Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Little Blue River/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) 26 April 2022 [1].

Battle of Little Blue River edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably my last Price's Raid battle FAC for the near future. I brought this one to GA in 2020, and it passed a MILHIST ACR in March 2021, but I've just now gotten around to finishing filling out the sourcing to a state that I believe is FAC-able. Apologies ahead of time for the prose; the fact that I went about a year between really working with it probably doesn't bode well on that front. Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review pass per ACR. (t · c) buidhe 05:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle edit

  • while Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon and the Union Army supported the United States and opposed secession. Well, isn't the fact that the army supported the United States what made it the "Union" Army? Do you mean the federal forces stationed in Missouri at the time? Some clarification would be nice, if possible.
    • How about "Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon led Union Army forces in Missouri that remained loyal to the United States and opposed secession"? If it would help, I can cut the mention of Lyon, as he's not super relevant to the overall picture, as he was killed in battle in August 1861
  • By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the war. Per GLOBAL, might be worth clarifying that Lincoln was the incumbent at the time.
    • Done
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink for the federal conflict with the Cheyenne?
  • Blunt then made the decision to reinforce his outer positions and resist the inevitable Confederate advance. inevitable --> expected/anticapted, ain't much in human history that is truly inevitable.
    • Done
  • There is public interpretation at the site but no visitor's center. If this means signage, please clarify as such.
    • Clarified using another source.

On the whole an excellent article with good scholarship to back it up. -20:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • @Indy beetle: - Thanks for the review! Replies above, hopefully all have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 04:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Satisfied with the above responses, nominator has a good track record, sources look good, supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review. If my comment ends in a question mark, it means I am unsure if the comment should be implemented in the article and will leave it to your discretion.

  • "of the Confederate States Army had led an army into Missouri in September 1864" Delete had?
    • Done
  • "and all 14 of the army's cannons were small-bore." Because I am a non-expert, I do not know what a small-bore cannon is, and therefore I would have to click out of the article to understand why this would negatively impact Price's force. Can a half-sentence be added to describe the significance of this?
    • Rephrased to "less powerful pieces", which I think conveys the meaning
  • "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand, many of whom were militiamen." Replace the comma after "hand" with "and", to remove a comma? There's lots of commas in this sentence and this might improve the flow.
    • I've moved the militamen clause into the next sentence
  • The "Battle" section is quite long, with 6 large paragraphs. Is it possible to split this section up using Level 3 headings?
    • Split into two sections
  • I checked the lede and infobox, and everything is in the article.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - I've tried to action all of these - how does the article look now? Hog Farm Talk 02:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been resolved, I can support. Z1720 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • Optional: "bringing reinforcements that brought". "bring ... brought" - is it possible to avoid this?
    • Done
  • "all 14 of the army's cannons were less powerful pieces." I know that you have just changed this, but "less powerful" than what?
    • @Gog the Mild and Z1720: - on second thought, "less powerful" isn't a good way to phrase this. How about "and all 14 of the army's cannons were of small caliber for artillery of the war"? The relevant stuff from the source is "The Army consisted of [...] 14 artillery pieces [...] The artillery was composed of all light-caliber guns." I just can't come up with a good way to state this without going beyond the source or leaving in jargon. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something like "... were light, and relatively ineffective for the period."?
I'm not 100% for sure on that either. Projectile size didn't really equal effectiveness at the time. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was drawing a possibly unwarranted distinction between light-caliber and small-caliber. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll change the "small" in my suggested phrasing to "light" and think over your proposed change some more. Hog Farm Talk 17:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many of whom were militiamen". Link to militia.
    • Done
  • "were also dispersed throughout the state." Delete "also".
    • Done
  • " Attacks ... failed, and the Union garrison abandoned the fort" reads oddly. Perhaps "and" → 'but'?
    • Done
  • "was also mobilized. Major General James G. Blunt was also transferred". Too many also's.
    • Removed one
  • "Together, Dietzler's militia and Blunt's division were grouped". Delete "Together".
    • Done
  • "the brigade containing the militia was led by Colonel Charles W. Blair." Move this to straight after "one of the brigades was composed of Kansas militia."
    • Done
  • "At this time". What time?
    • Clarified
  • "were able to put out some of the flame". "some"? So part of it was still burning?
    • Removed "some of"
  • "Additionally, Thompson's brigade of Shelby's division also crossed over". Delete "also".
    • Removed
  • "to form a line at Independence. By 16:00, Union troops held a line near Independence". This is a bit repetitive.
    • I've decided that the second mention isn't necessary, so I've removed it
  • "The retreat to Independence had been over 7 miles (11 km) of ground". "of ground"? What else might it have been over? Consider rephrasing.
    • Removed "of ground"
  • "The 11th and 15th Kansas Cavalries and the 2nd Colorado Cavalry combined for 20 men killed." "for" → 'had'.
    • Done
  • "Price had lost over two thirds of his men during the campaign." Delete "had".
    • Removed

That's my lot. Nicely explained. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I see this is listed here as needing a source review, but Buidhe cites the ACR source review at the top of this page as sufficing -- does it really need another review? Ian, I think you'd be the only non-recused coordinator? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My error. Sorry. Removed. (I tend to miss comments not under a level four header.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • This might be an AmEng/BrEng difference, but "While some of the militia was technically commanded by Blunt" seems wrong to me; I would expect "were", not "was". Or "a part" of the militia would be OK with "was".
  • The map in the Prelude section is not ideal, though I couldn't find anything better; it shows a different battle and isn't particularly easy to read. You might consider requesting a map from the map workshop. The map of the battlefield at the end of the article is helpful, but better would be something showing the main places mentioned in the article without the overlay of modern infrastructure. Not necessary for FAC, just a suggestion.
    • That might be difficult - I'm not even sure of a good underlay map. The best underlay I can find would be an 1894 USGS topographic map, but it's not even clear if the crossings shown on that map are the same crossings present in the battle. If I can find a good period map to start with, I can try to get something worked out using the maps in Collins and other sources. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the number of men in the militia in the Army of the Border, but not the number of Union troops; is the number available?
  • "the men of the 10th Missouri Cavalry had already routed": not sure what this means -- "been routed" perhaps? Is "routed" as an intransitive verb standard AmEng?
    • I see routed used in this way in military history books published in the US fairly frequently, so I think this is fine for AmEng.
  • Is the detail about Jennison being a political rival of Blunt's necessary? When I read that I assumed it would play a role in some subsequent conflict, but it doesn't seem to.
    • Removed. It had some bearing on the campaign, but not really for this battle.
  • "...civilians within the town took potshots at the retreating Union troopers. It is not known if the civilian gunmen were pro-Confederates, under the mistaken belief that the Union soldiers were guerrillas in captured uniforms": I don't follow this. If the civilians were pro-Confederate, why would it matter to them whether they were firing at Union troopers or Union guerillas in captured uniforms?
    • These are separate clauses/scenarios. I've changed the commas to semicolons to make this clearer.
      OK, I see now. The semicolons are an improvement, but how about "It is not known if the civilian gunmen were pro-Confederates, or were under the mistaken belief that the Union soldiers were guerrillas in captured uniforms, or if they were attempting to hamper the destruction of military supplies, hoping to take them themselves"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, even though I was always told in school that it was forbidden to use "or" more than once in a sentence Hog Farm Talk 17:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A map would be a bonus but this looks FAC-quality to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's always frustrating for me that I can't get good maps for most of my articles, and a lot of them there's not even a good map to use as an underlying work that predates the 1890s. Hog Farm Talk 17:48, 24 April 2022 (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_Little_Blue_River/archive1&oldid=1109403234"