land.[9]
asked -> "ordered or directed"
  • Changed
  • Davis received Welles's telegram on June 12, and began making immediate preparations for the movement.
Comma unnecessary
  • Removed
  • He asked Colonel Charles R. Ellet, commander of the Ram Fleet, to send some of the rams to serve with the vessels of Davis's Western Flotilla, but Ellet would only agree to this under the condition that the Ram Fleet and Western Flotilla vessels would be separate commands, which Davis refused.[10]
  • He "directed" or "ordered"
  • Actually, in this case, asked is more accurate and is the word used by the source. I'm not sure the explanation is really due detail for the article, but basically the Ram Fleet wasn't part of the Navy so Davis didn't have authority to order it to do specific things
  • "rams -> "ram ships
  • Done
  • The furthest north Confederate stronghold on the Mississippi was now Vicksburg, Mississippi, as positions upriver at Columbus, Kentucky, and Island Number Ten had been taken earlier in the year.
Mississippi "River"
  • Done

Kilty:

  • The two groups of ships united on June 16.[15] June 16 also saw Kilty's ships approach St. Charles.
Substitute one June 16th
  • Done

Confederate preparations:

  • Two rifled 32-pounder guns were taken from the gunboat CSS Pontchartrain and mounted in the main battery on June 8,[21] while two 3-inch Parrott rifles were sent from Little Rock and placed in a smaller position 400 yards (370 m) away.
Wouldn't it be mounted on?
  • Actually, in is the right word. Battery in ACW contexts can also refer to fortifications designed to protect fixed artillery positions, and the guns were in such a fortification
  • Pontchartrain's pieces were placed on a commanding position on a bluff 75 feet (23 m) above a bend in the river.
pieces -> guns?
  • Changed

Battle:

  • Before daybreak on June 17, the Confederates made dispositions to receive the attack.
"to receive the attack" -> to defend against the attack?
  • Done
  • The shot then punctured the ship's steam drum,[23] part of the ship's engine that contained pressurized steam.[3
  • The ship had more than one steam drum where steam was held
  • The ship had more than one boiler and upon each there was a steam drum.
  • The ship had coal fired boilers that heated the water in the steam drum thus generating the steam in the steam drum that was fed to the engine(s).
Mould City had two engines, one driving each side of the paddlewheel, mounted 90 degrees apart. Each engine had a single cylinder of bore 22 inches (0.56 m) and stroke 6 feet (1.8 m).[7] These were able to drive her at a maximum speed of 8 knots (15 km/h). The engines for the class were built by Hartupee and Company of Pittsburgh, Eagle Foundry of St. Louis, or Fulton Foundry, also of St. Louis.[6] The steam drums were at first mounted so low that the engines worked with water rather than steam, so the drums had to be moved to the top of the boilers. In their new position, they were not protected by the extra armor that was given to the engines.[8]
  • Is "The shot then punctured one of the ship's poorly protected steam drums,[24] which connected to the ship's engines and fed them pressurized steam" an improvement in the article?
<>I believe it to be more accurate. Pendright (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the roughly 175 men onboard Mound City, 105[23] or 125 were killed and a further 25[21] or 44 wounded; only 25[23] or 26 escaped unhurt.[33][30]
<>::As used, or is a bit confusing to me? Pendright (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not quite understanding this comment
  • Fry demanded that the remaining Union sailors aboard surrender, and when this was refused, ordered his men to fire on Union sailors in the river trying to swim to safety.
he ordered?
  • Not done, as Fry couldn't really order opposing combatants to do anything
  • A final cannon shot was fired at St. Louis, and the Confederates then scattered, with Union troops within 50 yards (46 m).[38]
Drop the comma after scattered
  • Done

Aftermath:

  • A 58- or 59-man replacement crew for Mound City was drawn from the 46th Indiana.
  • A -> The
  • Done
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure which spacing needs to be corrected here (copy editing ain't my strong suit)
  • I believe my high school English teacher said they should be used in such circumstances, but I couldn't tell you why. (maybe because the number is an adjective?) They can be removed if desired. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<><>It's your call. Pendright (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished! Happy New Year @Hog Farm: Pendright (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - I've replied to everything above, although there's several I have queries on. Hog Farm Talk 06:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Supporting! Pendright (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<><>Thank you for following up. All commen6s have been responded to and I'm pleased to support this nom. Pendright (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_St._Charles/archive1&oldid=1069429568"