Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2023 [1].

8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 22:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this one all the way back in 2020, but was just recently able to find sources to resolve a snag that came up in the ACR. It's been since August of '21 that I've taken a unit article to FAC, so the background may need fiddled with a bit. I hope this one isn't showing 2+ years of being left alone too badly. Hog Farm Talk 22:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp edit

  • "the American Civil War. The American Civil War". The end and start of those sentences is repetitive.
    • Rephrased
  • First mention of Arkansas in the lead can be linked, as it is with Louisiana and Missouri.
    • Done
  • "On July 23, the unit..." You should add the year here because it's in a new paragraph.
    • Done
  • "where it pursued a retreating Union column..." What's a column?
    • Rephrased to avoid the jargon

I will have more comments later. Steelkamp (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelkamp, are you still planning to comment further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will do it tomorrow hopefully. Steelkamp (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Governor of Missouri". Does this conform with MOS:JOBTITLES?
    • Probably not, so I've lowercased "governor"
  • The mention of Frazier's Missouri Infantry Battalion makes me wonder who Frazier is. This is not explained until two paragraphs later.
    • I've glossed a brief description of Frazier's battalion - Frazier is a pretty nondescript historical figure, so there's not really much to say about him
  • What is the "Confederate left"?
    • Added another word and linked here
  • What are "winter quarters"?
    • Rephrased as "winter camp", which is probably a bit more obvious. I would have linked to winter quarters on wiktionary, but that wiktionary item is marked as needing a definition
  • "it was not until later in the year that the Confederate government resolved the duplication." Resolved the duplication in what way?
    • I've clarified this

That's it for now. Steelkamp (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "but was soon reclassified as infantry." Is no more precise date known?
    • Added to the lead
  • "was reclassified as a battalion and named ..." Again, any dates?
    • Added to the lead
  • "By the time of the 1860 United States Presidential Election ... Eventually, many southerners ... especially after Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860." is a little clunky. Perhaps 'By the time of the 1860 United States Presidential Election, slavery had become one of the defining features of southern culture, with the ideology of states' rights being used to defend the institution. After Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many southerners decided that secession was the only way to preserve slavery.'?
  • The next sentence goes on to say the same sort of thing. Do we really need this level of detail on an election which took place 20 months before the unit the article is about even came into existence?
  • Ditto the lengthy narrative about Fort Sumner - and its mention in the lead. Did the 8th Missouri ever get within 700 miles of Charleston?
  • The whole Background section could do with a rigorous copy edit IMHO. I mean, the detail "The ensuing Battle of Wilson's Creek was envisioned as a pincer attack, but Lyon was killed and his men routed; the Union troops retreated all the way to Rolla after the defeat." is relevant to a unit which didn't even start recruiting until more than a year later in what way?
  • And could we have a year at the first mention of a date in each paragraph? Thanks.

I'm going to pause here to allow the nominator to have a think. I'll be back. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Gonna take a hatchet to the background after work - will try to at least halve the pre-Pea Ridge material. Hog Farm Talk 14:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Down from 788 words in the background to 509. If more needs to go, Lexington and Camp Jackson will probably be next. Hog Farm Talk 16:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First quick thoughts, suggest:

  • Replace "On the morning of April 12, the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, beginning the American Civil War.[3] In the following weeks, more states seceded and joined the Confederacy.[4] Meanwhile," with 'on April 12 the American Civil War began and more states seceded and joined the Confederacy.'
    • I've left in a brief name-drop of Fort Sumter, but have trimmed the rest as suggested
  • "Lyon pursued the secessionists, and a clash between Union troops and combined elements of the Missouri State Guard and the Confederate States Army at the Battle of Wilson's Creek on August 10, 1861, led to a Union defeat and Lyon's death.[6] Sterling Price, the commander of the Missouri State Guard, followed up the victory at Wilson's Creek by driving north towards the Missouri River, and in September won another victory at the siege of Lexington. Union pressure soon led Price to withdraw back to southwestern Missouri.[7] " Delete!
    • I've summarized this all down to "The Missouri State Guard won several victories in the latter part of 1861, but by the end of the year were restricted to the southwestern part of the state." Hog Farm Talk 16:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me get back to you on the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Beginning in May, events in the state of Missouri led to an expansion of the war into that state." You what? How about 'From May the war started effecting events in the state of Missouri' or similar?
    • Done
  • "necessitating the consolidation of the regiment into six companies". Is it known how many companies it had before?
    • McGhee doesn't say directly. Probably 10 based on the use of the word "regiment", since CSA regulations usually required a unit to have at least 10 companies to be considered a regiment, but that's just guesswork on my part
  • "known as Mitchell's Missouri Infantry during the battle". Why? I mean, I understand that all Arkansas Confederates had several screws loose, but ...
    • Ugh. Revised significantly here and in the lead
I love "Ugh" as a response to a reviewer comment. Do you think we could popularise it?
  • "1862": the paragraphing seems a bit odd. Any reason why the fighting at Prairie Grove is split between 2 paragraphs, each containing other stuff?
    • For paragraph length reasons. I've re-arranged more topically
  • "elements of Frazier's Missouri Infantry Battalion were amalgamated together to form a tenth company; with ten companies, the unit could again be called a regiment." Is 'and attached to the battalion' missing from the middle of that? Or have I missed something?
    • Yes, that needs added. Done
  • "to a point known as White's Bluff, via steamboat." Maybe swap these clauses to keep them in chronological order?
    • Done.
  • "leveraging". What does this mean?
    • I think I may have been attempting to use "levering". Replaced with "maneuvering".
It sounded like something from Wall Street.
  • "On June 23, Confederate Brigadier General Stand Watie surrendered, becoming the last Confederate general officer to surrender his command." Is that relevant?
    • Removed
  • "Over the course of its combat career". Suggest "career" → 'existence'. And did it have a non-combat career?
    • Reworded

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reviewing! I've actioned all of the comments to date. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done

  • Encyclopedia of Arkansas is a work title and should be italicized
  • Be consistent in how you format publication locations - why include state for Knoxville but not Chapel Hill? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the source review! I've fixed the formatting on the E of A cite, and have included the state for Chapel Hill - based on my reading of MOS:USPLACE, it's not required for Boston or New York per the AP style guide. Hog Farm Talk 23:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Pendright edit

  • @Hog Farm: The previous general review did much to improve the article, but it appears that there is still much to do. To produce the best results here, I believe, a more unorthodox method of review should be empoloyed. So, I started with the Background section and hope to resolve any issues arisng therefrom before moving on and then repeating the process section by section. The lead will be reviewed last. Ping me anytime! Pendright (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment was an infantry regiment that served in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War.
This seems like a good place to inform resders that the 8th had predecessors; telling them would set the stage for what is to come.
@Pendright: - I'm not sure how best to work this into the first sentence without getting into heavy detail right off the bat. I'm open to any suggestions though as stuff like this can always be improved. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I see your point. However, they are so related or connected to one another that something should be said. Since this could be construed as background information too, how about dealing with it, btiefly, in the last paragraph of the Background section? Yet, it seems important enough that readers know about this interealationship upfront. A footnote might accomplish this. In such a scenario, it would be in the lead, so to speck, and the body as well. In any event, deal with it as you think it should be dealt with. Pendright (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention in the lead to this unit being formed mainly from Missouri State Guard veterans. Hopefully between this and the new clause I added to the beginning of the service history section to tie the various battalions to the regiment help with this. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The war began in April 1861, and fighting soon escalated.
soon? -> The second battle of the Civil War was not fought until the last of August 1861 - more than four months later.
Nixed "soon". There was Big Bethel in mid-June, Carthage in early July, 1st Bull Run in late July, and Wilson's Creek in early August, but it's probably better not to be that specific with time frames in the lead.
  • From May[,] the war [began] started affecting events in the state of Missouri.
    • Done
  • On September 2, the unit entered Confederate service, but [it] was reclassified as infantry on September 12.
Suggest the above changes
Done
  • Also known as Mitchell's Missouri Infantry, the unit was part of a Confederate offensive at the Battle of Prairie Grove on December 7.
"It was" aso known as
Have applied this, as well as some other rephrasings to the sentence
  • During the battle, the unit made several charges against the Union lines, but was repeatedly repulsed by artillery fire.
    • Comma removed
  • After the Union troops involved in the Red River campaign retreated, the 8th Missouri Infantry was sent back to Arkansas, where it pursued [the] retreating Union soldiers led by Major General Frederick Steele.
    • Done
  • The Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department surrendered on June 2, 1865, and the men of the 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment were paroled on June 7, [thus] ending its [the Civil War service of the 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment] combat career
    • I've gone with a modified form of this

Background & formation:

  • By the time of the 1860 United States Presidential Election, slavery had become one of the defining features of southern culture, with the ideology of states' rights being used to defend the institution.
  • Wasn't slavery well embedded in the southern coulture long before the 1860 electiion?
  • Suggest this for the last clause: and using the ideology of states' rights to defend the institution.
  • I've rewritten several parts of this sentence, which hopefully resolves the issues. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<>Issues resolved! Pendright (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many [southern states] southerners decided that secession [from the United States] was the only way to preserve slavery.
  • Suggest the above changes
  • How "many" is many?
  • I think I prefer the current phrasing - the idea is to highlight that the support for secession grew with the southern populace, which is what led to secession in these states. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • <>The southern population (southerns) influnced secession from the United States but they did not effect it - their individual state governemt representatives did.
  • <>"Many, defined, is a large number of - "large", defined, is of considerable or relatively great size; the actual number after South Carolina was six. If words have meaning, then many is incorrect.
  • I've significantly reworded this sentence to avoid any reference to many - it seems odd to me to give an exact number of states for discussing the order of secession here. Hog Farm Talk 02:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

<><>Response:

Original text w/ suggestions:
After Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many [southern states] southerners decided that secession [from the United States] was the only way to preserve slavery.
Rephrased text:
After Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, a movement towards secession as the only way to preserve slavery formed.
An excerpt from the American Civil War says this, "Decades of political controversy over slavery were brought to a head by the victory in the 1860 U.S. presidential election of Abraham Lincoln... Pendright (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - I'm not entirely sure I understand which change needs made here. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Sorry! I thought the excerpt might speak for itself; in that Lincoln's election victory brought the slavery controversy to a head as well as triggering the sucession of southern states from the union. I thought this or something similar would be more insighful to readers. What do you think? Pendright (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes here, although the text may need tweaked a bit
  • On December 20, the state of South Carolina seceded and several others followed suit in early 1861, forming the Confederate States of America on February 4.
  • The word suit seems unneeded
  • "thus" forming
  • How "many" is several
  • I've added this, although it required a footnote due to TX being a bit squirrelly. Hog Farm Talk 02:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "1861" after February 4
  • Done
  • On April 12, the American Civil War began with the Battle of Fort Sumter,[3] and more states soon seceded and joined the Confederacy.[4]
  • How many is "more states"?
  • Added
  • At this point, tell readers how many states were then confederate states?
  • Added
  • After pro-Confederate militia threatening the St. Louis Arsenal were dispersed in May in the Camp Jackson affair, the pro-Confederate Missouri State Guard was formed.
  • Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon of the Union Army ejected Jackson and the pro-secession elements of the state legislature from the state capital on June 15, and the Missouri State Guard withdrew to southwestern Missouri.[5]
These two sequential sentences do not seem to square well with the Camp Jackson affair link?
@Pendright: - I've made a change here to fix one part - switching the Jefferson City bit to " Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon of the Union Army occupied the state capital on June 15, " after consulting a second source, I determined the prior wording was a bit of an overstatement, and have also clarified that the MSG was a new militia unit. Is there a specific part that you're still concerned about? The Camp Jackson article is not in great shape, but the general chronology goes Camp Jackson > MSG > Lyon occupies Jeff City > Battle of Booneville > retreat to SW MO. Hog Farm Talk 02:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

<><>After [the] pro-Confederate militia [threatened] threatening the St. Louis Arsenal [was] were dispersed [on]in May [10] in the Camp Jackson affair, a new oro [pro]-Confederate militia force, the Missouri State Guard, was formed, under the command of Major General Sterling Price. Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon of the Union Army occupied the state capital on June 15, and the Missouri State Guard withdrew to southwestern Missouri.[1]

Can you live with these changes?
Have applied all of these changes except for the threatening --> threatened, as I'm not sure that is grammatical. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Pendright (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Missouri State Guard won several victories in the latter part of 1861, but by the end of the year were restricted to the southwestern part of the state.[6]
  • but by the end of the year [they] were restricted to the southwestern part of the state.[6]
  • Done
  • What victories?
<><>Fair enough, but could you just add an adjective or two that gemerally would describe their importance - if you can? Pendright (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to come up with a good set of adjectives for this - the victories (Battle of Wilson's Creek, Battle of Dry Wood Creek, and Siege of Lexington) were very disparate. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use disparate? Pendright (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why were they restricted to the sothwestern part of the state?
  • Added
  • Thus far, in this section, readers have have been exposed to such terms as

the "pro-Confederate militia", the "pro-Confederate Missouri State Guard" and the "Missouri state guard".

Explain how these units fit into the scheme of things, or are some just a varation of the same unit? Why is the fighting in 1861 discussed here?
As to why it's discussed here, I've been consistently asked to provide some level of background detail for these units at FAC and A-class. Hopefully some phrasing changes I've made clarifies the relationship between the MSG and the prior militia by indicating that the MSG was a new, separate pro-Confederate force. Hog Farm Talk 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On November 3, Jackson and the pro-secession elements of the state legislature voted to secede and join the Confederate States of America as a government-in-exile; the anti-secession elements of the legislature had previously voted against secession, leading to the state having two nominal governments.[7]
  • November 3,186?
  • Added
  • Could tell readers that the goverment in exile was not a member of the confederacy, but it had esentially the same rights as a member.
  • The Confederacy actually admitted it as a member, along with the Confederate government of Kentucky. It just wasn't able to make a serious claim because of the lack of Confederate control in the state. I don't know that much detail on the exact nature of this government is warranted on an article on this specific unit. Hog Farm Talk 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • nominal would seem to apply only to the governemt in exile - see excert from State of Missouri: "With the elected governor absent from the capital and the legislators largely dispersed, the state convention was reassembled with most of its members present, save twenty who fled south with Jackson's forces. The convention declared all offices vacant and installed Hamilton Gamble as the new governor of Missouri. President Lincoln's administration immediately recognized Gamble's government as the legal Missouri government."
  • I've rephrased this clause significantly. Hog Farm Talk 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 1862, a Union advance led Price to abandon Missouri for Arkansas, where his men and another Confederate force were defeated at the Battle of Pea Ridge on March 7 and 8.
  • Price has not yet been introduced to readers in this section?
  • I've introduced Price earlier in the paragraph now. Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this not part of the "Service history 1862" section?
  • I'm keeping the service history to be the unit's service history, while this is more generally background material. Is there something I need to do to clarify that? Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The battle gave the Union control of Missouri..[8]
  • the "victory" gave
  • Why is this not a part of the Service history section?
  • The service history is for the service history of the unit, while this predates the unit. Should I make this clearer somehow? Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • <>Yes, and keeping in mind some of the following might help:
  • When was the militia formed and why?
  • When did the militia become pro-confedrate?
  • I think these two are a bit too out of scope for this article Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the militia later conveted into the state gaurd?
  • Not strictly, although people served in both. I'm concerned addressing this too thoroughly may be excess detail for the background of this article - IMO the main thing with the MSG is that it was a militia force that fought on behalf of the CSA during 1861, the CSA got largely driven from MO by early 1862, and MSG veterans formed the nucleus of this unit. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the state guare pro-confedertate from its begining?
  • Did Price leave with the entire state guard in tact?
  • I'm not sure addressing this is particularly relevant for this article. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Price and the state guard fought union forces on behalf of the comnedercy during the year 1861.
  • Was the formation of 7th and 8th formed to fill the Price void? Pendright (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked this a bit to indicate that Price's force was serving as a component unit of a larger army. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*On August 7, former veterans of the Missouri State Guard began forming a cavalry unit in Oregon County, Missouri. The unit officially entered Confederate service on September 2, while it was stationed at Evening Shade, Arkansas.

  • Despite entering service as a cavalry unit, Major General Theophilus Holmes, the commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department, ordered that the unit be converted to infantry on September 12.[10] That same month, the regiment was presented with a war flag of the first Confederate national flag pattern. However, the regiment lost many men due to transfers to other units, necessitating the consolidation of the regiment into six companies and a reclassification as a battalion on October 19.[11] Lieutenant Colonel[12] Charles S. Mitchell commanded the unit.[13]
The sequence of events that encompass some of this section are a bit untidy - the above is a case in point.
The above begins the Service history - 1962 - section that was inadvertantly included with the Background section; it will be reviewed later. Sorry! - Pendright (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and formation section:

  • "The background" part seems relative, but the "formation" part lacks relative substance and organizaton. Pendright (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've hopefully resolved this a bit by taking the formation material and moving it into the service history, so the background is now more distinct from the service history. Hog Farm Talk 02:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<>Is the section heading still "Background and formation? Pendright (talk)
No - it's been renamed to just "Background". Hog Farm Talk 00:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - I'm busy at work right now but will work on chipping away it this. It just might take a few days to get through all of these, but I will work through them. Hog Farm Talk 02:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

<><>@Hog Farm: I have responded to three of your rsponses.Pendright (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: It seems some competing forces are at work for your attention, so I'll
back off now and continue later provided another general review is still needed. Ping me if there is a need to continue.
BTW, "thus" is considered a transistiomal word. See Transition (linguistics) Pendright (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: This seems like a good time to continue. Pendright (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Service history - 1862

  • On August 7, former veterans of the Missouri State Guard began forming a cavalry unit in Oregon County, Missouri.
  • Was this group the forerunner to the 8th Missouri Infantry Regimemt?
  • This is stated explicitly now
  • Was it formed under the auspicious or with help from the confederacy?
  • Unfortunately, the source doesn't explicitly say this, although the answer is almost certainly yes.
  • Despite entering service as a cavalry unit, Major General Theophilus Holmes, the commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department, ordered that [it] the unit be converted to [an[ infantry [unit on] September 12.[12]
Suggest the above changes
Done
  • That same month, the regiment was presented with a war flag of the first Confederate national flag pattern.
Is the unit referenced above the same as the regment mentioned in this sentence?
Hopefully the brief introductory bit I've added to the first sentence of this section helps clarify that what's being referred to here is the same unit under different guises
  • However, the regiment lost many men due to transfers to other units, necessitating the consolidation of the regiment's component companies down to six and a reclassification of the overall unit as a battalion on October 19.
  • "due to" modifies nouns - "because of modifies verbs" - transdrs is a verb
  • Done - I wasn't aware this was a rule
  • How about a transistion word like "therefore" before necessitating?
  • One doesn't seem necessary to me, but as it's probably a dialect thing for me, I can add one if you feel strongly about it
Fine as is - Pendright (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a reclassification -> "the" reclassification
  • Done
  • On October 27, the battalion [was] , officially designated [as] the 7th Missouri Infantry Battalion, [and it] began moving towards Fort Smith, Arkansas, where a Confederate army was being organized.
Suggest the above changes
Unfortunately, this doesn't work, as it's unclear from the source what date the name change to the 7th Missouri Infantry Battalion occurred. I've split the clause about the naming off into a separate sentence so that the text isn't jumbling two distinct ideas into a single sentence
  • The unit did not reach the camp of Brigadier General Mosby M. Parsons, to whose brigade the battalion was assigned, until November 28.
If the timing of its arrival was critical, perhaps it should be said?
I haven't seen any indication in sources that the timing is critical
  • One day later, three companies from Frazier's Missouri Infantry Battalion were added to the 7th Missouri Infantry Battalion; the combined unit was still considered a battalion.[13]
Was there a specific objective related to troop build up?
Source doesn't say. It's probably related to a desire to decrease the number of poorly organized and understrength units
  • When Parsons moved northward in the direction of Prairie Grove on December 3, the battalion accompanied the brigade.[13]
Why did Parsons move nothward?
Added some background
  • On December 7, 1862, Parsons's brigade saw action at the Battle of Prairie Grove.[13]
What were the circumstances that lead to the action?
I've added a single sentence for background here
  • Early in the fighting, Parsons's brigade was aligned in [the] a position [of] guarding the Confederate left, along with Brigadier General John S. Roane's brigade.
Suggest the above changes
Done
  • Later in the fighting, Parsons's brigade counterattacked [the] Union troops [of] from Brigadier General James G. Blunt's division.
  • Suggest the above changes
  • Not quite a fan - at least how I read things, this could imply that Parsons was taking on the entirety of Blunt's division at once, instead of only a portion.
  • Why did Prsons need to countetattack?
  • I've briefly added this
  • Parsons moved Mitchell's unit to the left of his line under the belief that his flank was endangered.
"with" the belief
Done
  • Later, Roane detached Clark's Missouri Infantry from his brigade , [and] sending it to Parsons ; [where] it was then aligned on Mitchell's left.
Done, although I've made a slight tense switch in here to keep it grammatical
  • Artillery fire from the 1st Kansas Battery slowed the momentum of the Confederate attack, but the weight of [the] Confederate numbers eventually drove the Union line back.[17]
Sugest the above changes
Done
  • Advancing to the new Union line, Mitchell and Clark outflanked the 10th Kansas Infantry Regiment, but again [they] ran into the 1st Kansas Battery.
Suggest the above change
Done
  • Two salvos of canister [shot] halted Mitchell's and Clark's attack, but Parsons's right drove Blunt's line back, [thus] leading the troops in front of Mitchell to withdraw.[18]
  • Suggest the above change
  • Done
  • Do you think "canister shot" should be upper case?
  • No, this is never capitalized in the sources
  • That night, the Confederates retreated from the field , eventually reaching Van Buren, Arkansas.[15]
What night is "That night"?
I've clarified this
  • On December 23, elements of Frazier's Missouri Infantry Battalion were amalgamated [with] and attached to Mitchell's unit together to form a tenth company; with ten companies, the unit could again be called a regiment.
Suggest the above changes
The intended meaning of this sentence had gotten lost in copy-editing at some point, so I've rewritten this
  • The ten companies were made up of recruits from Missouri and were designated with the letters A–I and K.
Sugest the above change
Done

General:

  • the 7th and Mitchell seem to be used interchangeably -> be consistenent with one or the other
  • The title of the article is the "8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)", but it is not referenced in the Bacground section or in this one? Pendright (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End of Service history - 1862 - Pendright (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Service history - 1863
  • In early 1863, Parsons's brigade was transferred to Little Rock, Arkansas.
In January 1863?
Confirmed per source that this is the right date, so done
  • On the way, at Clarksville, some of Parsons's units, including Mitchell's Regiment, were detached to form a second brigade, which was either commanded by Brigadier General Daniel M. Frost[21] or Colonel John Bullock Clark Jr..
Is the last period necessary?
Probably not, removed
  • On June 12, Clark's brigade left Fort Pleasant to begin an expedition to the Mississippi River [for] , with the purpose of harassing Union Navy shipping.
Sugges the above change
Done
  • This proved problematic, as Price had assigned the designation of 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment to Burns' Missouri Infantry Regiment; it was not until later in the year that the Confederate government resolved the duplication.[26]
  • Drop the comma before "as"
  • How was it resolved?
  • Clarified
  • Later that year, Clark's brigade was transferred from Fort Pleasant back to Little Rock , in order to build fortifications around the city.
Suggest the above change
Done
  • Union Major General Frederick Steele was threatening the Confederate defenses [of] in the Little Rock campaign[; he] , and outflanked the [confederate] fortifications [and] , maneuver[ed] ing the Confederates out of Little Rock on September 10 without a fight.
Suggest the above changes
Done, except for the of/in change, which I don't think works well
  • The regiment engaged in no [further] noteworthy actions during the remainder of 1863, and [it] performed only routine camp [duties] duty.[23]
Suggest the above changes
Done

End of Service history - 1863 Pendright (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Service history - 1864/1865:

  • Early in 1864, Union Major General Nathaniel Banks drove a force up the Red River with the intent of capturing Shreveport, Louisiana; this offensive constituted the Red River campaign.
Drove - how about "led"
Done
  • The division left Shreveport on April 3 to join Taylor, and [it became] was engaged in the Battle of Pleasant Hill six days later.[23]
Suggest the above changes
Done
  • At the opening of the fighting, Parsons's division held the right of the main Confederate line , with Clark's brigade on the right and Colonel Simon P. Burns' brigade on the left.
  • Suggest the above changes
  • Done
  • What precipitated the fight?
  • I've added a sentence here
  • A small cavalry force was positioned to the right of Parsons, although [this] that force's purpose was to exploit a potential breakthrough, rather than participate in the planned Confederate attack.[27]
  • Parsons's division [and] , as well as that of Brigadier General James Camp Tappan, hit Colonel Lewis Benedict's Union brigade, [and] shattering it in the process.[28]
  • Have made the first part of this, but I don't think adding the and before shattering would be grammatical
  • However, the 58th Illinois Infantry Regiment counterattacked, driving back part of the Confederate right flank.
  • I personally don't agree with the removal of this comma
<> Why? Pendright (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my understanding of MOS:HOWEVER, when however isn't followed by a comma, it is intended to mean "in whatever manner" or something similar
  • While the withdrawal was initially orderly, Parsons's and Tappan's divisions became panicked as night fell, and [then the fight] it became a rout.[30]
  • I've removed "became", but don't agree with the phrasing of using "flight", as that implies a disorderly retreat
  • Banks could claim victory, as he had repulsed the Confederate attacks, but after consulting [with] his subordinates, he decided to withdraw to Grand Ecore.
Sugest the aove changes
Changes have been made except where noted
  • The 8th Missouri Infantry suffered 76 casualties at Pleasant Hill, including 16 fatalities.[33]
But there is little narrative in how these causualties actually came about? Pendright (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the 7th included? Pendright (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - I think there must be some confusion here - the 7th Missouri Infantry Battalion is a former name of the 8th. I'm not sure how best to clear this up - the mess of sometimes-duplicative names can be confusing even in the sources. Hog Farm Talk 17:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<>I agree! Consider the comment scratched. Pendright (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, in Arkansas, Steele occupied Camden on April 15.
Suggest the above change
  • Done
  • The Union forces in Camden began running low on food, and two expeditions intended to forage food from the countryside were defeated at the Battles of Poison Spring and Marks' Mills.
Unclear?
I've rewritten this and split into two sentences
  • As Parsons's division moved forward to attack, it was joined by Colonel Lucien C. Gause's brigade [that] , which was to align with Clark.
  • I'm not sure about this one - it may be an EngVar issue
<>"That" is used when what follows it is essential to the meaning of the sentence. "Which", on the other hand, is used when the information is supplemental or not essential. Pendright (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I've made this change in the text
  • The fighting was relatively even until another Union regiment arrived [that] , which poured enfilade fire into the Confederates' ranks.
* ditto to above
<>Same as above - Pendright (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change made
  • At this point, the brigades of Clark and Gause broke, leaving the batteries unsupported.
Suggest the above changes
Have actioned this last one
  • The 2nd Kansas Colored Infantry then attacked the guns, capturing three of them.[37]
attacked the guns?
I've rewritten this sentence
  • At Jenkins' Ferry, the 8th Missouri Infantry suffered 29 casualties, including 7 men killed.[33]
How about a few brief details about the action?
I'm going to need to research this one - will look into some possible sources after lunch. Hog Farm Talk 17:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Okay - Pendright (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August 1864, Clark was reassigned to command a cavalry unit during Price's Missouri Expedition, [and] so Mitchell was advanced to brigade command.[39]
  • The survivors of the 8th Missouri Infantry had turned in their weapons and relinquished their flag in Shreveport on June 5, and [they] were then sent to Alexandria for paroles,[41] which were received on June 7.
Suggest the above changes
Done
  • General: In the scheme of things, what is the legacy of the 8th and its predecessors and is it noteable enough to share with readers?
    • None of the sources I've seen really assign much importance to this unit, and none of them provide any sort of legacy (the only Missouri CSA units I know of that have had substantial legacies carry over are the 1st Missouri Brigade, Shelby's Iron Brigade, and the bushwhackers). I do believe this article meets WP:N, though. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End Service history - 64-65. Pendright (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC) @Hog Farm: Finished - Pendright (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I've left some responses to yours under S/H 64/65 Pendright (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well - bad news. Based on digging through the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies for Pleasant Hill and Jenkins' Ferry, it looks like Mitchell didn't file a report, or if he did, it no longer exists. I found Clark's report for the latter, but it is fairly short and doesn't go into much regimental detail. I guess this explains the lack of detail in normally detailed sources like McGhee and Gurley - the specific detail probably doesn't exist anymore, or if it does, is only recorded in unpublished diaries in people's attics. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the 58th Illinois Infantry Regiment counterattacked, driving back part of the Confederate right flank.
  • I personally don't agree with the removal of this comma
<> Why? Pendright (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my understanding of MOS:HOWEVER, when however isn't followed by a comma, it is intended to mean "in whatever manner" or something similar
@Hog Farm: MOS says if it is used as a conjunction, but in this case it is not used as a conjunction,. A conjuncton, like however, is ordinarily used to connect clauses or sentences. FYI, when a pair of commas set off information within a sentence it is usually to indicate that the information is supplemntal or nonesseential information. Here, the information set off by commas seems essential to the meaning of the sentence.
In any event, I support the nomination and thank you, Hog Farm, for
your civility and cooperation. Pendright (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've resolved this by removing the "however", as I don't think it's necessary Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dugan Murphy edit

  • Capitalize "Southern culture"
  • Rephrase "a movement towards secession as the only way to preserve slavery formed" as maybe "a movement formed that framed secession as the only way to preserve slavery"
    • Done
  • "Thus" doesn't seem necessary
    • I was requested by another reviewer at this FAC to add "thus" there. Hog Farm Talk 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Governor Claiborne F. Jackson" represents two adjacent Wikilinks that present as one. I can't remember where it is in the MOS, but it says somewhere that you should avoid this. I recommend rewording.
    • Probably MOS:SEAOFBLUE. I've managed to reword this, but I'll need to give the military titles one some thought to make sure the rephrasing doesn't become clunky. Hog Farm Talk 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more examples of this follow in the same paragraph using military titles.
    • Rephrased both
  • One more with General Edmund Kirby Smith
  • "in the Camp Jackson affair" at sounds better to me. You?
    • I've switched over to "at". An informal scan suggests both formations are about equally common. Hog Farm Talk 02:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "oro-Confederate" must mean "pro", right?
  • "After pro-Confederate militia" is an awkward sentence with lots of commas. I recommend rewording and probably splitting into two.
    • Solved for now with endashes, but will try to come up with a better sentence split. Hog Farm Talk 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "year they were restricted to the southwestern part of the state by Union reinforcements" would read better as "year Union reinforcements restricted them to the southwestern part of the state"
    • Done
  • This may be my lack of military knowledge speaking, but "necessitating the consolidation of the regiment into six companies" doesn't make sense. How can one whole be consolidated into sis separate entities? Sounds more like it was split up than consolidated.
    • The article was referring to subunits of the regiment, without being clear about it. Rephrased - hopefully that solves the confusing wording
  • Parsons' should be Parsons's

This article looks like a fairly comprehensive play-by-play of the regiment's composition, designations, and actions. I think the lead section does a good job of summarizing the body of the article. To someone who reads a lot of 19th-century history, but is not particularly a war buff, the background section seems like comprehensive, but not too detailed. Does any of the scholarship offer much analysis about the impact of this regiment, its importance to this-or-that-event, any superlative status it may have, or how it compares to the average Confederate regiment experience? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dugan Murphy: - I've addressed all of these so far, except for one (I'm still trying to think of a way to rephrase the introduction to Kirby Smith to avoid back-to-back links). The sources I've seen have attributed any special importance or historiography to this unit -- the First Missouri Brigade across the river gets all the attention. Hog Farm Talk 02:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be fair to change "General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department" to "Edmund Kirby Smith, General of the Trans-Mississippi Department"? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a bit hesitant to make that change, as it would suggest that "General of the Trans-Mississippi Department" is a formal title, while the sources I've consulted don't feature that as a title. Hog Farm Talk 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotcha. Well, SEAOFBLUE isn't a hard-and-fast rule, and I can't think of a good solution either, so I think it's fine to leave that alone for now. I'm also very willing to believe your assessment that this regiment is obscure enough to miss out on analysis in the secondary sources. So I'd consider all my comments addressed and this nomination worthy of my support. If you are willing, I would appreciate any attention you could give to my nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Logan (novel)/archive1. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The map is lacking alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've attempted to add alt text, although I always find it hard to succinctly describe maps like this for alt text. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kennedy 1998, pp. 19–20.
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/8th_Missouri_Infantry_Regiment_(Confederate)/archive1&oldid=1139606568"