Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Poison Spring/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Battle of Poison Spring edit

Battle of Poison Spring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 4 May 2024, 20:51 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells the story of what one academic has described as the "worst war crime ever committed on Arkansas soil". On April 18, a Union wagon train was ambushed by Confederate cavalry. Despite the sounds of the battle being audible at the main Union camp, no assistance was sent. The battle then devolves into racially motivated butchery. While not as well-known as the Fort Pillow Massacre or the Lawrence Massacre, this is still one of the most infamous war crimes of the American Civil War. Hog Farm Talk 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 03:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elli edit

Will review shortly. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • Given that the Red River campaign and the Camden Expedition are linked prominently in prose, hatnote probably isn't necessary.
    • Removed
  • Would it be possible to include a map showing the military situation? Fine if not ofc.
    • Closest thing that exists on Commons that I'm aware of is File:Red River Campaign map.jpg while is unusable because it shows Steele coming down out of what is now Oklahoma for some reason rather than through Arkansas Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began a joint operation up the Red River" wouldn't "along" make more sense? "up" implies going upstream, but the forces in Arkansas would be heading downstream towards Louisiana. Looking at the article on the campaign it seems like forces headed in from both directions, so "along" would contextually make more sense here.
    • Rephrased both here and in the lead
  • A map showing the details of the campaign would also be useful (such as the movements from Little Rock to Arkadelphia and the meeting in Prairie D'Ane with troops from Fort Smith).
    • Unfortunately, we lack one and it's beyond my ability to create anything like that. This exists and is public domain but is somewhat illegible and I can't imagine that it would be overly useful to a reader even if clearer due to the surrounding area being blank, leaving no context. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prelude
  • "All but one of the steam-powered gristmills in the area had been destroyed; Stelle sent part of the 36th Iowa Infantry Regiment to operate it on April 17." would probably read clearer as "Only one of the steam-powered gristmills in the area remained usable; Stelle sent part of the 36th Iowa Infantry Regiment to operate it on April 17."
    • Done
  • "quartermaster, Captain Charles A. Henry with" should have either a comma after "Henry", or not one after "quartermaster"
    • Added one after Henry
  • link no quarter in the quote?
    • Done
  • The first mention of White Oak Creek implies we should already know what it is. Was that their destination? Should probably mention the name earlier if so.
    • I've added a reference earlier - Thayer told Williams that there was probably a lot of forage around White Oak Creek
Battle
  • Fixed a few typos here.
    • Thank you!
  • "Steele did not attempt to aid the foraging party" do we know why? (fine if not ofc)
    • Nobody really seems to know; I've added a statement to this effect sourced to DeBlack 2003b
Massacre
  • Do any scans of this Washington Telegraph "reporting" exist?
    • Eakin's later racist screed had been clipped on newspapers.com. Ditto with "Choctaw Humor". I'd rather not include an image of the editorial as it doesn't directly refer to Poison Spring and is incredibly inflammatory and I don't think the short "Choctaw Humor" piece really warrants an image. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay after reading, not wanting to include those is totally understandable. Maybe including links to these as additional citations or footnotes would make sense? Ultimately your editorial call but I was interested to read the full writings after reading that paragraph and I don't think I would be the only one. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've included the longer piece as an external link
Aftermath and preservation
  • Given that this appears to have received recent scholarship, is it worth discussing analysis of this battle/massacre explicitly? I know this is discussed some in the Massacre section but wondering if more could be added here.
    • I don't know that there's much basis for a discussion like this. The scholarship doesn't really interact with each other at all, and all of the modern sources tend to agree pretty well on what happened. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Maybe worth mentioning that this was part of the Camden Expedition in the infobox as well?
    • Done
  • Would suggest a mention of this being considered a particularly notable massacre.
    • Done

Didn't conduct a source review here so my comments are just based on the prose. Nice work! This was an interesting though rather sad read. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: - Thanks for the review! I've replied above. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any free to use good maps for the Camden Expedition. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look good so happy to support. And yeah, unfortunately making such maps is outside of my expertise as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "fought in Ouachita County, Arkansas on", "had moved from Little Rock, Arkansas towards": per MOS:GEOCOMMA there should be a comma after Arkansas.
    • Done
  • "By early 1864, the Confederacy's likelihood of winning the American Civil War against the Union was slimming. The Confederate situation in Arkansas was particularly bad." I think these two sentences should be merged, perhaps "By early 1864, the Confederacy's likelihood of winning the American Civil War against the Union was slimming and the Confederate situation in Arkansas was particularly bad."
    • Done
  • The "Battle" section is quite long, with large paragraphs and lots of text. I suggest dividing up the larger paragraphs and splitting this with level 3 headings. This will make it easier and more inviting for the reader.
    • I've split this into two subsections. I do think we tend to underestimate our readers' attention spans. Although I also read 600 page books from cover to cover for fun, so I may not be the best judge on this matter. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I base my observations about attention span on my high school students, who struggle with reading large amounts of text. I also think subsections are great for navigation and helping readers find the information they are looking for. Z1720 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the battle section uses phrasing like "the operation would depend on Maxey's men", "and would provide cover to Confederate troops" I would prefer more definitive statements here (removing a lot of "would") and instead talk about what actually happened. Is this planning language used to try to describe why certain troops made the decisions that they did?
    • I've removed one use of "would" (the Maxey example given above). For the most part, I'm trying use it as planning language to describe the situation as it was seen by the participants. For instance, the "would provide cover" exaple is in a section discussing the initial Union deployment - it doesn't make sense to me to say "provided cover to Confederate troops" in that spot when chronologically this is before Maxey's men take up a position there Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams's soldiers were running out of ammunition for both their small arms and artillery." Is there an indication when in the battle this was noted? If so, it should be included in the article.
    • I've clarified this
  • "and focus of saving his remaining men." and focus on?
    • Done
  • "The 1st Kansas Colored alone lost 182 men. Of those 182 losses, 117 were killed and 65 wounded; it was unusual during the war for units to have more men killed than wounded." -> "The 1st Kansas Colored lost 182 men, of which 117 were killed and 65 wounded; it was unusual during the war for units to have more men killed than wounded."
    • Done
  • "the historian Mark K. Christ" remove the as is it not necessary here. There's a couple other places where "the historian" is used and "the" can be removed, so if this is removed the rest of the article should also be checked.
    • I've actually been advised by reviewers on other articles specifically to include the "the" in order to avoid a false title
  • "The historian Gregory J. W. Urwin describes" Is this Gregory J. W. Urwin? If so, wikilink
    • Yes, that's him. The Civil War History article listed in the bibliography there was slightly edited and reprinted as the Urwin 2000 source being cited. Linked.
  • "with the only reference to the massacre being publishing the story about using dead" -> with only one reference to the massacre in a story about...
    • Done

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in this. One respond above about section length, but overall my concerns have been addressed so I support. Z1720 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino edit

Another interesting episode. Small things from a first readthrough. Will return to it this evening for another go. Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A Union force commanded by... and had occupied Camden." any way to split this into two sentences? Had to read it three times to follow.
  • "began a joint operation along the Red River, known as the Red River campaign" kind of repetitive to read, and you don't talk more about the "Red River campaign" by name later.
    • I think its important to give the accepted name of the campaign here, since the Camden Expedition was closely related to the Red River campaign Hog Farm Talk 01:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Additionally, the campaign also" "Additionally... also" is redundant. Either will suffice.
  • "numberical" assume this is a typo and not a military term?
    • A spelling error; fixed. I blame the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for my bad spelling. Hog Farm Talk 01:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stelle" typo for Steele or unintroduced character?
  • "Most Cabell and Crawford's" → "Most of Cabell..."?
  • "for Confederate attempt" → "a Confederate attempt" or "Confederate attempts"

Source review edit

The article cites 16 sources. Five are books published by university publishing houses of local universities. The Bearss book is from Pioneer Press, which I couldn't find out much about; but Bearss himself was a National Park Service historian with a strong reputation, so that seems solid. Forsyth teaches military history at a US military college, and the publisher is known in this field. Two from a book published by Houghton Mifflin; reputable publisher. Three from a book published by August House – presumably not the same this one that seems to publish children's books? Either way the three chapters are written by professors of military history, so I'm not concerned. The last is a paper in American Journalism. Seems solid. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas source is probably reliable (the author has published several books on adjacent topics), and it's only used with direct attribution for the author's estimate, so that seems uncontroversial. Two parks websites provide uncontroversial details.

All said, this seems like a clear source review pass. Another excellent piece of work. Ajpolino (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per this August House use to be based in Arkansas and would publish some Arkansas-centric material. The copyright info in the print copy indicates that it was published in association with the Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Our article at August House combined with the Encyclopedia of Arkansas information gives me the impression that the people who bought it out in '04 were mainly interested in the children's books line. Pioneer Press also published Sterling Price: Lee of the West in the '50s and it looks like they also published some CS unit histories around that same time too. "Confederate-themed publisher in the South in the '50s and '60s" usually doesn't bode well, but anything by Bearss is generally above reproach so I think it's fine. Hog Farm Talk 17:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds solid to me. I admit this review made me chuckle (academics can be harsh), but otherwise Bearss seemed to garner universal praise. Ajpolino (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • Bearss 1967 needs an OCLC - 1843035
    • Added
  • And Rhodes 2005 - ISSNN 0882-1127; OCLC 1075937713.
    • Added
  • "In the April 30 Battle of Jenkins' Ferry, men from the 2nd Kansas Colored Infantry Regiment murdered Confederate soldiers in revenge of the massacre at Poison Spring. It has been referred to as the worst massacre in the history of Arkansas." I am guessing that you don't mean to state that the battle of Jenkins' Ferry "has been referred to as the worst massacre in the history of Arkansas"? I could be wrong.
    • Oops, reworded
  • "was slimming"! Maybe 'By By early 1864, it was unlikely that the Confederacy's would win the American Civil War against the Union, and the ...' or similar?
    • Done
  • "skirmishing between the two sides occurred over the next few days in the Battle of Prairie D'Ane". Perhaps a little more information about this?
    • I've changed to "protracted skirmishing between ...". There's really nothing to describe Prairie D'Ane as besides several days of skirmishing
  • "three understrength cavalry divisions". Is the number of combatants known?
    • 1,500 for Maxey and 3,200 in the other two. Added.
  • "Williams pushed his men on further on the morning". Can we avoid "... on further on .."?
    • Rephrased
  • The last two paragraphs of "Battle" are long.
    • Split
  • "Maxey met with Marmaduke and deferred to Marmaduke's plan of action." Maybe 'and accepted to Marmaduke's plan of action'?
    • Done
  • "published by the journal American Journalism". When?
    • Clarified

Looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 03:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the other two divisions about 3,200." Each or in total? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Poison_Spring/archive1&oldid=1222224249"