- 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) 31 March 2021 [1].
- Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now, an FAC whose title I do not know how to pronounce. Confederate cavalry was retreating across Kansas after being defeated near Kansas City two days earlier. After slowing down at a river crossing, they were attacked by pursuing Union cavalry, who hurried the retreat along. This minor action set the stage for the more significant Battle of Mine Creek later the same day. Hog Farm Talk 14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
whose title I do not know how to pronounce
- there you go. We could probably add the IPA, no? RetiredDuke (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand IPA symbols well enough to feel comfortable adding them. Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I do, added. (t · c) buidhe 00:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 00:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass[edit]
Sources pass per ACR. Source checks below: (t · c) buidhe 01:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jenkins 1906, p. 52.: Supports that Sedalia raid was successful. Assume that the other source supports Glasgow.
- Scott 1893, p. 329.
- Scott 1893, p. 330. Supported
- National Park Service 2010, p. 5. Supported
- National Park Service 2010, p. 12. Supported
- National Park Service 2010, p. 14. Mostly supported, but "the site of the battle is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places," needs a citation to an updated listing of protected battlefields and an "as of" date.
- National Park Service 2010, p. 24 Supported
Assuming the minor caveat above is addressed, support on 1c, 1e, 2c, and 3. Other criteria not evaluated. (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe: - Would a page from the Kansas Historical Society here be good enough to establish that it is not listed? It's hard to find up-to-date stuff saying that most things aren't on the NRHP, so it'll likely be difficult to cite this without arguing on absence from a list as an argument from silence. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's an official, current list of NRHP sites in Kansas that would be best to cite imo. The absence from the list shows that the site currently isn't recognized. You could also supplement with the Kansas Historical Society source. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the official NPS list. It's very long and you have to start typing in the search box about halfway down the page to get results to come up, so I'll support with with the KHS source. Hog Farm Talk 04:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A minor thing, but I notice that this article has "Part of Price's Raid" in the infobox, but the other events in ((Campaignbox Price's Missouri Expedition)) have "Part of the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War"—surely all of them should be one or the other? Aza24 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically both are correct. I have no idea what the relevant style guidelines for that are, but I personally think the more specific Price's Raid (or Price's Missouri Expedition) is more meaningful. Willing to go with either one though. Hog Farm Talk 04:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the more specific Price one as well. What I wonder is if we can/should—for uniformity's sake—switch the other articles to such a parameter? Aza24 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that and see if I get reverted. I'm the primary author of about 2/3s of the Price's Raid articles, and they aren't very highly edited, so I don't expect reversion. Hog Farm Talk 15:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility: the first and third images are missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Heartfox: - Thanks for the review. I've added alt text to both images lacking it although I have to admit I'm not really sure what sort of alt text is best for complex maps. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have a look soon. I don't think I've reviewed an American civil war article before, so it's going to be interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh oh - "interesting"! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I did watch a few relevant movies and all of North & South, so I should be covered! FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "while Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon and the Union Army supported the United States and opposed secession" A local faction of the Union Army? Because it's written as if it was local to Missouri, but as far as I can read it was the general army of the union?
- I've rephrased this to make it clearer that this is only referring to Lyon's small part of the Union Army
- "and join the Confederate States of America" Is "of America" needed in subsequent mentions after the first one?
- The Confederate States of America is the formal name, so I have a preference for using that. I'm unaware of any MOS specifically dealing with this, and it's not a big deal to me, so I'm willing to change this if desired.
- "As events east of the Mississippi River turned against the Confederates, General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department, was ordered to transfer the infantry under his command to the fighting in the Eastern and Western Theaters." It is unclear from reading this sentence and the preceding what side he was on.
- "allowing an enemy force to operate in his rear" By or at his rear? "In his rear" reads a bit, erm, oddly...
- And that's what I get for using military jargon. Rephrased.
- " Blunt suggested an ambitious flanking movement, but was overruled by Major General Samuel R. Curtis,[26] commander of the Department of Kansas.[23] The plan would have involved only using a token force to attack the Confederate position at the Marais des Cygnes and slipping most of the rest of the Union army around the Confederate flank and then attack Price's army in the morning." Flanking is linked twice in this paragraph.
- Unlinked the latter. It's actually two links to slightly different articles, which is why the duplink checker didn't catch it for me.
- Flanking is linked for a thirds time under battle.
- Removed. I'd linked to a redirect that time. It's hard to remember what you've linked and what you haven't sometimes when writing content
- "and Blunt's plan did not considered the fact" Consider?
- Yep, that's what it was suppose to be. Corrected.
- "A brief friendly fire incident involving the 4th Iowa Cavalry and the 2nd Colorado Cavalry ensued" Anything on what triggered this?
- Added. Iowans didn't know there was friendly troops in their front.
- Any pictures of what the battle could have looked like, or the kinds of units in it?
- I've added the best image I'm aware of. It's from a Union veteran of the campaign and shows Confederate cavalry during the raid and is probably pretty representative. Neither side really had combat photographers or artists west of the Mississippi at this point, so it's probably around the best available.
- That's great! Perhaps link Price's Raid in the caption? And maybe mention who it was drawn by? FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. And it helps that the artist is notable, so I've linked him too.
- Thomas Freeman is a disambiguation page.
- Fixed to a redlink. None of the people at the dab page are the right ones.
- "Marais des Cynges" should be Cygnes.
- Apparently I can't spell Marais des Cygnes in addition to not being able to pronounce it.
- Anything on what this event meant for the wider war? Part of a series of defeats? Sign of weakening Confederacy?
- Frankly, this didn't mean really anything for the wider war. The preceding battle (Westport) and the succeeding battle (Mine Creek) are considered significant, but this one was really just an insignificant skirmish. The sources don't really ascribe this as anything beyond a rear guard/delaying action.
- @FunkMonk: - Thanks for starting a review. I've replied to all of the above and made the changes except for two. One there's really no answer to due to lack of overall significance for the battle, and the other I haven't implemented yet but am willing to implement if desired. Hog Farm Talk 06:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes look good, I added one reply before your last comment, after that I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - that's all from me, the American Civil War is kind of exotic for us Europeans, so even if it was a minor incident, it was still interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
Recusing to review.
- "with a cavalry force with hopes of drawing". "with ... with". Maybe 'with a cavalry force in the hope of drawing'?
- "without participating in any heavy combat." Delete "any".
- "bringing the total Union strength present to 3,500". Do we need "present"?
- Not in particular; removed.
- Infobox: "over 2,000" → 'Over 2,000'.
- "As the American Civil War began in 1861, the state of Missouri was a slave state". "As" → 'When'.
- "and a portion of the state legislature voted to secede and join the Confederate States of America, while another element of the legislature". Optional: Delete "of the legislature".
- Done. I'm too use to writing college papers with minimum word counts where being excessively wordy is essentially rewarded by the word count.
- That made me smile. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph of "Background" is long. Consider splitting at "Despite having limited".
- "All in all". Would anything be lost if this were deleted?
- I've changed to "Overall". Is this acceptable?
- It was an open question. Personally I prefer "Overall" to "All in all". Personally I wouldn't have either. But I'm not the nominator.
- "The Confederates suffered at least 800 casualties during the engagement and their morale suffered". "suffered →
suffered". Time for a synonym?
- "able to recruit between 1,200[18] and 2,000 men." Do you mean 'either', rather than "between"?
- It's really that nobody can agree on this number. I've added another estimate and rephrased this.
- "with the camp split into two segments by the Marais des Cygnes River". That seems an exceptionally stupid thing to have done. Do we know why?
- In a self-trout type moment, I somehow managed to miss the detail that Price was expecting an extended flanking maneuver, not a direct attack on Trading Post in my approximately 10 readings of the relevant part of Collins. While I left Buresh and Stalnaker at home when I went back to college, I checked Collins, Sinisi, and Lause and that's the only really relevant thing related to that that's mentioned. I will note also note that Shelby and William L. Cabell were the only two high-ranking Confederate officers involved in this campaign who can really be described as particularly competent.
- And that gave me a good chortle.
- "then attack Price's army in the morning." "attack" → 'attacking'.
- Went with "to attack" instead and rephrased this down to only one "and" in the sentence
- "Blunt's plan did not considered the fact". ?
- Also caught by Funk above, I've corrected this.
- "was not conducive to a rapid movment". Delete "a"; insert an 'e' in "movment".
- "A battery was also deployed at this time"> Perhaps 'An artillery battery was ..."?
- "on a row of two 140-foot (43 m) tall mounds". Can two of anything be said to form a "row"?
- "the 4th Iowa Cavalry on the Union right attacked, using the broken ground as cover. Confederate marksmanship at that portion of the line was very poor, and the Iowans easily took the right of the position". If the Iowans were on the Union right, would not the (Confederate) position they captured be on the (confederate) left? Perhaps best to drop the second "took the right"?
- Done. After reading back through the source, I am highly confused as to what I was trying to say with the second "took the right"
- "but despite firing at a 15° angle". 'a 15° elevation'? Note the link.
- "of the misses did strike". "did strike" → 'struck'.
- "so the mound was abandoned." "mound" singular?
- Yes. The Confederate commander facing the two militia cavalry regiments ... is referring to one mound, while the Iowans captured the other. Does this overall section need rephrased?
- I think that if you did something like add 'which included one of the mounds' to the end of "and the Iowans easily took the position" it would help. I am assuming that was the case?
- "The 2nd Arkansas Cavalry, operating in a mounted role". Why is it necessary to state that a cavalry unit was operating in a mounted role. Won't a reader assume that? (Unless told otherwise.)
- "and the Union troops were temporarily halted". Possibly add 'by these'. Assuming that was the case.
- "presented another challenged to the crossing." I suspect a typo. Or a "misspeak".
- "Sanborn left to personally go find Curtis for orders". Suggest deleting "go".
- "formed a line from the cavalry brigades commanded by". Suggest "from" → 'with'.
- The "Battle" section has four mentions of "the field", including two in consecutive sentences in the last paragraph.
- I've rephrased two of them, including one from the last paragraph
- "that had begun the campaign with 12,000 men." Suggest deleting "men".
Nicely done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of minor things above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gog the Mild: - And both have been done in the article. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to support, but this tweak - "the Iowans easily took the position, which consisted of one of the mounds. Union artillery fired on the mounds" - seems to have thrown your chronology. I assume that the artillery ceased fire on the right hand mound once it was captured by friendly forces? The article currently suggests not. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the order of the sentences there so that the artillery fire is mentioned before the capture of the mound, which should solve the chronology issue. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gog the Mild: - Just making sure you saw the reply above. Hog Farm Talk 17:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies Hog Farm, I had unwatched this. I assume that I thought I had already supported. Now done. Good work - as usual. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.