Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/1st Missouri Field Battery/archive1
Cannons stuff edit
Gog the Mild - I've explained the rifled/smoothbore difference, why rifling was good, put the definition of bore into a footnote, some basics about maneuver and crewing, what field artillery was, the benefits of the arcing trajectory, and the basics of shells vs. case shot. How does this look to you. Hog Farm Bacon 04:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Revisited edit
- @Gog the Mild, Peacemaker67, SandyGeorgia, and Wehwalt: Well, it's back to square one with the armament details. There can't seem to be any consensus as to what amount is appropriate. Some ideas follow:
Option 1 Status quo
Option 2 Keep but trim
Option 3 Slough off to somewhere as a group But Armament of the 1st Missouri Field Battery would probably fail WP:N, so that convenient solution is impractical
Option 4 Merge anything useful to the relevant individual articles, and handle the information with wikilinks or the main template.
I have no personal preference at the moment, although I am unconvinced that there is a single good target for #3, so I fear that it is impractical. Hog Farm Bacon 21:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- My level of expertise about bullets and such is on Hog Farm's talk, so I won't object to whatever the more knowledgeable decide, but all I saw was a big detour through information that I didn't need to know to understand this topic. Surely there is a place to park that stuff? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have a moderately strong preference for some level of detail to be given. Not necessarily as much as there is now. But without it it could almost be an article on a cavalry unit, or engineers. A battleship article is expected to include some basic details of what its armament is and what it does. Should an artillery unit article not also. PM wrote "I'd be happy to suggest a draft para with the minimum information required" which at the time I took as an intention, but rereading see that it was a suggestion. Possibly PM could do that and then the two of us could step into the car park to discuss the nuances of our respective opinions in greater detail? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I’m away from my desk on a break, so won’t get this done in the next couple of days (I’m back on the 7th) but I will draft a single para with what I think are the necessary details on the guns, perhaps we can then discuss the draft and agree on some wording. I think this will be very helpful for ACW artillery articles and artillery unit articles in general. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I was directed here from the article's current FAC. The article's text should be directly related to the article's subject. An explanation of the weapons used by a battery is entirely appropriate as long as it is verified the battery used those weapons. I want to avoid WP:SYNTH by not assuming details of the battery's weapons from sources about Civil War weapons in general. After re-reading the section this morning (and not re-reading other sections,) I think the current wording is too detailed and offtopic for this article because the information doesn't verify that the described weapons were used by the battery. For clarity's sake, I support Option 2 but with wording that verifies the connection to the battery. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I’m away from my desk on a break, so won’t get this done in the next couple of days (I’m back on the 7th) but I will draft a single para with what I think are the necessary details on the guns, perhaps we can then discuss the draft and agree on some wording. I think this will be very helpful for ACW artillery articles and artillery unit articles in general. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have a moderately strong preference for some level of detail to be given. Not necessarily as much as there is now. But without it it could almost be an article on a cavalry unit, or engineers. A battleship article is expected to include some basic details of what its armament is and what it does. Should an artillery unit article not also. PM wrote "I'd be happy to suggest a draft para with the minimum information required" which at the time I took as an intention, but rereading see that it was a suggestion. Possibly PM could do that and then the two of us could step into the car park to discuss the nuances of our respective opinions in greater detail? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The 1st Missouri Field Battery was a field artillery battery that served in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War. The battery was formed by Captain Westley F. Roberts in Arkansas in September 1862 and was armed with two 12-pounder James rifles and two 6-pounder smoothbore guns. The unit fought in numerous actions in the Trans-Mississippi Theater in 1862–1864. In December 1863, it received new cannons: two 10-pounder Parrott rifles and two 12-pounder howitzers. On April 30 1864, while part of a Confederate force pursuing a retreating Union army, several of the battery's cannons were captured at the Battle of Jenkins' Ferry. The battery was then rearmed with four 6-pounder smoothbores. In November 1864, the unit was designated the 1st Missouri Field Battery. It was paroled on June 7, 1865, at Alexandria, Louisiana, after General Edmund Kirby Smith signed surrender terms for the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department on June 2. (Full article...)
979 characters, including spaces
Hi Hog Farm and congratulations. A draft blurb for this article is above. Thoughts, comments and edits from you or from anyone else interested are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)