Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/3rd Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

3rd Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

3rd Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After a very thorough GA review by Sturmvogel 66 and a little bit of post-GANR work of my own, I think this meets/is close to meeting the A-Class criteria. This unit was a scrappy ACW regiment that was in service for about a year and a half. After fighting hard at two battles in 1862 and the Vicksburg campaign, the unit was so decimated it had to be consolidated with another unit in late 1863. A note on the Organization section: there's several schools of how to handle this, so I'm willing to rework this section to include more/less detail so long as a consensus on what should be included is formed. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Nice work thus far. A few comments:

Lead

• not directly for this article, but the Battle of Farmington, Mississippi should be at Battle of Farmington (Mississippi), and in the lead of this article, "While stationed at Corinth, Mississippi, the regiment played a minor role in the Battle of Farmington before the Confederate evacuation of the town." as we have already established the unit was at Corinth and therefore in Mississippi
  • Created the redirect, and used piped links at both usages. FWIW, the Battle of Farmington is a section in the Siege of Corinth article, not it's own page
    • That's fine, it may one day be forked off. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• "at theat point"
  • Done
• "the Confederate defensive works"
  • Done
• "After Union infantry was landed in Mississippi" was this Grant's Army of the Tennessee? Was it only infantry at this point?
  • Giving the full army name, since there was definitely artillery in the landing, too.

Body

• add a main template to the top of the Background section for Missouri in the American Civil War
  • Done
• Novemeber
  • Oopsy. Fixed.
• suggest "had previously held a vote in Jefferson City in July rejecting secession"
  • Done
• link Regiment#United States Army and company (military unit)
  • Done
• suggest "while the regiment was stationed at Springfield" if that is right?
  • Yes, that would be correct. The previous wording apparently was the result of a botched attempt at removing a duplink of Springfield.
• "Price's Ddivision, which contained Little's Bbrigade" there are other examples like Gates' Brigade and Green's Brigade
  • @Peacemaker67: - Sturmvogel 66 requested this in the GANR. I'm ambivalent on this, although part of me does wonder if formally organized Confederate units should have the capitalization: Most armies use 1st Division, 2nd Brigade, etc. but the Confederates named units after their commanders, so Gates' Brigade was the literal name of the unit. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced by a Google Books search, seems the sources are split on this one. One reason I hesitate is that these brigades all seem to be ad hoc temporary formations, like the ACW divisions, with the constituent regiments or brigades changing constantly, along with the commanders. The lack of articles for these higher-level formations also mitigates against it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense. I've corrected the ones I found, hopefully I caught them all. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Colonel Rives had been mortally wounded"
  • Done
• "the regiment was present at the Battle of Farmington, Mississippi"
  • Done
• "the 2nd and 5th Missouri Infantry Regiments"
  • Done
• "but only the 2nd Missouri Infantry of Gates' Brigade was heavily engaged" we already know what brigade
  • Done
• is W. H. Moore the same Colonel William H. Moore (1829–1862) who was formerly the colonel of 43rd Mississippi Infantry and who was mortally wounded at Corinth?
  • Yeah. Spelled out rank and full name
• began asn assault
  • Fixed
• "However, Colonel Pritchard was shot in the shoulder and had to be carried off the field; Major Hubbell took command of the regiment."
  • Done
• "Pritchard's wound proved to be mortal"
  • Done
• is Lieutenant Colonel Gause the same as William R. Gause? Did he become lieutenant colonel after Rives was wounded or was he transferred in at the time of Pritchard's wounding?
  • Yep, it's William R. I've specified his origins to. For some reason, they elevated him from company command to Lt. Col, skipping Hubbell. I haven't found a source that states why yet, it would be interesting to know.
• is there no live link for New Carthage, Louisiana? What about moving the link forward and changing "in Tensas Parish" to "nearby"?
  • New Carthage probably passes WP:GEOLAND as a former recognized settlement, but nobody's volunteered to write that article in the last 15 years, and I'm not the one to do it, so I'll link Tensas Parish in lieu of New Carthage and then make the recommended change later
• "The Confederates then fell back"
  • Done. Probably should've sent this one through GOCE before nominating
• "Grant's army ofn May 16"
  • Done
• "two keys battlefield landmarkslocations."
  • Done
• "The regiment then entered the defensive works at Vicksburg"
  • Done
• suggest linking Siege of Vicksburg with "besieged by Union forces" rather than using the siege link
  • Done
• "men of the 6th, 8th, and 11th Missouri Infantry Regiments"
  • Done
• "the Union soldiers if they wanted to surrender"
  • Done
• "and then threw the explosive shells into the Union position as impromptuimprovised hand grenades."
  • Done
• "as Colonel Gause"
  • Done

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: - I've replied to everything so far. In hindsight, this one wasn't quite in the shape I thought it was, a GOCE copy edit would have done it wonders. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

All good, never hurts to ask GOCE to have a look, although results can be patchy. Supporting, great work. A final word, Tucker 1993 is a bit weak as a source as it seems to be popular history, so wherever possible, except for routine material like unit movements, you should try to replace it. For example, a statement like "Despite initial success, the weight of superior Union numbers and effective Union artillery fire drove the Confederates back to the cover of a creek bank" wouldn't hurt to have another perspective as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:TRANS-MISSISSIPPI CIVIL WAR.svg needs a reliable source for info
• All media is free. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: - I've replaced the user-generated map with a Hal Jespersen map of Second Corinth. This map doesn't have a source link, but Jespersen is a professional cartographer whose maps have been published in academic sources, so I think Jespersen is an acceptable map source. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• All of the sources look at least minimally reliable, however, I would agree with Peacemaker that it would be better to back up the popular history sources with additional citations.
• No source checks done as I do not have any of these books. (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: I'll get on the source supporting once I get the comments at the Newtonia fac worked out. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe and Peacemaker67: - I've used a couple sources to try to back up Tucker. Unfortunately, this didn't help much with the siege part, as the Vicksburg sources I have only talk about the First Missouri Brigade in general, and since this regiment was frequently held as the brigade reserve, they aren't helpful for determining events at the regimental level. Would y'all like to take a look at the new sources to check reliability of them? Hog Farm _Bacon 01:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't see any issues with them, esp. since they're used to back up info. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ykraps

Lead:

• "The regiment was officially mustered in on January 17" - Some sort of typo? Lose the 'in'.
  • Went with "mustered into service", these regiments often existed as semi-organized groups of half-armed men before officially organizing

• "...before being heavily engaged during a Confederate attempt to retake Corinth" - Frowned upon by the Mos. See MOS:EASTEREGG. You could rewrite to say, "...before being heavily engaged during Second Battle of Corinth, a Confederate attempt to retake the town". Or, as I'm someone who doesn't care much for that guideline, you could ignore it.
  • Done

• Can we pipe the locations so we don't get the state name? The number of mentions of Mississippi makes the lead sound somewhat repetitive. No biggie if you disagree though.
  • Two of the Mississippis have been removed, I think the other two help clarify the geographic context because they're in the nature of transfers
    • Fair enough.
• The word confederate also crops up with annoying regularity. It seems somewhat redundant in the sentence, "...while serving as part of the Confederate rear guard". We know it's a Confederate unit so I can't imagine anyone thinking it fought in a Union rear guard action. Also, we don't really need it in the sentence, "On July 4, the Confederate garrison of Vicksburg surrendered", for the same reason.
  • I've removed two or three uses, is that better?
    • Much better.

More to come.--Ykraps (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Background and formation:

• "...supported secession and sent pro-secession elements...". What about saying sympathetic elements to avoid the close repetition?
  • Done, good idea
• "Jackson responded on May 12 by forming the Missouri State Guard, a pro-secession militia unit". I don’t think we need pro-secession here. Readers should know by now where Jackson's sympathies lie.
  • Done
• "Initially, the unit was planned to be named the 2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment...." Not sure about the grammar here. Shouldn't it be, "Initially it was planned to name the unit..."?
  • Done
• "While at Neosho in November, Jackson and the pro-secession legislators voted to secede from the United States, joining the Confederate States of America as a government-in-exile. The anti-secession elements of the state legislature had previously held a vote in Jefferson City in July rejecting secession". I'm struggling with this. It sounds like the pro-secessionists voted to leave and the anti-secessionists voted to stay, which seems an obvious and therefore pointless thing to say. Is there more to it than that?

Could it be rewritten to sound less like it's labouring the point? Something like, "While at Neosho in November, Jackson and his supporters voted to join the Confederate States of America, as a government-in-exile. The anti-secessionists had already reaffirmed their position with a vote in Jefferson City in July".

• • Rephrased and clarified that there were two governments claiming Missouri now, which was the whole point of these sentences.

Pea Ridge:

• "On February 12, 1862, the regiment left Springfield for Cove Creek, Arkansas, due to Union pressure against Springfield". I don't think there is a need to say 'against Springfield'. I think that is implied.

Or you could rewrite as, "Union pressure against Springfield caused the regiment to leave for Cove Creek, Arkansas, on February 12, 1862", to avoid the repetition.

Or combine with the following sentence to make, "Union pressure against Springfield forced the 3rd Missouri to fight a rear guard action in their retreat to Cove Creek, Arkansas, on February 12, 1862".

• • Substantially rewritten to avoid duplicating Springfield and to make it clearer that the whole Confederate force at Springfield withdrew

• "During the Battle of Pea Ridge on March 7 and 8..." The mention of Pea Ridge in the previous sentence causes some repetition. I would be inclined to say something like, "During the subsequent battle...." You can introduce a link to the battle by adding a {{main|Battle of Pea Ridge}} template at the top of the section.
  • Done

• There are a number of sentences in this section beginning with 'during'. You could change "During the subsequent battle..." to "At the subsequent battle...", and "During the morning of March 7...", could be changed to "On the morning..."
  • Reworded away two of the durings.

• "During the fighting, the 3rd Missouri Infantry, led from the front by Rives, charged successfully before becoming disorganized and halting". A charge that becomes disorganised and halts doesn't sound successful to me. Was it considered successful because they drove the enemy back but then were unable to press the advantage when they became disorganised? What does the source say?
  • Clarified

• Also, is it better to say "At one point during the fighting..." rather than simply during, which could be taken to mean throughout?
  • Done

• "...the regiment was in the First Missouri Brigade, which was commanded by Colonel Lewis Henry Little. Also in Little's brigade were the 2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment...." I would be inclined to say, "commanded by Colonel Lewis Henry Little, and included the 2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment..." I know this makes the sentence longer but the term 'Little's Brigade' is used a lot in this section.
  • I've nixed the order of battle sentence as off-topic

Second Corinth:

• "...was soon sent to Corinth, Mississippi. On May 5, while at Corinth, a roll call..." You could say, "...was soon sent to Corinth, Mississippi where, on May 5, a roll call..." Saves repetition of Corinth and starting another sentence with 'on'.
  • Done

• "In late May, the Confederates evacuated Corinth". Another Easter egg. You could put "In late May, the Siege of Corinth ended when the Confederates evacuated". Or similar.
  • Done

• Similar issue as before with constant repetition of Gates' Brigade. Instead of, "The other units of Gates' brigade were.." what about saying, "The other units under Gates..."?
  • As above with Pea Ridge, I've removed the OOB sentence

• "Price determined not to attempt a large-scale assault" has a slightly different meaning to "Price was determined", so check what you mean here. The former means he decided not to, the latter means he was adamant that it shouldn't happen.
  • I mean the former

• "Gates' brigade was able to capture Battery Powell. A Union counterattack was able to drive Gates' brigade from the field". Perhaps say, "Gates' brigade was able to capture Battery Powell before being driven from the field by a Union counterattack". Saves repetition of 'Gates' Brigade' and 'able to'.
  • Done, with a slightly different phrasing

• "Hubbell reported that most of the 3rd Missouri Infantry broke and routed ..." Should it be was routed?
  • I think it's acceptable is as, but I've changed it anyway

Grand Gulf, Port Gibson, and Champion Hill:

• "While in Louisiana, the Missourians encamped near Bayou Vidal in Tensas Parish". Could this be added to the previous sentence? "On April 5, the 3rd Missouri Infantry, as part of a larger force, was moved across the Mississippi River into Louisiana, setting up camp near Bayou Vidal in Tensas Parish". Just a suggestion.
  • Done

• "On April 17, the arrival of elements of the Union Navy forced..." Only because you've used 'element' in the previous sentence, could it be changed to 'a section' or 'part of' here.
  • Went with the even simpler "the arrival of Union Navy ships"
    • Even better.

• Lots of repetition of Grand Gulf: "...rejoined the defenses at Grand Gulf", "At the Battle of Grand Gulf...", "The unit's position at Grand Gulf...", "The regiment lost one man killed and three wounded at Grand Gulf", "The Confederate victory at Grand Gulf prevented Union Major General Ulysses S. Grant from landing a force at Grand Gulf", "Brigadier General John S. Bowen, the Confederate commander at Grand Gulf..." Crops up seven times in six consecutive sentences. One sentence contains two occurrences. Some suggestions below:

• "The regiment lost one man killed and three wounded at Grand Gulf". Could be changed to "...at the battle" or "...in the engagement"

• • Done

*"The Confederate victory at Grand Gulf prevented Union Major General Ulysses S. Grant from landing a force at Grand Gulf". As it's obvious we are discussing the Battle at Grand Gulf, I don't think either mention is necessary here. You could just say, "The Confederate victory prevented Union Major General Ulysses S. Grant from landing a force".

• • Eliminated both usages

• "The unit's position at Grand Gulf allowed the men to shoot through the portholes of the Union Navy ships shelling the Confederate position". It's not entirely clear which men are shooting through the portholes but I'm guessing it's the Confederates. What about "From its position the unit was able to shoot through...." That also disposes of one use of Grand Gulf.

• • Did two things here. Dropped the Grand Gulf, and also replaced through with into

Port Gibson:

• "....supported the Confederate left flank". As they're unlikely to support the Union flank, I think we can lose 'Confederate' here.
  • Not done. I think it helps with the contrast against the mentions of the Union right flank a couple sentences later. If you feel really strongly about this, I'm willing to change it
    • Fair enough.

• "...the attack to fall. The attack fell..." sounds awkward to my ears. What about saying "However, this was noticed by Union leadership and troops were sent to support the supposed area under threat"?
  • I just remove "to fall", as it's not really adding anything to the sentence and I think it works without it

• "The attack fell upon a Union line composed of the brigades of Colonel James R. Slack and Brigadier General George F. McGinnis and five artillery batteries. A canebrake provided cover for the Confederate attack". Could be combined in one sentence. For example, "A canebrake provided cover for the attack, which fell on a Union line composed of the brigades of..."
  • Done

Big Black River Bridge and the Siege of Vicksburg:

• "...was used as part of a rear guard..." Do we need 'used as' here?
  • Nope. Removed

• "The regiment then entered the defensive works at Vicksburg, which were besieged by Union forces". Unless it was already under siege and the regiment broke through the siege to the defensive works, I would say, "which were then besieged".
  • Good catch. Fixed

• "...as a reserve when Union forces attack the Confederate line on May 19". To save some repetition, could this just say, "...as a reserve when Union forces attacked on May 19"?
  • Done

• "On May 22, the men of the regiment manned the Confederate line at a point known as the Stockade Redan. The regiment, as well as other elements of the First Missouri Brigade, fought off Union attacks against the position". What about combining these sentences thus, "On May 22, the men of the regiment manned the Confederate line at a point known as the Stockade Redan where, with other elements of the First Missouri Brigade, they fought off Union attacks".
  • Done

• "...the regiment had suffered 55 casualties during the siege". Don't think we need 'during the siege' here.
  • Removed

• "...although about 100 men deserted the regiment". Don't think we need 'the regiment'.
  • Removed

Legacy:

• "...during the process of consolidating the regiment...." Don't think we need 'the regiment' here either.
  • Done

• Was it only the 3rd Missouri Infantry that was reduced to four companies or was it the combined 3rd and 5th that was reduced to four companies?
  • Only the 3rd.
    • I would be inclined to say, "...became Companies B, D, E, and H within the consolidated regiment", rather than 'of' which makes it sound like there were only four companies in total.
      • Done

• "On November 30, the regiment fought at the Battle of Franklin, where it lost 113 of the approximately 150 remaining in the regiment". This sounds like the new consolidated regiment only had 150 soldiers in it at the start of the battle. Is that right? Or are we now talking about the remnants of the old 3rd Missouri?
  • Yes, the new regiment only had 150 men in it to start the battle. It was very depletedd
    • Okay then. Just sounded like a tiny number for a regiment.

Commanders:

• "...all of whom were no longer with the regiment...". Isn't it more usual to say, "....none of whom were with the regiment...". No biggie, just sounds unusual to me.
  • Done

General:

• I know Americans like to leave a double space after their full stops (periods) but I'm pretty sure the MOS says not to.

Actually, I don't think it matters. Other than wasting time and space, of course. See MOS:DOUBLE SPACE.

The MOS doesn't disallow it. It's a habit I've done since I learned to type, so since the MOS is neutral on it, I don't feel the need to go through and change it all.

@Ykraps: - I've responded to everything you've brought up so far. Anything further you have? My prose in this one is a touch rougher than in my other two A-Class nominations. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry this is taking so long but very nearly there now.--Ykraps (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ykraps: - All replied to so far. It's okay that it's taking forever, I'm not in a hurry. I hope to get to the HMS Pearl article, but I'm a bit busy in RL right now, so it might take me awhile to get to that one. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No rush on HMS Pearl either; I'm away next week and may not have internet access.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ykraps: - Got these done, as well. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I made a small copyedit here [[1]] to remove some repetition of 'the regiment' but feel free to revert if you don't approve; I am supporting either way. Thanks for your perseverance.--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• Tell the reader that Pea Ridge was fought in Arkansas in the lede, otherwise they're gonna assume that it's in Missouri.
  • Done
• Trailing comma after Grand Gulf, Mississippi
  • Done, I always forget those
• against Vicksburg on May 16 comma after Vicksburg
  • Done
• provide an angle of attack against Vicksburg I don't understand this--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Rephrased

• • @Sturmvogel 66: - All points to date replied to, anything further? Hog Farm _Bacon 20:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Nope.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.