Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Byram's Ford/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2021 [1].

Battle of Byram's Ford edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With 8 successful FACs under my belt, I'm now taking the bold step of taking an article straight from GAN to FAC. I'm confident in the sourcing and comprehensiveness, but apologies in advance for the prose, which may be even worse than normal, as there have been fewer eyes on it.

At least to me, this is a two-day battle that feels kinda like a hodgepodge of two different actions: the first day as an extension of the Battle of Little Blue River, and the second as an extension of the Second Battle of Independence. But historians have treated this as a separate event, so here we are with the third Price's Raid FAC. Confederate cavalry pushes Union cavalry and militia across the ford on Day 1, while Union cavalry trailing the Confederates push across the ford on Day 2. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review pass, sources look good, no source checks done (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is The Big Blue Battlefield Park separate from the NRHP listing? (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: - I can't quite tell with certainty. Official stuff for the park doesn't mention the NRHP, while the NHRP nomination form doesn't mention the park but could well be older than it. There's a number of references to the "Big Blue Battlefield" being on the NRHP, but I'm not sure if that's referring to the park or other parts of the battlefield. This says yes but it's unreliable and cannot be used. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

  • Infobox: Template infobox military conflict says "Ranks and position titles should be omitted."
    • Removed
  • "Union Victory": why the upper case V?
    • I have no idea
  • "The Battle of Byram's Ford," Why the comma?
    • Forgot to remove that when I rewrote the opening sentence; gone now
  • " Union forces led Price to". Optional: → ' Union resistance led Price to'.
    • Gonna stick with the current wording, as Price didn't really try to attack either place so I'm not sure "resistance" is the best word
  • "Price's army reached Texas". Mention when.
    • Added in the lead and the body
  • "took long enough to reach Jefferson City" → 'took so long to reach Jefferson City'.
    • Done. I have a reluctance to use the word "so" leftover from an elementary school teacher who forbid the class to use the word "so"
  • "the Union garrison could be reinforced, growing from 1,000 men to 7,000" → 'the Union garrison was reinforced from 1,000 men to 7,000'?
    • Done
  • "Eventually, Confederate pressure on the Union center led the Union troops". if we are still talking about the Little Blue, maybe 'these Union troops'?
    • Done
  • "6 miles (9.7 km)" Looks like false precision to me. Similarly elsewhere.
    • Rounded on the several with miles/km. I think it's okay with the acres later on because those are exact figures.
Agreed.
  • "He then formed a plan". Delete "then".
    • Removed
  • "the units sent to Kansas City had suffered from severe straggling". This is getting a bit specialist. Maybe rephrase or expand a little?
    • Does changing the whole sentence to "As not all of the Kansas State Militia was fully mobilized, and the strength of those units that had arrived at Kansas City had been reduced greatly due to men lagging behind on the march, Curtis had around 5,000 men in his force, which was known as the Army of the Border." improve this somewhat, or do I need to take a crack at simplifying this?
It looks good to me. I might replace "lagging" with 'falling', but that is just personal preference.
  • "with only a "strong skirmish line"". I think you can lose the quotes.
    • Done. I'm not entirely sure what my rationale for adding the quotes was.
  • "The Union soldiers had abandoned a number of axes at the ford, which allowed the Confederates to clear the obstructions". The Confederates were attempting to force a blocked ford without having the tools to clear it! Really?
    • The source (Sinisi) specifically notes that that the Confederates needed to use the captured axes. The Confederates did have axes on the raid because they'd used them earlier, but my guess is that they must have left them in the rear with the wagons. Would it be too unfair to note that this was a cavalry expedition led by a general who was too fat to ride a horse effectively and had to be hauled around in an ambulance wagon for much of it?
Ha! Leave it then. I'm not sure why I was surprised at a commander launching an all out attack on a ford knowing that he won't be able to clear it if he succeeds, but I was.
  • "the unit and cannon were completely overrun." Does "completely" add anything?
    • Nope, removed
  • "the 12 foot (3.7 m) to 15 foot (4.6 m)[91] or 15 foot (4.6 m) to 20 foot (6.1 m)". This is not helpful to a reader. Perhaps footnote it?
    • Footnoted.
  • "had heard rumors from stragglers". A wikt link for "straggler"?
    • Done. I'm slightly surprised there's not an enwiki link for the term
Yeah. We could do with a glossary of common military terms, similar to those for cricketing or nautical terms.
  • "Seeing Shelby's command disintegrate, Jackman withdrew in the face of Sanborn's brigade. The collapse occurred at about 14:00." Possibly switch the order of these sentences?
    • Done
  • "Price's wagon train was to make its south by taking the Harrisonville Road south". I am not sure why "south" occurs twice.
    • Rephrased
  • "was very incomplete". Is "very" needed?
    • Not really. Removed.
  • "after the campaign ended". Consider deleting this.
    • Removed

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - look at the state in which some of my drivel arrives at FAC. Nice account. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A combination of Confederate and pro-secession Missouri State Guard forces" Is there a distinction between the two? I thought they pretty much overlapped?
    • It's a weird case where the MSG was fighting along with Confederate troops and sometimes under Confederate officers, but were actually fighting for the Missouri government, not the Confederacy
  • "to the southwestern Missouri" Why definite article?
    • I'm not entirely sure. Removed.
  • Some more names and terms could be linked in image captions?
    • Added a handful
  • "and order to collect available cavalry and move towards Kansas City" Ordered?
    • Fixed
  • Link Official Records of the War of the Rebellion?
    • Linked. And italicized since it's the title of a printed work
  • Missouri River is linked twice in the article body.
    • oops. Corrected.
  • Link Ford (crossing) somewhere? Not a term I'm familiar with (outside another article I reviewed).
    • Linked
  • "Brown ran at least 90 minutes late, and when Pleasonton arrived, he placed Brown and Colonel James McFerran, the commander of the 1st Missouri State Militia Cavalry, under arrest." For being late? The cause and effect is not entirely clear here.
    • Clarified the official reasons. Sources imply that Pleasonton was a little too happy to can Brown because he didn't like it, and McFerran had also hid out behind the lines in his previous battle, but the relative merits of the arrests are probably undue material here.
  • "and begin firing into the Confederate flank" Began?
    • Corrected
  • "was to make its south via the Harrisonville Road" Make it south?
    • Was missing the word "way"
  • "Sinisi considers Lause's figures to be too high, and prefers estimates from researcher Bryce Suderow of 510 Confederate and 361 Union losses for all fighting on the 23rd.[126]" Why give Suderow's estimate through Sinisi, and not just that estimate itself? Then you could end the sentence with Sinisi agreeing with it.
    • Sinisi state's that Suderow's work is unpublished and it probably isn't really due weight on its own or directly citable to itself, and the usability of that figure comes primarily through Sinisi agreeing with it. I'm open to other ways to phrase it, though, FunkMonk. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could perhaps note that Suderow's estimates are unpublished, but not a dealbreaker for me. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does "Unpublished research by Bryce Suderow estimates losses of 510 Confederates and 361 Union soldiers for all fighting on the 23rd. Sinisi considers Lause's figures to be too high, and prefers Suderow's numbers." sound?
Good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the solutions for the more complex issues seem sufficient to me, nicely done. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • I noticed a few refs in the lead for alt names, ("Battle of Big Blue River[2] and the Battle of the Blue[3]) was...") any reason why those alt names are only mentioned in the lead and not in the main prose? I thought the should summarise the article but not contain facts that don't appear in the article.
    • I've added the alt names to the aftermath section, and moved the refs to there from the lead
  • The location is referenced in the infobox and stated as Jackson County yet that's not in the lead, why not?
    • Because the sources don't make a point of noting that the battle was in Jackson Co., as the county lines were not significant to the fighting. Kennedy states that it was in the county, but Kennedy also provides the county or parish for every battle listed in that book. Essentially, I'm only including that because I feel like I need to have a location in the infobox, and that's about the most useful location I can think of, as the Byram's Ford redlink isn't going to provide a reader who doesn't already know where the redlink was any information. Suggestions on how to better deal with this are welcome
  • Why is it the only fact in the entire infobox with an inline citation?
    • Because it's the only fact in the entire infobox that isn't cited elsewhere, and I think it's best to keep infobox citations to the minimum necessary
  • " 2nd Kansas State Militia Infantry Regiment " State isn't in our article's name for this, why is it here?
    • Don't have access to Monnett at the moment, but checked the other three I view as the principal sources (Lause, Collins, Sinisi) and all three use "2nd Kansas State Militia Regiment" or "2nd KSM", so the "State" is standard in sources. Adding the "infantry" in the article is needed for the MILHIST unit naming MOS, I believe. (As an aside, I've noticed that a number of ACW-adjacent articles have names that don't align with what modern sources use; I've had to start a fair number of RMs).
  • "garrison could be reinforced" could he, or was?
    • Was. Changed.
  • "not armed or only poorly armed" why "only"?
    • Removed
  • Our article is at Department of the Missouri.
    • Changed the mention to Department of the Missouri. Collins and Lause use "Department of Missouri", but Sinisi, which is the best of the three, uses "Department of the Missouri" and Collins quotes a period letter that uses "Department of the Missouri", so I think going with that title is supported enough by the sources to add the "the"
  • "stand at the Little Blue" -> "stand there"
    • Done
  • What's a "signal officer"?
    • Source just uses "signal officers" without any elaboration. I can't find an equivalent link, I'm not sure how to explain it since the source is a bit vague, and the officer's role as signal officers isn't vital to the meaning of the sentence, so I've just removed the word "signal".
  • "Also at 11:00" are we certain of these precise timings? Wouldn't "around" be better?
    • Yes, around would be better. Added
  • "found Hinkle's Ford.[56][57] Hinkle's Ford was" repetitive.
    • Merged the second sentence into the former and done some rephrasing, so the repetition is gone
  • "1865 depiction of..." avoid starting even fragments with a numeral.
    • Done
  • "led to two decisions: Grant decided ": repetitive, perhaps "Grant elected to" or "Grant chose" or something slightly more engaging.
    • Went with elected
  • Is there a link for wagon train?!
    • Yes. Linked in both the lead and the body
  • "continued 4 miles (6 km) south of the place" of the place? why not "continued 4 miles further south" or simlar?
    • Went with "further south"
  • "Unpublished research by Bryce Suderow ..." is that notable enough for an FA?
    • Normally I'd say no, but Sinisi (who is one of the very best sources for this subject, IMO) says it's the preferable estimate, and Suderow has published a book about another battle in this campaign through an academic publisher, so I think it's okay for this specific circumstance
  • "the dual defeats" no need for "dual"
    • Removed

Nothing much more to report. Mostly queries rather than issues. Close to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: - Thanks for reviewing! I've tried to reply to all. Most are done, although I've got a bit of a query on your thoughts for handling the Jackson County one. Hog Farm Talk 04:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, two responses above, only one needs potential action, but it's not breaking any FA criteria I'm aware of so take it as you find it. Happy to support at this point. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this at GAN, and am pretty thorough there, but given it hasn't been to Milhist ACR and the extra eyes it would have got there on military technical aspects, I have quite a few comments:

Lead and overall
  • in the lead, the alternative names don't need to be cited if they are cited in the body.
    • You may have been looking at an old version - I removed the cites addressing TRM's comments
  • also, the link at fn 3 refers to Battle of the Big Blue, not Battle of the Blue. Also Battle of the Big Blue River and Battle of the Big Blue are almost identical and I'm not sure the second one is justified in the lead. It also seems to me that the NPS is a far better source than Kansas Memory.
    • Replaced with a source that refers to this specifically as "Battle of the Blue". My OR I won't include is that "Battle of the Blue" is primarily used in Kansas-related sources and seems to focus on the destruction of the 2nd KSM.
  • I have a fundamental question about whether this is in fact two or more battles, and the overall schema of the related battles: Big Blue 22 October, Independence, Big Blue 22 October and even aspects of the Battle of Westport appear inter-related and overlapping. The commanders and forces on the two Big Blue days are different, and the scenes of the two sub-battles are also different, one being the ford and the other Potato Hill, with Westport then also apparently involving the ford. It is interesting that Kansas Memory specifies that the Battle of Byram's Ford occurred on 22 October, and doesn't mention the second day, while the NPS does. This overall confusion seriously impacts on the lead, as what is part of this battle and what is part of other battles is not as clear as it needs to be.
    • The overwhelming consensus of high-quality sources treat this as a single battle (I don't know why, I personally would be tempted to divide this up among the other actions). In particular, the ending stage of the rout at the end isn't clearly delineable between Westport and Byram's Ford. If this happened in one of the World Wars, everything between Little Blue River on Oct. 21 and Westport would probably be considered a single battle, but for some reason, this is very subdivided in sources. I've tried to clarify the dividing line between Second Independence and Byram's Ford in the lead, and I'm open to suggestion on how to accomplish this better
Body
  • suggest "did not secede – despite allowing slavery – as it was politically divided."
    • Done
  • suggest "the Confederacy had essentially no chance of prevailing in the war"
    • I think it's significant to keep the difference between military and political here - a battlefield victory was out of the question, but there was thought to be a decent chance of the 1864 US election leading to a peace party winning and electing a truce
  • suggest "Smith decided to attack the Union forces within his area of responsibility"
    • Done
  • suggest "Price's army took so long to reach Jefferson City that the Union was able to reinforce the garrison from 1,000 to 7,000 men."
    • Done
  • suggest "Brigadier Generals Egbert Brown, John McNeil and John B. Sanborn, and Colonel Edward F. Winslow"
    • Done, although I do like my oxford commas
  • suggest "Sanborn temporarily commanded the formation until Pleasonton took up his position on October 20."
    • Done
  • it would help a lot if the rough distances between Curtis' force and Pleasonton's force and Price's force were included at the bottom of the second para of the "To the Big Blue River" section. In fact, a local map would help a lot in understanding the dispositions ("five miles east of ...", "ten miles southwest of ..." etc). In the absence of such a map, this sort of textual description of the various locations and directions is needed. The Map No. 1, for example, shows the road from Kansas City and Westport to Independence and two fords, as well as several other landmarks that could be used to help the reader, and from which better physical descriptions could extrapolate. A more detailed explanation of where the forces were with respect to various landmarks would be very helpful. Here are some examples: "ordered Blunt to move (in what direction and how far) to Warrensburg", and "Price was only 20 miles (32 km) away (in what direction) at Waverly", there are plenty of examples of where more information is required about locations and their relative position to places and other troops.
    • I'll see what I can do. The sources aren't great about providing distances (Lause in particular has been criticized as being almost incomprehensible in geography to a non-Missourian).
    • I've also added a pushpin map indicating the relative locations of Jeff City/KC/Warrensburg/Lexington/etc, although it's a little sketchy because a bunch of those places are crammed in a relatively narrow geographic window
  • "Blair's brigade was sent to Kansas City" but then he appears as Curtis' left wing
    • Bit of a messy situation. Technically detached and under Deitzler, but Deitzler didn't do hardly anything and Blair did more. But despite being nominally a separate wing, I noticed doing a re-read of Lause that he briefly notes that Blair essentially functioned as another brigade for Blunt, so I've added that
  • "Pleasonton's division was encamped 6 miles (10 km) to the east of the Little Blue" comes out of the blue. Last we heard, he was at Jefferson City. When did he start chasing Price westwards?
    • I've mentioned that his division converged on Price while it followed the Missouri
  • It would be helpful to describe the extent of the Big Blue along which the sides were arrayed. Map No. 1 is unclear, but it looks as if it included the Old Independence Road in the north with what looks to be a unit deployed there. How far south? Hickman Mills?
    • Clarified using Collins - 15 miles from the Missouri to Hickman Mills
  • was the ford at the extreme northern end of the Union line located on the Old Independence Road, or between it and the Missouri River?
    • Three main sources I have access to right now (Collins, Sinisi, Lause) don't mention the Old Independence Road by name, except for an appearance in a map in Sinisi. I can compare Sinisi's map and Lause's description of the Union line and be pretty confident that the extreme northern one was one the Old Independence Road, but it takes some hardcore SYNTH to get there, so I can't really add that to the article.

Down to Battle, but at this point I'm quite concerned that the text doesn't provide enough detail about dispositions and movements. That is making this a bit of a grind. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle
  • "At around 08:00, fighting began when Shelby drove Union skirmishers back across the Big Blue" where?
    • Sources don't specify. My guess would be about everywhere, but I obviously can't include that
  • "When Union officers on the north part of the line reported seeing minimal Confederate activity on the road to Kansas City, Curtis became concerned about a potential flanking attack." I don't follow the logic of this. Why and where did he expect it, north or south?
    • I've tried to clarify that this made the ruse even more obvious for what it was, and added that the expected attack was to the south. Is this better, or does it require additional work
  • "He then gave Blunt and Melvin S. Grant, who commanded two Kansas State Militia regiments positioned to the south near Hickman Mills," makes it sound like Blunt and Grant both commanded a Kansas State Militia regiment. Perhaps "He then gave Blunt, along with Melvin S. Grant – who commanded two Kansas State Militia regiments positioned to the south near Hickman Mills, orders..."
    • Done
  • suggest "Jennison's brigade since around 09:00, butwith defensive works prepared by one of Grant's militia regiments the night before"
    • Done
  • suggest "but not that element of Jennison's brigade which was in the immediate vicinity of the ford"
    • Done - I'm assuming you were referring to the context of "meaning that the Confederates had cover, but not that element of Jennison's brigade which was in the immediate vicinity of the ford"
  • suggest "Jennison's stubborn defence."
    • Done
  • suggest "Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion was sent north, where it quickly found Hinkle's Ford – a crossing used by local farmers – which was unguarded."
    • Done
  • suggest "but arrived at Hinkle's Ford after the Confederates had crossed. He then withdrew towards Westport."
    • Done
  • suggest "Jennison, who was the senior officer, did not take command overall command of the two-brigade force," It was hardly Moonlight's job.
    • Done
  • suggest "Curtis had sent his escort to reinforce Jennison at Byram's Ford, placing the escort under the command of his chief of artillery, Major Robert H. Hunt."
    • Done
  • why did Ford's brigade and Deitzler's militia withdraw? Outflanked to the south?
    • Order from Curtis. Clarified
  • which formation was 19th Kansas State Militia Infantry Regiment part of?
    • Blair's brigade. Added.
  • suggest "Grant's withdrawing men encountered Gordon and the 5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment who had crossed at the southern ford,"
    • Done
  • what troops were the "reinforcements from Hickman Mills" Grant was expecting?
    • Source just states that he was expecting them, without identifying which ones he expected
  • suggest "but the stout resistance led Shelby"
    • Done
  • "the Confederates had crossed the Big Blue" where?
    • Replaced with "the Confederates had broken Curtis's line on the Big Blue" as the source is referring to the general Confederate breakthrough at the various points
  • suggest "McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades successfully attacked"
    • Done
  • suggest "Pleasonton's men were also on the move at this time: McNeil's brigade moved south from Independence towards Hickman Mills"
    • Done
  • "Smith's XVI Corps began a movement towards Independence" from where?
    • 16 miles to the east. Added

Down to October 23: Pleasonton crosses the river. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • This batch should hopefully be addressed, except one I can't answer. Hog Farm Talk 03:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: - before you move on to the rest of the article, how much work is needed on the attempted-addressing of the points above? Hog Farm Talk 20:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good thus far. Sorry about the delay in getting back to this, will hopefully finish off today. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from October 23: Pleasonton crosses the river

  • suggest "While the Confederates had worked on clearing the ford the previous day, obstructions still remained, and the Confederates had strengthened its defenses."
    • Done
  • "the main Confederate line" does this refer to Clark's brigade at Potato Hill?
    • YEs. Clarified.
  • "positioned on the other side of the road from the ford"? Surely a road runs through a ford? Do you mean the left side of the road? Is that the southern side?
    • The left (southern) side. Clarified. It took me a bit to even figure out what the sentence I had written meant.
  • "which provided a significant firepower advantage over the single-shot rifles of the Confederates."?
    • Source doesn't explicitly state this (says that the Union had a firepower advantage due to repeating weapons, but doesn't explicitly say that the Confederate only had single-shot pieces, which would be implied)
  • "south via the Harrisonville Road, recrossing the Big Blue, and then striking the Fort Scott Road south of Little Santa Fe" isn't clear. In which compass direction would they be recrossing the Big Blue? Any idea about distances? There is a rough scale on the old map.
    • I've tried to clarify this a bit (I actually forgot to mention a second recrossing of the Big Blue). I've added part of the distance which is directly stated in Sinisi, but aside from attempting to OR distances by trying to use the scale for a map found in the Collins PDF, I don't think there's a good way to provide more distances
  • "which Union troops incorrectly estimated as 10 guns" how many were there then?
    • I remember my annoyance at this part when I was writing this article. Sinisi tells me this, but none of the sources give a good total number. Should I just remove this clause?
Yes, I would. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been removed. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The Union 7th Kansas Cavalry Regiment" as the sentence isn't clear who they belonged to.
    • Added
  • "an[136]d the Battle of the Blue"
    • Oops. Corrected.

That's me finally done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment edit

@FAC coordinators: As this one has passed image and source reviews, four supports, and supports from non-MILHIST editors, may I have a dispensation for a second nomination? Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, please do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 7 August 2021 (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_Byram%27s_Ford/archive1&oldid=1109403228"