Talk:Battle of Dry Wood Creek

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Dry Wood Creek. 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/20041119074750/http://www.griffingweb.com:80/captain_creitz%27s_diary.htm to http://www.griffingweb.com/captain_creitz's_diary.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 22:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• History stable
• Sources all good
• Is there perhaps a map of where the battlefield is located in present day Missouri that could be used, either an image or by pins/module?
  • There's one of the county level, but that's as close as I can find. A found a township-level map on the internet, but the battle site isn't marked on that map, so it wouldn't be helpful. A Google search indicates that a small map is located somewhere on the historical marker mentioned in the aftermath (which is located in a gas station parking lot), but there's no image of that, either.
    • If you have the coordinates, a map pin could be added to the infobox? Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't have the coordinates. Unfortunately, they don't appear in any of the print sources I have access to, and the only online sources I can find are in two non-RS websites, and the websites give different coordinates. One gives 37 49.250 W 94 30.664, another gives a different set. (I did find a NPS resource stating that the battlefield area was estimated at over 2,000 acres, so this may give the difference. The 2,000 acres figure probably includes lines of retreat/advance, though). On the image in the article are what appear to be county/township level plat lines, but I can't read them. Any suggestions on what to do about this? The nearest town to the battle site is Deerfield, Missouri, which I could most likely get coordinates for.
        • Solution - I used the Deerfield coordinates, since those were available and very close to the site. Since they weren't exact, I commented them out so they wouldn't be visible in the infobox. How does that solution sound?
          • That works; if someone wiser than I has more information, that can come later for precise accuracy. Kingsif (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• The use of 'forced to' is repeated quite close in the lead, would it be possible to rephrase an instance?
  • Rephrased second instance
• The background could perhaps expand more on context about the Civil War, why various troops wanted Missouri or something - it reads quite rushed and the detail wouldn't help readers who don't already know a lot.
  • I've added another paragraph to the background section, starting with the earliest effects of the Civil War in Missouri and continuing through the immediate aftermath of Wilson's Creek, where the previously extant text picks back up.
• At estimated to number between 600[2] and 1,200, the split of refs suggests that it's not an estimate of 600-1200, but different sources suggesting these different figure? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that's the case, it should say that
  • Yeah, the sources use the two figures about evenly. I've rephrased in the prose to make this more clear, do you want me to remove the range in the infobox and replace the endash with "or"? That might look a little sloppy, though.
• The start of the Battle section seems like the continuation of a narrative, rather than the start of an explanation... a little tweak in phrasing and putting the date here would help
  • I've rephrased this some and added the date. Does this help, or do I need to work on this some more?
    • This is good, thanks! Kingsif (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Price's men eventually gained the better of the Kansans is perhaps colloquial (even outdated) idiomatic phrasing, could it be improved upon?
  • Rephrased
• In Price's opinion - According to Price; As Price recollects; even In Price's view... 'opinion' doesn't really work for me, and it sounds a bit disrespectful in the sense of 'the man is entitled to his opinion, but it's wrong'
  • Rephrased
• I'm a tiny bit confused of the concept of losing injured men? Is it really just they couldn't fight anymore and got sent home? That should be fine, it just reads strange (especially with most of the injuries not being that serious).
  • Yes, injured men were out of combat in this time. Military "medicine" in this time and place consisted of a shot of whiskey, mercury pills, and a hacksaw if you needed it. You were out for awhile if you got shot.
    • Ha! Well that sounds a little fun... Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Is the first paragraph of the Aftermath really relevant? Perhaps the journey to Lexington, and if this battle affected the siege, but otherwise I wouldn't think so
  • Removed the Sacking of Osceola as not really relevant. In my opinion, the Lexington bit is relevant - if Lane had beat Price at Dry Wood Creek, Lexington probably wouldn't have happened.
    • Is that something where a source can be used to mention it? That's quite interesting. Kingsif (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Added and cited the allowing Lexington to occur bit

Overall

•  On hold - some tightening up, comments above. Please ask if there's anything unclear! Kingsif (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif- Replied to all points. Hog Farm (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Nice work Kingsif (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

ISBN query

Hi Hog Farm. Castel (1968): if you are really referring to the 1968 edition it won't have had an ISBN, but an OCLC - 14875284. Or possibly you are actually using a later edition? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild - After another look, I'm using a 1993 edition (the reprint information was in smaller print at the bottom). I'll correct it in the article accordingly. Hog Farm (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I do that all the time. Makes me look like an idiot at source reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)