Talk:Battle of Marais des Cygnes/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 10:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It is possible that I will do some copy editing. Let me know if you are not happy with any of it.

• The source of the map "File:NPS map of Price's Raid.png" is given as all of a 76 page work. Would it be possible to narrow this down?
  • Yep. Found what page it was on, and added that.
• The source of the map "File:Marais des Cygnes Battlefield Kansas.jpg" needs to be verifiable. Perhaps something more specific than "National Park Service"?
  • Done. I tracked down the NPS PDF it comes from.
• Infobox, Belligerents: Could you be consistent in your abbreviating, or not.
  • Fixed the US/Union descripenancy, I'm assuming that was the issue

Ha! No. Sorry. I meant if one is "United States", the other should be 'Confederate States'; if one is "Confederate States of America", the other should be 'United States of America'. Or "Union" and 'Confederates' would work.

Went with Union and Confederacy

• There should not be citations in the lead nor the infobox.
  • Taken the one out of the infobox and added that information into the text. I'm unsure about the lead one: They're both valid alternate names, but I'm not sure if/where they should be in the text. They should be in the article, I'd say, and need cited, so I'm inclined to keep the lead citation in there.

Strictly the MoS gives a bit of scope for citations in the lead or infobox, but not for information which is in them but not the main article.

@Gog the Mild: - I went ahead and removed the lead citation, moving the alternate names to the end of the battle section for lack of a better place. This one's not ACR-ready at the moment, but I've got two or three more sources at home I can add, so I'll probably polish it up later when I get the chance. Might as well be proactive with fixing things now. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• "he ordered for Sanborn to attack at daybreak". Delete "for".
  • Done
• "but left a skirmish line one a row of formations" Something has gone wrong here.
  • Should've been on, not one
• "By daybreak, Sanborn had been reinforced by elements of Lieutentant Colonel Frederick W. Benteen's brigade. At 04:00, Sanborn's artillery, six 3-inch ordnance rifles, opened fire on the Confederate line. At daybreak ..." Is there a reason why the middle sentence is out of chronological order.
  • I've rephrased the first sentence to "During the night", which is closer to my intended meaning.
• "the fire from the Confederate defenders was rather ineffective" Delete "rather". (Or find another word to "ineffective". Or both.)
  • Removed rather.
• "to ford the river above the Confederate position". "above" → 'upstream of'.
  • Done
• "Curtis, Pleasonton had joined Sanborn". Is that a stray comma?
  • I'd originally started to write it as something along the lines of "Curtis, Pleasonton, and Sanborn ..." but changed my mind and apparently forgot to clean up the rest of the sentence
• "making field maneuvers difficult". Delete "field".
  • Removed
• "Price's army began to completely disintegrate". Delete "completely".
  • Done

"Sources: J comes before K.

• • Oops. Fixed

Nice work again. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: - Got all these addressed, except for the lead citation, which I still think should be probably in there. I'm willing to remove it if you feel strongly about it, but I'm not sure that there's a better place for the alternate names, and they should be in here, especially the Trading Post one, which is sometimes used. This is my fourth GAN from this campaign, and there's still a lot of work to go. The complete lack of Confederate organization and competence in this campaign never ceases to amaze me. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not me Hog Farm, but the MoS gives a bit of leeway, so it's not a deal breaker at GAN. Note that the lead should only contain a summary of information already in the main article.

The only GA issue left is the Union/Confederate point above.

Yeah. It can be difficult to communicate to non-students of military history how chaotic even good military organisation is. Harrias reviewing Mercenary War: " "The Carthaginian authorities decided to instead wait until all of the troops had arrived and then attempt to negotiate a settlement at a lower rate." Well, this doesn't seem a recipe for disaster at all. Sit an army inside your city, and then try and screw them over. No review comment here. Unless I'm reviewing their tactics, in which case I might start looking for that quick fail template again."; " "When it arrived its members also mutinied, joined the previous mutineers, and killed all of the Carthaginians on the island." Well, of course they did." And from Treaty of Lutatius "  "The Carthaginians sent a force to retake the island. When it arrived its members also mutinied, joined the previous mutineers, and killed all of the Carthaginians on the island." – This is still my favourite thing ever!" My response: "I have read a lot on the Punic Wars over the past year. I have ceased to boggle at the lack of grasp of the absolute basics of military leadership (Hannibal aside) shown by the Carthaginians. It is the Monty Python school of waging war. Wait until the Third Punic War: Romans declare war; land an army in Africa; demand that Carthage hand over all of their weapons and armour and burn all their ships. And the Carthaginians do! Three guesses as to what happens next?" Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed