Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Van Buren/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) 21 July 2022 [1].

Battle of Van Buren edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After Battle of St. Charles and Marmaduke-Walker duel, here is another Confederate failure in Arkansas. Of the three primary Southern figures at Van Buren, you have department commander Holmes who was kicked upstairs for incompetence elsewhere, army commander Hindman who has managed to completely alienate the state where he was once a popular politician, and outpost commander Crump who drew guard duty despite past poor performances in that area. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

As I supported this at ACR less than ten days ago I imagine that I will be doing the same here. But I will have another read through to see if I can find anything to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe "Disease, lack of supplies, and desertion had forced Hindman to previously begin withdrawing" → 'Disease, lack of supplies, and desertion had previously forced Hindman to begin withdrawing'?
    • Done
  • "the Union troops struck at an outlying Confederate cavalry unit". Consider deleting "at".
    • Done
  • "He was then replaced by Major General Theophilus Holmes". I'm not sure that "then" is necessary.
    • Done
  • "Hindman decided that it would be impractical to keep most of his force north of the Arkansas River in Van Buren given the condition of his army, and pulled most of his men south of the Arkansas to Fort Smith". "... most of his ... most of his ..."
    • Rephrased the first one
  • "had to travel through cold weather". Can one travel through weather?
    • Went with "during"; the other is a bit of a midwesternism (Missouri's half south and half midwest, so the English is a bit on the sketchy end)
  • Is there anything to link "commissary" to?
    • No great one unless it's well hidden. A specific military function in US armies at the time (the Confederates copied large swathes of the US Army structure)
  • "One of the Union mountain howitzers fired on the ferry at Van Buren, killing the horse powering it". The horse was on the ferry?

And that trivia is all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Abraham_Lincoln_-_a_history_(1914)_(14583544379)_(cropped).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
    • Yes, the book it's from was published before 1927, so I've added that tag
  • File:Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_(May_1861_–_July_1861).svg: why is the uploader believed to hold copyright to this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what exactly to do with this - the design has been published since it was created in 1861 so it's clearly pre-1927 PD, and Confederate copyright would have expired in 1889 because there would have been no way to renew after 1865 for ... reasons. Hog Farm Talk 03:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of a nitpick, but I wonder if it would look better if the James G. Blunt photo was right aligned, and the cannon photo left aligned? So that they would both turn towards the text instead of away from it?
    • swapper facing
  • No image for the infobox?
  • The Van Buren area doesn't seem to be linked in the article body.
    • Oops, fixed
  • Link Indian Territory at first instead of second mention.
    • Moved link
  • The name of R. P. Crump isn't spelled out like other names, which sticks out a bit.
    • Added (he's borderline notable, but not redlinked as an article on him doesn't seem likely in the near future)
  • "the river 2 miles below Van Buren" You give metric conversions elsewhere, but not here.
    • Converted
  • Some places you abbreviate to mi, other places you write out miles, could be consistent.
    • It should now only be miles on the first usage, which I think is reasonable
  • "crossed the river, apparently so that Blunt, Herron, and Huston could claim that they were the first Union officers to cross the Arkansas River" Could say something like "crossed the Arkansas River, apparently so that Blunt, Herron, and Huston could claim that they were the first Union officers to cross it", to avoid repetition of river and keep it concise?
    • Done
  • Link Parrott rifle and Fort Smith in image captions.
    • Done
  • "had previously forced Hindman to previously begin" Do we need the double "previously"?
    • Removed the second one

@FunkMonk: - I've implemented all of these except the infobox image. Any thoughts on using the map? Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the map could hurt at least. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the map to the infobox now, although I've had to shrink/move the other map to avoid MOS:SANDWICH issues. Hog Farm Talk 14:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You have two cites to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas ([1] and [51]), one as {{cite encyclopedia...}} and one as {{cite web...}}. I can see either one being appropriate, but they should be consistent. If you go with {{cite encyclopedia...}} I would add the publisher for consistency with the book citations. Also, those entries have "last updated" dates at the bottom; I think you could use those as the publication date for the page.

Sources are all reliable, and there are no other formatting issues. Links all work. The above is the only thing I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Mike Christie: - I've gotten these cites formatted consistently now. I was using the last updated date as the publication date, it's just that the Dougan cite had been updated after I'd used it. (I've updated the date and accessdate for the Dougan web cite after verifying that the content is still supported). Hog Farm Talk 18:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

This looks good on a first read through, HF. A few comments:

  • in the lead, suggest replacing "goods" with "supplies"
    • Done
  • the para beginning "After significant military activity in Missouri throughout 1861" doesn't clearly place the activities described in the state of Arkansas. For example, I couldn't deduce that the Battle of Pea Ridge was in Arkansas and had to go to the link. Can you work in "Arkansas" somewhere in the first or second sentence?
    • Done, as the location where Van Dorn formed his army
  • "moved most of the Confederate soldiers and supplies in Arkansas east of the Mississippi River and out of the state, leaving very little military organization in the state" the state...the state. Could you go with "east of the Mississippi River into <insert state(s) here>, leaving very little military organization in Arkansas."?
    • Added that they were initially moved into Tennessee (they were in Corinth, MS not much later but I don't think that's a rabbit hole that needs be entered here)
  • perhaps mention that Colonel Douglas H. Cooper commanded the Confederate troops at the First Battle of Newtonia as he crops up later? Was he commanding in Hindman's absence, or just one of a number of subordinate commanders?
    • Mentioned Cooper for Newtonia, and noted that overall command in Hindman's absence was given to a militia officer
  • It isn't clear from the initial mention that Schofield was in overall command, given he later withdraws all but Blunt's troops
    • I've tried to clarify this by noting when Schofield combined the various troops into his army
  • It might help the reader to picture the troop movements if cardinal directions were used a bit more (ie north across the Boston Mountains etc)
    • Working
  • the description of the Boston Mountains should probably be moved up to when they are first mentioned
    • Done
  • did Shaler command a brigade or just the 27th Arkansas Infantry Regiment?
  • Why did the Key West surrender at Strain's Landing? Were Union troops stationed there? If so, which units?
    • It just stopped there for unknown reasons and was caught up to. Added
  • what was Frost's command?
    • Frost commanded a division. Noted
  • "whothat had been sent there by Frost"
    • Done
  • "When Cloud arrived"? But hadn't he just sent the guns and cavalry? Did he go as well?
    • This was a very rough way of saying that the guns and cavalry arrived; clarified
  • "burned wharves and warehouses" in Van Buren or Fort Smith?
    • Fort Smith. Clarified
  • Bacon? That is a crying shame... But seriously, why single out out bacon though?
    • I've removed the reference to bacon.

That's it. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. For what it's worth, my view (formed from reviewing quite a few of these ACW articles) is that the Background section is about right. Context is needed, and the situation in the Trans-Mississippi was more complex than most. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dugan Murphy edit

I'll add something in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sentence that starts "The bombardment of Fort Sumter" is a bit much for one sentence and the phrase "Confederate troops forcing the surrender" doesn't read well to me. Rather than split it up, I recommend shortening and splitting to something like "The successful Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter in seceded territory on April 12 swung political opinion toward secession. The convention reconvened on May 6 and voted to secede later that day."
    • Done
  • The first instance of "Confederate States of America" is Wikilinked, but "Confederate" is used earlier in the article. Shouldn't the single-word use be Wikilinked and the other not, per MOS:DUPLINK,because it is the first occurrence?
    • Done
      • Now it appears that I've talked you into putting two Wikilinks side-by-side, which should be avoided per MOS:SPECIFICLINK. Can you reword this sentence again to avoid the adjacency of "Confederate" and "bombardment of Fort Sumter"? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rejigged
  • "the historian" – "the" doesn't seem necessary.
    • Not sure where the MOS stands on this, but it's frequently been suggested to me to do this to avoid the false title
  • The Background section is about the same length as the section on the battle itself. That strikes me as overly weighted toward background, though I don't read many battle articles, so I'm not familiar with the standards. What are your thoughts?
    • It was originally shorter see version that passed GA but additional material was added per reviewer request at A-Class and a little bit in the FAC. Is there anything specific you view as unnecessary? I'm open to cutting if there's a general consensus to do so
      • I'm looking for opportunities to summarize minutiae with sweeping statements. For instance, the play-by-play of the political conventions doesn't seem necessary for explaining a battle. It seems sufficient to me to offer that first sentence of the background section, then offer when Arkansas seceded, perhaps stating public opinion was initially anti-secessionist, but was swayed by Fort Sumter. Also, everything between "While Hindman was successful" and "constitutional rights'." seems extraneous to me. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've trimmed the detail about secession conventions and Arkansas politics significantly. I think it's important to state why Hindman was sacked, but I have gotten rid of the quote by Shea about fanaticism and constitutional rights. Not sure if ~60 words gone overall makes a huge difference, but it's a start
  • Wikilink and fully capitalize Arkansas River Valley?
    • Done. I didn't realize we had an article on that
  • "The Arkansas River provided a key communication pathway in a state largely devoid of infrastructure, was used for transportation, and" seems a little confusing and wordy to me. How about this: "The Arkansas River provided a key communication and transportation pathway in a state largely devoid of infrastructure and"
    • Done
  • Maybe this is too nitpicky, but "was an important agricultural area feeding the Confederate army" feels wrong. How about this: "was an agricultural area important for feeding the Confederate army"
    • Done
  • The sentence that starts "One infantry regiment" is way too long, so it is difficult to read. And maybe it's just me, but I recommend eliminating the past passive voice by changing "One infantry regiment and some artillery were left" to something like "Hindman left one infantry regiment and some artillery".
    • Removed the past voice and split the sentence
  • Rather than Native Americans in the United States, it would be more helpful to Wikilink Choctaw in the American Civil War or even Choctaw in the American Civil War#Trans-Mississippi Theater. If I'm right in identifying this article as the relevant one, then "Cooper's Native Americans" could be better described as "the First Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles" or "Choctaw and Chickasaw troops under Cooper's command".
    • Well, his brigade also included Cherokee and Creek (note: the Texas units were taken away from his command per Shea), so the more general link is probably better than listing off four tribes
      • If it was more than a disambiguation page, I'd recommend Wikilinking Native Americans in the American Civil War. Failing that, I still take issue with the wording "Cooper's Native Americans", which doesn't acknowledge their military status. Perhaps change to "Cooper's Native American troops" or something like that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Went with "Cooper's Native American troops"; I found it greatly annoying when the old Native Americans in the American Civil War article was deleted as a copyvio; I don't have the sourcing to resurrect it in a very good shape
  • Another nitpick: Is "had to travel" more appropriate than "traveled"?
    • I truly don't know. Changed.
  • "A halt was called" – another passive voice moment that I think would be more informative if the sentence states who called the halt. Must have been Blunt, right? Or whoever was in charge of the cavalry?
    • Unclear who called it, but I've rephrased to the simpler "The cavalry halted at Oliver's Store"
  • "By the time that the Union" – I think "that" is extraneous here.
    • Done
  • "Shaler's" should be "Shaver's", right?
    • No, this is correct. Shaver commanded the brigade, but one of the brigade's component regiments was named for it's commander, Colonel James R. Shaler
  • I think "Hunter's Missouri Infantry Regiment who had been sent there" should have a comma before "who". What do you think?
    • Added
  • "Several hundred slaves were also freed." – One: It's probably worth Wikilinking Slavery in the United States. Two: The way this sentence follows the preceding two sentences, it seems to me to really minimize the likely monumental experience of those who were freed from bondage that day. Worse, those enslaved Arkansans are described in the same light as the inanimate objects that were destroyed and plundered. I'd really like to see a rewrite here that centers the humanity of those being freed that day. Not necessarily more detail. Could be a simple rephrasing and reordering of the information in those sentences.
    • Linked, and I've moved the people before the inanimate objects. I'm open to ways of rephrasing, the sources don't say what happened to them after they were freed, so I can't really add much more detail. (I really really hope the answer to "what did they do next" isn't "The Union troops abandoned them in an area with no food and prowling Confederates", which happened a few times, but the sources don't say)
  • Maybe it's just my preoccupation with passive voice again, but "Significant military intelligence was garnered when Union troops found a number of Confederate messages in a telegraph office" could instead be "Union troops found a number of Confederate messages in a telegraph office, amounting to a significant amount of military intelligence" or something like that.
    • Done
  • "estimates them as about a dozen killed" is a little clunky to me, compared with "estimates about a dozen were killed".
    • Done

And that's what I see! I think the lede section does a good job of summarizing the main points and overall, the body seems sufficiently comprehensive without being overly detailed, except maybe for my comment above about the length of the background section. The article is generally well written in an appropriate voice and appears to be well cited with reliable sources, though I did not review the citations or the sources thoroughly. Thank you for your work on this article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dugan Murphy: - Thanks for the review! I've tried to address everything above. Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing. I've responded to three of your responses. Two of them are lingering but minor issues. The third is the larger issue of the level of detail in the background section. I added some suggestions on trimming that down, but feel free to push back on that, especially where my comments conflict with consensus gained in previous reviews. I like American history, but military history is a little out of my wheelhouse. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dugan Murphy: - The two more minor ones are completely done (I hope) and I've axed about 60 words from the background. I think it's a lot closer to the minimal amount, as there's a fair bit to recap in order to understand what exactly's going on with Blunt/Herron/Schofield and Hindman/Holmes. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • With all my comments resolved, I'd like to support this nomination. It looks ready to me. If you're up for doing some reviewing yourself, my FAC nomination of an 1828 novel is in dire need of attention. I hope you can give it a look. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:13, 18 July 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_Van_Buren/archive1&oldid=1109402527"