Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Marais des Cygnes

< 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 Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Marais des Cygnes

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Marais des Cygnes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

On October 25, 1864, Sterling Price's Confederate Army of Missouri was reeling in defeat after being defeated at the Battle of Westport two days earlier. Price fought three battles on October 25, and managed to lose all of them. Marais des Cygnes was the first of these defeats. By the end of the day, Price's army had been reduced to essentially an armed mob after further defeats at Mine Creek and Marmiton River. Today the site of Marais des Cygnes is a wildlife refuge, only interpreted by a few signs at a rest stop and forgotten by most. Hog Farm Bacon 02:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Both images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 12:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

Sources seem to meet minimum standard of reliability, as far as I can tell. No source checks done. (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

I'm coming at this more from the point of view of readability since I am unfamiliar with the US Civil War. I've made a few minor edits and my substantive comments are as follows:

Context

  • and Confederate activity in the state was largely restricted to guerrilla warfare and raids throughout 1862 and 1863. I think this would work better as a standalone sentence. Perhaps: "For the remainder of the year, and into 1863, Confederate activity in the state was largely restricted to guerrilla warfare and raids."
    • Done
  • in March through May. Maybe it is US phrasing but to me, should this be "in March through to May."?
    • In American English, I've always seen "March through May" or "March to May", but never with both words
  • ...an effective offensive; Smith approved the plan and appointed Price to command the offensive. the word offensive is used twice in this sentence, and early on in the following sentence. Suggest rephrasing to remove one of them.
    • Rephrased the latter one

Background

  • where he learned that Pilot Knob... suggest clarifying that it is a small town. When I first read it I thought it was just an unusual name of a prominent civilian!
    • Done
  • ...while he advanced to St. Louis, so he sent two of his three divisions,... I think you mean St. Louis the city, not the railroad so link? Also suggest mentioning as part of the end of the context section that Price's column was made up of three divisions. Then the "of his three divisions" can be deleted here.
    • Done.
  • link Jefferson City, Boonville
    • Coulda sworn I linked these, but apparently I didn't
  • ...and the Army of Missouri retreated southwards. This is the first mention of the Army of Missouri. Suggest specifying earlier in the article, perhaps at the end of the context section, that Price's column was known/designated as this, and link it there.
    • Done

Prelude

  • Sanborn then moved against Price... the "then" seems unnecessary
    • Removed
  • ...some light skirmishing with Fagan. suggest: "...some light skirmishing with Fagan's forces."
    • Done

Battle

  • ...but despite firing at a 15° angle, overshot the elevations. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. I think you mean that the Confederates were in an elevated position. If so, I suggest "but despite firing at a 15° angle, overshot the elevated Confederate position." or similar.
    • Clarified
  • ...Marais des Cynges with had bypassed this roadblock,... delete with
    • Actually deleted both "with" and "had", as neither are really needed
  • Confederate Brigadier General John B. Clark Jr. then formed a line in the path of the Union advance. was this an adhoc command for Clark or a specific unit/regiment?
    • A specific briagade. Clarified
  • ...for the Confederate line. "line" mentioned twice in this sentence. Perhaps delete the second mention?
    • Reworded

Aftermath

  • Price's Raid. don't think "Raid" should be capitalised?
    • Looking at our article on it, and the sources I've seen, it's generally capitalized in practice, as part of the name of the campaign

Lead

  • Having now read the article in full, I suggest a couple of changes to the lead:
  • At daylight the next morning,... Suggest: The battle commenced at daylight the next morning..." With the mentions of the Mine Creek and Marmiton's River later on it becomes confusing as to when the Battle of Marais des Cygnes began/ended.
    • Done
  • rather than ...became the day's third action; Price burned his supply train after the last action., which suggests that there could have been more actions after the third, "became the day's third action after which Price burned his supply train."
    • Done

Sources

  • Warner ref: I don't think the (Louisiana Paperback ed.) needs to be part of the title.
    • It's a specific issue (and is in the edition parameter). I think it's necessary, as there's other editions of Warner with different page numbers
  • The National Park Service cite has the year at the very end which seems odd. Have you considered having it as a reference like the Phillips and the Ohio State refs?
    • The issue is I need to cite multiple spread out pages from the PDF, so using cite web would be very clunky too. I've worked on the formatting a bit, though, so that the date isn't at the end.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, I have a few minor comments, but like Zawed, I am limited in how in depth I can look, sorry: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox, "Pleasonton's division": is there a unit this could be linked to?
  • suggest splitting both paragraphs in the Battle section to make four paragraphs
    • Done
  • suggest that the Background section is probably better presented as being part of the Prelude as the Context section is actually probably the Background
    • Renamed
  • the following terms appear to be overlinked: John B. Clark; division; supply train
    • Fixed
  • I know it is unlikely, but is there any sort of photo that might be relevant to the article (for instance, maybe a photo of the battle field, or of the key commanders?)
    • I'm unaware of a particularly relevant one of the battlefield. I'm aware of a few of the wildlife refuge, but as they're not necessarily from the battlefield proper, they're not really relevant. Not sure if I've got room for two additional images, and I've had a reviewer tell me that I should keep images balanced between the two sides in battle articles. There's a usable one of Pleasonton on Commons, but the images of Marmaduke and Clark I'm aware of have unknown publishing dates, so I couldn't really prove they were PD. What are your thoughts on this?
  • suggest linking skirmish line
    • Done
  • using the broken nature of the ground as cover --> "using the broken ground as cover"?
    • Done
  • The 6th and 8th Missouri State Militia Cavalries attacked --> "The 6th and 8th Missouri State Militia Cavalry Regiments attacked"
    • Done
  • The 2nd Arkansas Cavalry, operating mounted, spearheaded the pursuit --> "The 2nd Arkansas Cavalry, operating in a mounted role, spearheaded the pursuit"?
    • Done
  • from the brigades of Sanborn, Benteen, and Colonel John F. Philips --> " from the brigades under Sanborn, Benteen, and Colonel John F. Philips"?
    • In American English, using "of" here seems to be acceptable. I personally prefer of, but if you feel strongly about this, I can change it
      • No worries, happy to leave as is if it is an Am Eng thing, but to my ear it sounds very awkward. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I think it's normal American English, although I'm very rural, so my AE is pretty nonstandard, so no guarantees, I guess.
  • Price's army was so shattered and demoralized the historian Albert E. Castel described --> "Price's army was so shattered and demoralized that historian Albert E. Castel described"?
  • This acreage represents 19 percent of the 92 percent of the battlefield -- this seems a little awkward (the double percentages). Is there a more simple way of stating this? For instance: "Only 92 percent of the battlefield retains historic integrity; of this, only... is included in ..."?
    • Done
  • While the site of the battle is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places: do we know why?
    • Not directly stated. Since you have to apply for NRHP status, I'm assuming the owner(s) just don't want to. NRHP status severely limits the types of improvements you can do to land, so a lot of times NRHP status isn't sought
  • a survey performed by the American Battlefield Protection Program determined that it is likely eligible for listing: perhaps say when this survey was undertaken
    • Done
  • in the References, "New York, New York" -- probably just "New York"
    • Done
  • ext links all work: [1] (no action required)
  • there are no dab links: [2] (no action required)
  • sorry, when I read the name Marmaduke, all I could think about was the cartoon...;-)

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Interesting article. I have a few comments:

Lead
  • suggest "primary theaters of fighting further east"
    • Done
  • for the non-American, there being a Kansas City in Missouri and another one in Kansas is confusing, especially when both Missouri and Kansas are being mentioned in a couple of sentences. I suggest "on October 23 near Kansas City, Missouri."
    • Done. I didn't realize that non-Americans were generally aware of the existence of KCK
  • "by forces under Lieutenant Colonel Frederick W. Benteen"
    • Done. If this is an issue, I'll have to go back and check just about every battle article I've written
  • give a sense of the size of the opposing forces, then how many Benteen brought to the party
    • Did what I could
  • is it really also known as the Battle of Osage? The Battle of Mine Creek articles say it was also known as the Battle of Osage.
    • Technically yes, although the use of it in sources that I see in secondary sources is generally referring to Mine Creek. I've removed as obscure and confusing, as it's about on the level of some of the soldiers who fought in it calling it the "Battle of Mary Dasun"
  • watch the referring to forces as being the commander only. ie "A rear guard action by Confederate Brigadier General John B. Clark Jr."
    • Corrected
  • say why Price burned his supply train, also in the Aftermath section
    • Done
  • Indian Territory in the American Civil War might be a better link, also in the Aftermath section
    • Done
Body
  • add a main template for Missouri in the American Civil War to the top of the Background section
    • Done
  • say why they were "restricted to the southwestern portion of the state"
    • Done
  • say Lincoln was president
    • Done
  • 1864 United States presidential election
    • Done
  • say something about Reynolds being the new governor
    • Used a method similar to that which I used to resolve this at the Slayback's Regiment FAC
  • "leaving the Missouri State Militia to beas the state's"
    • Done
  • "sent Marmaduke and Fagan's divisions" check the rest of the article for the same tendency
    • Done
  • "Shelby's division operated north of the town"
    • Correcting these as I go along
    • Think I've got all of these, although I may have missed some.
  • I'd like a better idea of force strengths throughout, ie what was the strength of Price's column, and what strength were Ewing's forces, Clark's force sent to Glasgow etc? This is an issue throughout, you need to go through and explain at least what size the forces were, division, brigade, regiment, and whether infantry or cavalry, and even better, also the strength.
    • I'm working on this. Hopefully Collins can provide this detail. I've got a book on Price's raid coming in the mail, but it's not too me yet, so it may be a week or two yet before I can get a formal campaign study in my possession.
      • No rush. Ping me when you've got it and made these additions, and I'll reread. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I've got it Peacemaker67, but it doesn't give any strengths for Marais des Cygnes that I didn't already have from other sources. I've been able to figure out the strength of one of the lighter Union probe, and how many men Clark had in his rear guard line, but the only strength I can find for Benteen is for Mine Creek later that day, which may or may not be comparable, depending on straggling and Marais des Cygnes losses, so I'm kinda stuck at this point for now. Hog Farm Bacon 20:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • briefly explain what General Order No. 11 was
    • Handled with a footnote
  • "and had their morale depressed"→"and their morale suffered"
    • Done
  • "westwards towards Kansas City, Missouri,"
    • Done
  • "The Confederates still had a large supply train with them"
    • Done
  • suggest "rear guard;[25] it was over 2,000-strong.[26]"
    • Done
  • the descriptions of the reasons for poor shooting seems a bit Confederate-friendly, maybe they were just poor shots, tired, etc
    • I assume you're referring to Again, the fire from the Confederate defenders was ineffective, partially due to the terrain, which also hampered the assailants. Is Again, the fire from the Confederate defenders was ineffective. Both sides were hampered by the rough terrain any better?
  • the assailants→the attacking cavalry
    • This was dealt with when I reworked the previous point
  • comma after 2nd Arkansas Cavalry Regiment, unless it was the only one exploiting the breakthrough
    • Added
  • "Confederate Brigadier General John B. Clark Jr."
    • Done. The article's short enough the reader can hopefully remember Clark from his previous mention in a prior section
  • suggest "The action is also known as the Battle of Osage or the Battle of Trading Post." but see my earlier comment about the Battle of Osage
    • Done, although the references to Battle of Osage have been removed
  • author-link Ezra J. Warner (historian)
    • Done

That's it, nice work thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm and Peacemaker67: this looks as if all of the comments have been addressed. HF, do you have anything more to come? PM, are you waiting for any further responses? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - Well, I'm going to be able to get ahold of copies of Buresh and Stalnaker this afternoon. If I can't Benteen's brigade strength in them, I don't think I'll be able to anytime soon. So that's the update on my end. Hog Farm Bacon 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was just checking that it wasn't a case of "After you Claude." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 - Neither Buresh nor Stalnaker give a strength for Benteen at Marais des Cygnes. If that's a sticking point, I'm willing to withdraw this and renominate if I ever find that number. (Benteen's brigade's strength at Mine Creek later that day is known, so maybe there's a known MDC strength). Hog Farm Bacon 21:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I've reread, and the only thing I think needs clarification is whether this was a cavalry/artillery-only affair. I see no mention of infantry (except unrelated to this action), but it isn't made clear when talking about the Union forces, or in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 - I think I've gotten this done satisfactorily. It's an interesting position of the source generally don't state directly that it was a cavalry fight, but they refer to all the component units as cavalry, so I've had to introduce the component Union units as cavalry as they appear. Hog Farm Bacon 04:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 15 November 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/Battle_of_Marais_des_Cygnes&oldid=988800357"