Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Missouri Field Battery

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion 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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

1st Missouri Field Battery

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

1st Missouri Field Battery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another Missouri Confederate artillery battery. While Landis' Battery from awhile back served mostly in Mississippi, this one fought primarily in Arkansas. A bit on the short side, but it didn't do a whole lot in it's service time, so there's not much to say here. Hog Farm Bacon 03:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/questions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, During the middle of the year: was this 1863?
    • Yes, clarified
  • suggest splitting the lead into three paragraphs if possible (possibly 1863 as the second paragraph and 1864-65 as the third)
    • I've split where I thought it made the most sense to do so, tweak if you'd like
  • Even in the new position, Union artillery fire was too heavy to render the --> "Even in the new position, heavy Union artillery fire rendered the..."
    • Done
  • and the guns were withdrawn back up the hill --> "and the guns were withdrawn up the hill..."
    • Done
  • and the gunners abandoned the pieces and took shelter in some nearby woods: were these guns recovered, or captured by Union forces?
    • Not explicitly stated, but I'm assuming they were recovered, since they were hauled off the field by wrapping the wheels with blankets.
  • where Roberts resigned: do we know why?
    • McGhee doesn't say why, I can try to hunt through some primary sources
      • The Official Records don't say, and [1] doesn't say either.
  • Union cavalry was: were?
    • Done
  • inflicting casualties: do we know how many?
    • Not without trying to original research from casualty lists
  • was allowed to continue without further pursuit: was it deliberately allowed, or did the fighting itself render the Union forces unable to interfer with the withdraw?
    • Source doesn't say. I'm having to source the rear guard bit from Confederate battle reports due to lack of other sources, so I have to be really careful about stating reasons. I'll remove "allowed", that'll help some.
  • where Major General Richard Taylor and his District of West Louisiana was confronting --> "where Major General Richard Taylor and his District of West Louisiana were confronting" or "where Major General Richard Taylor's District of West Louisiana was confronting"
    • Went with the first. I'd prefer the second, but it leads to too many links in a row
  • Clark's brigade, along with Colonel Lucien C. Gause's brigade of Brigadier General Thomas J. Churchill's division, Ruffner's and Lesueur's Batteries moved much closer to the Union line: something is missing in this sentence
    • Rewrote it
  • who had been massacred at Poison Spring: were members of the battery responsible for the massacre, or another unit?
    • Confederate cavalry did the massacre, so apparently not. I've clarified that it was cavalry that did the killings
  • is there anything more that can be said about the period between November 1864 and June 1865? The narrative here seems to jump quite significantly to their parole without explanation how they came to be captured. Even if you simply added something like "After this, the battery saw no further action and June 7, 1865...were paroled having surrendered to Union forces when..."
    • Done

@AustralianRupert: - I've responded as best as I can to all of these. Hog Farm Bacon 14:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed this at GAN, and picked up most things there. I have a few comments:

  • The lead should include the fact that it was renamed the 1st Missouri Field Battery in November 1864
    • Done, although not bolded, as that name is bolded at the very beginning
  • "as the its commander"
    • Oops. Removed
  • "Lyon hitassaulted the encampment"
    • Done
  • "army commander Major General Thomas C. Hindman" what army are we talking about here?
  • any idea what the "defunct artillery unit" was?
    • Von Puhl's Missouri Battery. Named, but not linked, as Von Puhl's Battery is not notable.
  • suggest "was unengaged in a reserve role"→"was in a reserve role and was unengaged."
    • Done
  • suggest "who was in overall command of Confederate forces"
    • Done
  • link Camden, Arkansas at first mention in the body
    • Done
  • "attacked the Union line, Ruffner's and Lesueur's Batteries moved forward in support" - insert comma
    • Done

Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- pass

edit

Placeholder. Looks like this needs a source review? I can try my hand at it if you want. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eddie891: - It would be much appreciated if you could. I don't have Shea, Forsyth, Gottschalk, or Johnson physically with me at the moment, although I can try to get ahold of copies quickly if you need some sort of scan of the page for verification. Hog Farm Bacon 18:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can try and make it to my local university library sometime this weekend and I can get copies of everything except for Gottschalk, I think. That should be enough for an adequate spotcheck. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: I've gotten copies of Shea and Forsyth, will commence source review shortly. While I have them, Hog Farm, is there any other spot-checking that needs to be taken care of? I can scan you some pages if you'd like to have them. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Eddie891: - Thanks, but I'll be fine. I've got all of the books at home, and the university I attend is fairly local for me, so if I ever need a spot check, I can run home real quick and pick up a copy. I think this one's A-Class, but eventually I'm hoping to do some polishing to get this up to FAC-able. Hog Farm Bacon 21:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comments
    • cite 16 would benefit from an archive url imo, though opinions are divided upon adding the archive url before the link is dead. I think it's helpful because who knows if we'll be around to see when the link (theoretically) becomes dead.
      • Internet archive bot ain't working for me at the moment. I could do it by hand, but I'm feeling a touch lazy at the moment, so I'll wait until the bot's working to handle that, since it's not urgent
    • Alwyn Barr can be linked, if this is the correct person
      • Done. Never would have guessed that Barr is notable.
    • What makes Gottschalk reliable? I'm struggling to find anything about this publisher or the author
      • It's an obscure publisher, and the author is a journalist, so his credentials aren't the greatest, but the book won the Douglas Southhall Freeman Award, which means something. Reviewed in the Journal of Military History. Also reviewed in Civil War history. Those are both pretty average reviews, but Gottschalk's issues are with weak prose, and his scholarship is considered to be good. I can try to dig up another source, but I think it's okay for the one thing it's cited for. I used it a bit heavier at Landis's Missouri Battery, which passed FAC, so if Gottschalk is deemed reliable, I'll need to replace it in there to prevent a FAR. Also reviewed in the Journal of Southern History, but I can't access that review.
    • Cite 16 uses DMY and MDY in the same ref.
      • Slapped {{use mdy dates}} on there, so that'll fix it automatically.
  • Other sources are written by reputable authors and published by reputable publishers. Spot check to follow. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hog Farm, my spotcheck is at User:Eddie891/spotcheck, wasn't sure where to put it. There's some minor stuff, it's probably mostly stuff I messed up on. Happy to pass this + support on prose when my comments are addressed. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eddie891: - I've replied to the points there, mostly stuff I messed up on. I'm a bit embarrassed by some of the stuff I screwed up on; if this ever makes it to FAC, I'll have to get it a thorough source comparison myself to make sure there ain't anything else. Hog Farm Bacon 02:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

All right I hope you know this easter egg "show me what you got"? ;)

  • Parsons' --> Parsons's Per the apostrophe's article an extra "s" should be added after an "s" with exceptions to Bible figures or awkward singular nouns. I think this isn't an awkward singular noun.
    • I've added the apostrophe, which is what I think you're asking for.
  • Yes, sorry forgot a word.
  • the state of Missouri did not secede despite being a slave state Why not? This creates a question here.
    • I've tried to clarify why (very politically divided), is this better?
  • Yeah much better.
  • MM/DD, vs MM/DD (no comma)?
    • Which ones do you think are problems? I'm not seeing one that's incorrect, but I'm also half-asleep right now.
  • Well I hope you had a good night sleep? It's just odd to see some dates like "November 3," with a comma and dates like "March 7" who don't use a comma. Maybe standardise them?
  • In February 1862, pressure from Brigadier General Samuel R. Curtis' Army of the Southwest Union or Confederate? Curtis also needs an extra s.
    • Done both.
  • the Union army, commanded by Major General Not "the Union Army, commanded by Major General"?
    • Union Army is a proper noun, which properly refers to the entire combined strength of all Union forces. In this case, Union is just an adjective here, as only one of the many Union armies is being referred to, so it is a common noun.
  • Is there a legacy, the Battery made?
    • Not that I've seen in any source. I don't believe that any units claim legacy from it, and I'm unaware of any significant monuments to the battery. The Trans-Mississippi Confederates largely were forgotten after the war.
  • Optional the main Union line held under fire --> "the main Union line was held under fire"
    • That changes my intended meaning. I'm rephrased it to "held up under fire", to make it clearer what I meant.
  • That also looks okay.

Nothing much to say except good work of course. I also removed the unnecessary double spaces. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Hog Farm, looks like they also put me in quarantine since I made contact with someone who has tested positive. So have more time for reviewing another nomination of yours let me know? ;) The queries are now answered. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/1st_Missouri_Field_Battery&oldid=985550175"