Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Battle of Newtonia/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2020 [1].

First Battle of Newtonia edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Bacon 02:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes my first FA nomination, with many thanks to a pre-nomination FAC mentorship by User:Gog the Mild. This was a smallish scrap on the fringes of the American Civil War, mainly noted for the role Native Americans played on either side. In the end, this battle had no real lasting effect of any sort, as the victors abandoned Missouri without a real fight less that a month later, restoring the status quo. Hog Farm Bacon 02:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass
  • PM's suggestions about improving the number of sources cited to clarify that a statement is more widely supported are good ones and should be followed. I think you should cite the Tucker source as well.
  • All the sources look reliable enough for what they are cited for.
  • Could you cite another source to verify the occurrence of Second Battle of Newtonia?
    • Yeah, I'll sling in Kennedy.
  • Who wrote the summary in the National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form? US government employee or someone else?
    • I found the four preparers in the back of the document, hidden amongst some lists and maps. I've added their names.
  • I checked some of the online sources. The only issue I found was:
    • "The Civil War Trust has acquired and preserved 8 acres (3.2 ha) of the battlefield" -> source says "The Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association preserves and interprets the Matthew H. Ritchey home and 25 acres of surrounding 1862 and 1864 battlefields." The website does mention "saving" 8 acres in the heading, which is more clearly explained at the link, although not mentioning the Civil War Trust. Also, what do they mean by "saving"? To improve verifiability, it would help to cite a different page(s) of the website where these issues are explained. (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Buidhe: - I've replaced the previous citation with a citation to the saved land page and accompanied that with a citation to one of the "About us" pages on the group's website that kinda explains what "saved land" means. Is the current setup sufficient there? Hog Farm Bacon 03:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The added page helps explain, but it doesn't support the text because it states that land is sometimes acquired by the trust and sometimes made into a conservation easement. So we would need another source to verify that the eight acres were acquired. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about "The American Battlefield Trust has participated in the preservation of 8 acres (3.2 ha) of the battlefield" for the phrasing? I'm not finding information on the exact details of the group's actions here. After looking in the article history, I think that sentence was added by an apparent SPA that likely had an undisclosed COI with the organization, as that user's contributions consist of adding information about the organization's work in various battlefield articles.
            • Yes, or alternately "organized the preservation", that is supported by the source. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia entry Tucker et al. is attributed to two specific writers, it should be attributed to them while the editors are credited as such. (t · c) buidhe 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Is the second infobox necessary, given that we already have a separate article on the historical district? I think the article would be improved by its removal, keeping in mind summary style. (t · c) buidhe 19:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe and Gog the Mild: - Removed as no longer necessary. It's a relic of the previous state of the article, as the historical district was a redirect until I expanded it in March or April
@Buidhe: - I've fixed the Tucker issue. Hog Farm Bacon 02:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

Lead and infobox
  • The First Battle of Newtonia was battle fought on September 30, 1862
    • Done
  • for advance force link Vanguard
    • Done
  • suggest moving the NRHP template to the last section, and add a Missouri location map to the military conflict template with a pog for the location of the battle
    • Done, although the NRHP template does break into the references section now.
  • is Edward Lynde not notable?
    • Probably not. Never made it above colonel, and this was one of his most influential moments.
  • is there a name for "A large Union force"
    • Blunt's division. Added.
  • add the casualty figures to the lead
    • Done
  • None of the "Units involved" in the infobox are mentioned in the body by those names, if not proper formations, then decap brigade
    • All were pretty ephemeral except for Shelby's. I decapped the other two and referred to Shelby's brigade by it's common name at first mention

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body
  • Bearss is not an adequate source for the high-level first para of the Background section. Find academic sources and use them to summarise the period from Lincoln's election to the beginning of the ACW.
    • I found a source that I think'll work, and I should have access to this journal full-text through my university, but the log-in part of the website is down. [2] is a link to the source. I have no idea when my university's library system site will be functional enough for me to access this.
      • Because my knowledge of the origins of the ACW is sketchy, I pulled out my copy of The Oxford Companion to Military History (2001) p. 35, and while it is a generalist WP:TERTIARY source, is is reliable, and the ACW entry is written by British ACW specialist Brian Holden-Reid. It is very clear from the entry that the ACW resulted from disagreement between North (anti-slavery) and South (pro-slavery) over slavery, that "states' rights" is really just Confederate "code" for their defence of slavery, and the war was precipitated by the election of Lincoln without a single electoral vote from the South and the Southern states rejection of the result. Also that the idea that slavery was a positive good was popular in the South by 1860 and many there considered that it was an integral aspect of a unique Southern culture which could only be protected by independence. I don't think the current wording is sufficiently clear on these points to meet Featured Article expectations. I think it is entirely acceptable to use Holden-Reid as a source for this high-level material, and am happy to email you a scan. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do. As a southerner, I'm aware that the causes of the war are very controversial (the Lost Cause is still alive and kicking; I was actually taught a form of it in school growing up). I really think the idea of having a non-American source for this background is an extremely good idea, as having a source more aloof from remaining scars of the war is probably more neutral. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say that Lyon was the commander of the federal St. Louis Arsenal
    • Done
  • "This claim was soon disproved." doesn't sit right. It may have been true, as the Confederates were in Arkansas, perhaps "Even if true, this state of affairs was short-lived."
    • Done
  • for "spearheaded" link Vanguard
    • Done
  • "Colonel James Totten's division was expected to leave Springfield on September 29" to join the two brigades?
    • Not explicitly stated. Should I just remove this?
      • If it doesn't have any bearing on the battle or its aftermath, yes. But what was the "a much larger Union force" mentioned in the Aftermath? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nvm. It was part of the larger force. I've tried to clarify that in the aftermath now. Wood doesn't have an index, so it's hard to find things.

Down to Opposing forces. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Union cavalry consisted of the 6th and 9th Kansas, the 2nd Ohio, and 3rd Wisconsin Cavalry Regiments. Infantry regiments present at the battle were the 10th and 13th Kansas, and 9th Wisconsin Infantry Regiments. Artillery came from the 1st and 2nd Kansas Light Artillery Batteries and the 25th Ohio Battery,[22] fielding total of 12 cannons.[23]"
    • Done
  • "Three of the cannons were 3-inch rifles and two were mountain howitzers." do we know what sort of guns the rest were fielding?
    • This came up in the ACR. Not that I've seen, I can give Wood another perusal.

Down to Battle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peacemaker67: - It may take me awhile to find an article in a good, scholarly journal for replacing Bearss with that one paragraph. Most of the military history journals I can access through my university are absolute garbage, a lot aren't even peer reviewed. *:( Hog Farm Bacon 01:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • just to maintain the sequencing of the previous sentence, I would go with "The patrol to Neosho participated in a small action, but the men sent to Granby saw no Confederate soldiers."
    • Done
  • "two regiments of Shelby's cavalry" which regiments?
    • Clarified
      • "5th Missouri Cavlary" has a typo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops. Fixed.
      • @Peacemaker67: - I need to do some more research here. Bearss indicates that the 5th Missouri Cavalry was sent to Newtonia on the 29th and remained in Newtonia. However, Bearss later states on page 304 that the unit was not at Newtonia initially on the 30th, and had to be sent to Newtonia later. Wood has the same ambiguity, which may be because Wood uses Bearss 1966 as a source. Hog Farm Bacon 23:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know which gunners went with Lynde? presumably not the howitzers?
  • suggest "the regimentTexans occupied the abandoned town"
    • Done
  • do we know how many companies Salomon sent to Lynde?
    • The 150 men, no. I've tried to make Jacobi's strength clearer. Which specific point are you asking about
      • when you introduce Lynde's force in the Prelim action subsection, can you add that it included the two mountain howitzers of Company F? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, Company F of the 9th Kansas also had guns? These should be noted alongside the guns listed in the Opposing forces section. Also, in the note, just use "Company F", not "Company "F"", Company F (and F Company) are commonly used in military articles.
    • Done
      • Can you note when they are introduced, that the Company F guns were also mountain howitzers? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Peacemaker67: - The third sentence of the prelim section is "The force headed for Newtonia consisted of 150 men commanded by Colonel Edward Lynde of the 9th Kansas Cavalry and two mountain howitzers.", with a note mentioning Company F of the 9th Kansas Cavalry. Is this not satisfactory? I'm not sure what would need to be done otherwise.
  • The details of the battle need more sources, it is almost completely Bearss' version of events (however eminent he may be within the NPS) which isn't enough to ensure we have a neutral and academically-consensus description of what went on. There must be other reliable sources on this battle.
    • @Peacemaker67: I may wind up having to withdraw this. Of the sourcing I have available to me, Gerteis gives only a brief overview, Kennedy gives only a couple paragraphs, and Wood is published by the History Press, which specializes in hyperlocal history and isn't the most scholarly source. Foote only gives a brief overview. O'Flaherty has a strong pro-Shelby bias, and uses John Newman Edwards for a lot of his battle description, so I don't want to draw on him much. The Official Records are primary source battle reports, and one side's "pickets were driven in" is the other side's "drove the enemy a sizable distance", so that isn't very helpful for piecing together what happened. I'll probably withdraw this tomorrow, since I don't think I can do a whole lot with the available sourcing beyond what's been done, except for some chronological materials or relying on Wood heavily. As far as I'm aware, Wood is the only full book-length treatment of this battle. Hog Farm Bacon 03:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't do that. It is fine to use Bearss, but not just Bearss. We need corroboration of the details of the battle from other reliable sources. There is an entry covering details of the battle in Spencer C. Tucker's American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection on pages 1400–1401, so that should be used to bolster Bearss. If you can't access both pages via Google Books preview, ask for copies at WP:RSX. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd add that you can (and should) use Wood to corroborate details from Bearss where they agree on a detail. It would be better if sentences (or every few sentences) were individually cited to two sources at least, particularly anything that might be challenged, like the success of a charge, who routed and when etc. This isn't needed with every fact, (like the presence of a regiment), but in the case of possibly controversial information it would give reviewers the assurance that this is not just a reflection of Bearss' views, and that other sources had been accessed and relevant details included from them. Where sources differ, compare and contrast what they say, don't pick winners unless one source is clearly far more reliable than the others that vary. This is very important at FA, to ensure that criteria 1b. (comprehensiveness) is met. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Does this still apply if Wood uses Bearss as a source fairly faithfully, even to the extent of perpetuating apparent contradictions in Bearss? Hog Farm Bacon 00:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I wouldn't use Wood to perpetuate contradictions, and if Bearss contradicts himself, you need to highlight this using notes, if they are contradictions between the reliable sources, you should compare and contrast them in the article, but if Wood is clearly relying on Bearss for something and the material in Wood is identical, there is little point in including Wood. However, Tucker needs to be used where possible to add detail and reinforce Bearss. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I also found out that Gerteis' battle description is largely based off of O'Flaherty. So essentially, the print sources are a bunch mainly using the same two.
                • Tucker? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Working.
                    • IMHO the Battle section is now adequately supported by sources in addition to Bearss now, so I'm happy with this one. Just suggest that you put the cites in numerical order, ie [23][27][32] rather than [23][32][27]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Salomon sent the 6th Kansas Cavalry" but the last we heard of them, they were attempting to cut off the Confederate skirmish line, so surely they were already committed?
    • Clarified that the morning bit was only 45 men, and that it was the rest of the regiment in the later action
  • weren't the 3rd Indian Home Guard already part of Jacobi's force?
    • I've clarified that only 50 men were in the morning, and that the rest was sent.
  • "The Confederates were aware that additional Union soldiers were coming" I was under the impression the Union troops were retreating?
    • Rephrased
  • the September 30 subsection is a bit confusing, with units being part of Jacobi's force earlier in the day and being recommitted later by Salomon. In general, we need a bit more granular information about the movements of the various units, particularly the Union ones, their retreat and return to the fray.
  • "3:30 in the afternoonp.m."
    • Went with 24-hour clock time
  • Jeans' Rregiment
    • Done
  • for night battle link Night combat
    • Done

Down to Aftermath. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • say where the Battle of Clark's Mill was
    • Done
  • I would change the piping to "battles of Westport in Missouri, and Mine Creek in Kansas.
    • Done
  • "much as he did in the 1862 battle" doesn't follow what is in the article. A couple of Shelby's regiments are mentioned in the Prelim subsection, he isn't mentioned at all in the September 30 subsection, and he led the rearguard of the retreat after the battle ended. From the article it appears that Cooper was directing things, allocating resources etc. Was Shelby commanding the two regiments sent to Newtonia on the 29th?
    • Nixed. A leftover from an earlier version of the article where O'Flaherty was used heavily, and his excessive focus on Shelby included
  • The Mathew H. Ritchey house→Mathew H. Ritchey House, if that is its formal name as when first mentioned?
    • Done
  • there is no need for the {{rp|34}} citation formatting, as cite web supports the |page= parameter. This and the one in the NPS template are different from the rest of the article.
    • The two rp instances were to the same reference, so that wouldn't work. What I did was to move that PDF to the sources, and then use sfns to deal with it.
  • move the author-link parameter to the first Bearss source.
    • Done

As this is your first FAC, I'll take a look at the images and sources formatting as well. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in Note a, add Regiment
    • Done
  • not for this article, but could you add a field for leaders to the Missouri in the American Civil War navbox?
    • Done. Picked three of the more prominent from each side, although other editors may think other selections could have been better. Went with Ewing Jr, Lyon, and Curtis for the Union, and Price, Shelby, and Marmaduke for the Confederates
  • are there any useable pics of Salomon, Cooper, Lynde or Jacobi?
    • @Peacemaker67: - There's images of Salomon and Cooper on Commons, but they aren't really useable, as the date of original publication is unknown, so PD can't be proven. I can find images for all four on the internet, but the issue is that with all of the period images, the date of publication isn't recorded, so using the images would result in failing the image review since PD can't be proven. I also looked for Hawpe with the same results.
      • Best I can find is [3], which indicates a date of likely taking, but doesn't have a publication date.
        • Ok, I couldn't find any of them in the Brady-Handy Collection, and I had a look for regimental histories published pre-1925, but no dice. If they aren't available, they aren't available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • given my observation about Shelby's involvement, is he really a priority for an image?
    • He's mostly in there because I can't find an image of any of the other primary commanders that can be proven is PD.
  • what would be really useful would be a map of the battle itself, showing the movement of forces.
    • There's not a free one in existence that I've seen, and I don't have the expertise to create one
      • In that case, what would be really useful would be some indications of which directions troops were approaching from etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wound up finding an NPS map searching in a NPS PDF for corroborating details to support Bearss. I'm uploading it on Commons to add to the article.

That is all I could find. This article is in great shape, just a few changes needed to bring it up to FA level. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm gonna call it a night on this one now. I've gleaned some stuff from Tucker and I found a NPS report with a couple pages for it. It's gonna be a bit tricky here, as Bearss is the only source I've seen that gives more than 2.5 pages to this battle, so he has by far the most detail. Hog Farm Bacon 03:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one has needed so much work already during this FAC ... Hog Farm Bacon 03:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've determined that I'm just gonna have to indicate that Bearss says the 5th and Jeans' stayed in Newtonia on the 29, but other sources (Tucker and McGhee's regimental histories) indicate the two units were not at Newtonia at the beginning of the 30. I'll add that tomorrow. My writing skills aren't quite up to fac grade yet, so this'll be a slow process. Hog Farm Bacon 04:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Peacemaker67: - I'm trying to glean as much as I can to support Bearss from the sources that don't cite Bearss. Is this becoming an improvement? This FAC has felt like a giant mess to me. Hog Farm Bacon 03:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Definitely improving. This is often the case as new FAC nominees adjust to the higher expectations, particularly of sourcing and comprehensiveness. Don't worry about it, doing doing great. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Peacemaker67: - I made a breakthrough and found an old 1922 source online that had a good description of this battle that was able to back up Bearss in several places. I also added a couple more cites to McGhee. I'm worrying I'm starting to run out of additional possible sources I can find to add, though. I've looked through just about every print source I can find, and almost none even mention this scrap. I'm getting deep into the bowels of Google scholar and Google books, too. Hog Farm Bacon 03:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Peacemaker67: - I've cited a peer-reviewed, well-respected (IMO) journal for the causes stuff. Personally, I think Bearss is a good enough source for the secession dates and order, but I can find another source for that if desired. Is this satisfactory? Hog Farm Bacon 01:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • All good for me now and I consider it meets the FA criteria. I appreciate this has been a bit of an ordeal, but it takes a bit to adjust to FAC. Well done. Gog the Mild, all yours, mate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Peacemaker. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Placeholder. I will wait for Peacemaker67 to finish, or get close to that, before reading this, so we are not both picking up the same issues.

Nb. It is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

"I'm getting deep into the bowels of Google scholar and Google books." :-) Tell me about it. It can sometimes feel like trying to make bricks without straw can't it? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe, Gog the Mild, and Peacemaker67: - How does the source diversification look now? I think I've diversified sources about as much as I can, except for Wood, which heavily uses Bearss and thus isn't great for supporting Bearss; O'Flaherty, who is very pro-Shelby biased; and John Newman Edwards, who is utterly unreliable. I've gone through Google books and Google scholar to the point that all of the results were no longer about this battle, and I've gone through all of the pages of Google search results Google brings up. I've checked just about every print book I have access to. I'm not sure there's too much more I can add. For using a source other than Bearss for the high-level first paragraph of the background section, I'm still waiting for my university's JSTOR login page to decide to function. Hog Farm Bacon 03:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna pass on this and leave it to Peacemaker, who seems to have looked at this aspect in some detail. and Buidhe, who did the source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at this prior to nomination, and Peacemaker seems to have given it a thorough going over, so I am not sure how much I will find. If I flag up an issue which you have already sorted with PM, just say so.

  • Might it be worth red linking "Salomon's brigade"?
    • I'm gonna say this unit probably isn't notable. It was a bit ad hoc and sort of ephemeral.
  • "The First Battle of Newtonia was fought on September 30, 1862, near Newtonia, Missouri during the American Civil War. It was fought between ..." Could we avoid "was fought" twice in successive sentences?
    • I've combined the two
  • "Union militia commanded by Colonel George Hall covered the Union retreat". Suggest deleting the first "Union"; I think that I reader will understand that without being told.
    • Done
  • "although the Confederate artillery fire struck". Delete "the".
    • Done
  • "In the United States during the early 19th century, a large cultural divide began to grow between"> Optional: not sure that "began to grow" is encyclopedic. Maybe 'developed'?
    • Done
  • "Many southerners decided to reject the legitimacy"> I am not enthusiastic about this phraseology; maybe 'Many southerners rejected the legitimacy'?
    • Done
  • "and began promoting secession". "began" - it wasn't being promoted before then? Perhaps 'and promoted secession'?
    • Done
  • "formed the Confederate States of America; Jefferson Davis became the first President of the Confederate States of America." " of the Confederate States of America" is redundant.
    • Rephrased
  • "Lincoln requested that the states remaining in the Union provide 75,000 volunteers for the war effort." "war effort" - possibly a mention somewhere that war broke out/was declared?
OK
  • "the Missouri State Guard, a militia organization" Link militia.
    • Linked
  • "was plagued by guerrilla attacks from prominent bushwhacker". Does it matter that the bushwackers were prominent. (And don't you mean that their leeaders were?) Suggest deleting "prominent" - "including William Quantrill" makes the point.
    • Removed
  • "Estimation of Confederate strength vary." I'm not sure that this is a grammatical sentence. Maybe 'Estimates of the Confederate strength vary'?
    • It's not. I went with your suggestion
  • "Historian Daniel O'Flaherty provides a similar range". Start the sentence with "The" to avoid false title and "provides a similar range" suggests that Foote has provided a range, which they haven't.
    • Done. First time I'd heard of false titles, it's something I need to be aware of from now on.
I was taught it last year on about my third FAC. I like the good morning test.
  • "The force headed for Newtonia consisted of 150 men, in four companies, commanded by Colonel Edward Lynde of the 9th Kansas Cavalry" Were the 150 men from the 9th Kansas Cavalry, or only the commander?
    • From the regiment. Clarified
  • "the Union artillery advanced nearer to the Confederate lines". Either 'advanced nearer the Confederate lines' or 'advanced closer to the Confederate lines'.
    • Went with closer to
  • "Some of the infantrymen of the 9th Wisconsin Infantry". Optional: "infantrymen" → 'men'. It may be considered that the "Infantry" in their unit's title gives away what their role was.
    • Done. Makes sense.
  • "sent the 34th Texas Cavalry there to reinforce Hawpe. The Texans had been taking shelter behind a stone wall" I realise that there is a paragraph break, but a reader is likely to assume that "The Texans" were from the 34th.
    • Fixed. It was the 31st
  • "Union artillery again shelled the Confederate position". I assume that the source confirms that they were firing shells, as opposed to eg round shot?
    • Good catch. Replaced shelled with "fired at"
  • "Confederate reinforcements in the form of the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles and the 5th Missouri Cavalry arrived" → 'Confederate reinforcements in the form of the 1st Choctaw, the Chickasaw Mounted Rifles and the 5th Missouri Cavalry arrived' or "The 1st Choctaw and the Chickasaw Mounted Rifles also counterattacked" → 'The 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles also counterattacked'.
    • Fixed. The official title of the regiment is the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles
  • "Four companies of the 9th Wisconsin Infantry were stated to have suffered particularly high losses." Would that be the same four companies which contributed 150 men to the morning's probe?
    • Yes. Specified and cited to Bearss
  • "Salomon's command had represented only the advance guard of Blunt's command." Would it be possible to avoid using "command" twice?
    • Changed
  • "his line of retreat was in danger of being cut off by the Union advance". Delete "off".
    • Done
  • "after a brief shelling of the town". Again checking that it was exclusively shell fire?
    • Changed to bombardment. I have a bad habit of using "shelling" as a euphemism for any artillery fire.
  • "The Confederate Native American troops retreated back to Indian Territory; others retreated into northwestern Arkansas." Do you mean 'the others retreated'? If so, perhaps 'the other units retreated into northwestern Arkansas'?
    • Done

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A fine little article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Adding this to the urgents list to hopefully get more reviews. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from WA8MTWAYC edit

Great work, Hog Farm. I've not come across any issues, although I've only got two minor comments regarding the linking:

  • Maybe link United States in "In the United States during the early 19th century"?
  • Link companies at the first attempt, not the second. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Great catch.

Many thanks, WA8MTWAYC. I'm glad someone from outside the MILHIST project was able to take a look at this, I was concerned about potential jargon in here. Hog Farm Bacon 17:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. It was clear to follow and I enjoyed reading the article. Well done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2020 (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/First_Battle_of_Newtonia/archive1&oldid=1109403221"