Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Glasgow, Missouri

< 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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Glasgow, Missouri

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Glasgow, Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The companion article to Capture of Sedalia, for those who remember when I took that one through. Price sends a force across the Missouri River to capture some guns supposedly held in Glasgow, at the same time as another group of Confederates is sent to go get horses and cattle out of Sedalia. The defenders of Glasgow - a mixture of Union infantry, local militia, and armed civilians - hold out for awhile, and destroy some of their supplies to keep them out of Confederate hands, but eventually surrender after being largely surrounded. The weapons cache turns out to be much smaller than expected, and the Confederates parole their prisoners before leaving. Unlike Sedalia, the regular Confederate troops mostly behave themselves in this one, although guerrillas commanded by William C. Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson show up later to rob the civilians. Hog Farm Talk 07:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

edit

I've done copyediting of the article, let me know if you have any concerns.

  • There's a lot of stuff in the Context and Prelude sections that seem more relevant to Price's raid than this battle specifically. I think some of it could be trimmed. The last paragraph of the article also contains info that does not seem directly connected to the topic, and could probably be shortened.
    • I've trimmed over 500 bytes from the intro and have roughly halved the last paragraph of the aftermath.
  • "asmany of the Union troops previously defending Missouri had been transferred out of the state, leaving the Missouri State Militia to be the state's primary defensive force" I removed this as it was causing a run-on sentence and wasn't necessary to explain why the offensive could draw Union troops away from the eastern theatre. If it's important, it could be mentioned in a separate sentence.
    • Fine with me. It's probably significant for the overall article on the raid (explaining why Price met a lot of ineffective barely trained troops at stretches), but less so here
  • The correct spelling is guerrilla, not guerilla
  • Is it known how many men were recruited in Little Dixie?
    • I've added a couple estimates
  • Sedalia: I removed "quickly", this is already implied by saying that the capture only took 1 day
    • Works for me
  • "south of tow" What does this mean?
    • Spelling error for "town"
  • "prominent pro-Confederate civilian" If the guy is notable, shouldn't he be redlinked? Otherwise is it WP:DUE to mention?
    • I've redlinked. He's the subject of this 1870 biography, as well as some coverage here, some coverage in a journal article here, and the footnotes in the journal article suggest additional (probably offline) coverage.
  • "which was shallow enough to be crossed, " removed as it should be implied by the fact that they crossed it
    • Makes sense
  • "edited by preservationist Frances E. Kennedy" this does not seem worth mentioning unless the editor is notable
    • I see this was removed in your copy-edit; I do not object to the removal. The book is possibly notable, but Kennedy is not

That's it! (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe: - Thanks for the review! I've tried to address these all as best possible. Hog Farm Talk 05:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—pass, sourcing looks adequate although I'm not sure I would accept https://civilwaronthewesternborder.org/ at a FAC review. While the project is credible, the lack of a byline and cited sources makes me question if it is a high-quality rs. One wonders how the author found this information, is it simply that there is no known report of looting or is there proof that none occurred? (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the statement. Sinisi implies that everyone behaved themselves, but doesn't say outright that there was no looting. Lause mentions the later looting by Quantrill but doesn't say anything about if the Confederate regulars took part or not. I'll have to try to get ahold of Kirkman and Monnett again and check those sources. Hog Farm Talk 06:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Great job with this. A few comments:

Lead and infobox
  • comma after Missouri in the first sentence
    • Done
  • "the Confederate leadership"
    • Done
  • link brigade
    • Done
  • suggest consistency with "Price's Raid" or "Price's Missouri Expedition" in the infobox and campaignbox
    • Went with Missouri Expedition throughout the article, as the consensus of recent RS is that it was more than a raid
Body
  • you need to explain that Thomas Caute Reynolds was the new governor
    • Footnoted
  • suggest "Price expected that the offensive would achieve several objectives: create a popular uprising against Union control of Missouri; divert Union troops away from the principal theaters of combat, as many of the Union troops previously defending Missouri had been transferred out of the state, leaving the Missouri State Militia to be the state's primary defensive force; and aid McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln in the election." or break it up into a couple of sentences
    • Done
  • say from what direction Price's column entered the state, to provide context, also indicate the initial direction of advance and changes in direction throughout
    • Done
  • suggest "but" would be better than "and" here "on September 27 failed, but the Union garrison abandoned the fort that night."
    • Done
  • suggest "Meanwhile, Union troops were following Price westwards."
    • Done
  • suggest "which was 20 miles (32 km) north of Boonville and across the Missouri River." or similar, giving the direction
    • Done
  • suggest "was sent <how far> southwest to Sedalia"
    • Added (Sinisi just calls it south)
  • "Clark's column consisted of 1,700 men in his own brigade[21] (under the command of Colonel Colton Greene)[22] and that of Colonel Sidney D. Jackman, as well as part of Harris's Missouri Battery." is rather confusing. Were the 1,700 men all from Clark's brigade? How many men from Jackman (was he a regimental or brigade commander)?
    • Clarified that this the 1700 is Clark and Jackman, and that Jackman commanded a brigade. I'm not finding a numerical breakdown between the two brigades, though.
      • I've actually been able to find a statement where Collins quotes Price as saying that it was 500 of Jackman's men, so added
  • it isn't clear from the preceding sentence that Jackman even went on the raid, so "Clark and Jackman were selected" is also confusing.
    • Should be clearer now
  • suggest "The column pushed north then crossed the Missouri at Arrow Rock on the 14th"
    • Done
  • "tin-clad boat" needs a close citation to the source
    • Done
  • where were Price and the main body at the point Clark asked him for more guns?
    • Haven't seen anything that notes this so far
  • "Price sent Shelby with 125 men" Shelby hasn't been introduced as yet. Presumably the 125 were cavalry? Any idea what regiment they were from?
    • Linked Shelby and noted they were cavalrymen. Secondary sources don't identify the unit, and Shelby's official report is vague on the matter
  • suggest "to a point on the western bank of the Missouri across from Glasgow."
    • Done
  • how was the defensive line at Glasgow oriented? west to east south of the town?
    • Yes, east to west. Clarified
  • so the unfinished fortifications were near the points held by the 43rd Missouri where the roads crossed Greggs Creek?
    • Reworded significantly. The previous text had been inadvertently conflating interior and exterior Union lines
  • "Clarks' main body south of town forced its way across Greggs Creek" across the whole length of the line, or in particular areas? Both roads? Fords?
    • Not explicitly stated, although I've added that the creek was shallow enough to be crossed
  • "Meanwhile, the 10th Missouri Cavalry's drive from the north had been stymied" presumably by the MSM at Bear Creek?
    • Yes
  • was the promontory on the river? Suggest explicitly stating that ie "anchored on a promontory on the river flank, and at a schoolhouse on the inland flank"
    • Not clear. I've actually removed this sentence, as I think it's better stated now that the original descriptions of the line don't conflate the inner and outer lines.
  • "The fire spread" to other buildings?
    • Done
  • link Sidearm (weapon)
    • Done
  • suggest "The Confederate retreat continued as far as Texas." to avoid repeating "reached"
    • Done

That is all I have. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peacemaker67: - I've tried to address all of the comments above. The description of the Union line may still need some work, as the sources are vague in places and I had to rework a good chunk of the prior wording, as it was conflating the interior and exterior lines. Hog Farm Talk 05:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

edit
  • Ah whoops wrong section. I meant the first two lines of the Prelude section. On my monitor (1440 px) it says it's a sandwich issue. Hopefully this is a little bit clearer. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: Can you move File:Abraham Lincoln - a history (1914) (14761985221).jpg a little bit more bellow? I only have one line sandwiched between both images. If that's not possible then I am satisfied with this result. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this is the best we can get. No worries I hope Wikipedia will solve this issue. For instance, if you have a bigger resolution and you click on the campaignbox it will create a sandwich with the left image. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

edit
  • Claiming my seat here. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • his advance from St. Louis westwards to Jefferson City. Link Jefferson City.
    • Done
  • many men, including Bloody Bill Anderson and his guerrillas, Guerillas is redundant, as guerilla warfare is linked in the previous section.
    • Removed the link, which is what I understand as the requested change
  • While the Confederates reached West Wind, the steamboat's engines had been rendered nonfunctional, and they had to return to Shelby. An act of deliberate sabotage?
    • Sinisi is unclear, while Monnett and Lause don't mention the matter. Maybe Nichols will have detail on this.
  • Did the Union garrison not have artillery?
    • Nm Nichols says they didn't; this could be made explicit. He also specifies that Union CSA artillery damaged the town and the steamer (which factored into the Union surrender) and that Anderson's guerillas, while present, did not partake in the fighting. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had just kinda assumed Nichols had nothing significant to say here because Glasgow wasn't really a guerrilla action. I can't really get a good gbooks preview of that, but a friend is gonna pick a copy up from their university library later this week for me
  • Is Glasgow Battlefield a preserved historic site? This magazine and this book have some stuff to say about markers and reenactments. Nat Geo makes reference to a Stump Island Park preserving some of the battlefield. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a couple sentences from Missouri Life and the Weeks book (I actually have an old paperback copy of a previous edition of Weeks, which contains of all things a warning about talking to specifically Missourians about the Civil War). I'm not convinced that Stump Island Park is of any significance; it appears to just happen to be near the site. What I've found indicates that it offers a boat ramp, public bathrooms, and "primitive camping" with no mention of the relation to the battlefield.
  • Steamboat Disasters of the Lower Missouri River specifies that 15 homes and the Presbyterian church were lost during the events of the battle, 150 horses seized, and states that it was rumored that West Wind's engine remained at the bottom the river until it was raised for scrap during World War II.

Gog the Mild

edit

Looks familiar. Ping me when Indy b is done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - looks like Indy's done now. Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. If I have not started in 2-3 days, could you ping me? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. This is likely to be my next FAC, so feel free to be particularly harsh. Hog Farm Talk 19:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wah-ha-ha-haaa! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late on the 12th". The MoS would encourage 'Late on 12 October'.
    • Done, except going with the prevailing style of mdy.
  • "the Union soldiers were sworn not to serve". Is that grammatical in USEng?
    • I think so? Although my grammar can be pretty backwoods, so I'm not really sure
  • "suggesting a better figure of about 650". What is better about it?
    • Rephrased, would be more accurate
  • "32 wounded and eight to eleven killed". Could we have these numbers either all spelt out or all as numerals?
    • Spelled out all
  • "Confederate casualties at around 50". I realise that you are just stating the sources, but a single regiment reported 53 casualties. This doesn't make sense.
    • Removed, since around 50 is clearly an incomplete number based on poor Confederate reporting
  • What is "The Civil War Battlefield Guide"?
    • I've attributed the author for the statement, not the book, which probably makes more sense

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

@Gog the Mild: - All of these should be addressed. Hog Farm Talk 21:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What! All of them?
  • The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2022 (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/Battle_of_Glasgow,_Missouri&oldid=1075227617"