Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment/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) 27 November 2020 [1].

Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Bacon 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This unit was formed in late 1864 during Price's Raid, fought throughout the raid, and then just kinda existed until the Confederate surrender in mid-1864. This passed a GA review in July, and a MILHIST A-Class review in August. As recently as a couple days ago, I had no intentions of bringing this to FAC, but I recently had a sourcing breakthrough that allowed me to fill in a few missing details. Because the lawyer-turned-soldier who commanded the regiment didn't write official reports, unit strengths and some exact dates are a little fuzzy, and casualties are completely unknown, but I think I've collected what's possibly the single most comprehensive register of this unit's story still in existence. Hog Farm Bacon 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SG (Support) edit

MOS and prose nitpicks resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:ACCIM, images after article links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SandyGeorgia: - I'm not sure that I understand what needs done here; it's not clear which part of WP:ACCIM the article is in violation of. Hog Farm Bacon 02:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you only knew how much it took me to coerce my iPad into cooperating!. Point 8 at ACCIM says “after the heading and after any links to other articles“ ... has to do with how screenreaders process the page. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay. So the image should have been below the {{main}}. I'll watch for that in the future. Hog Farm Bacon 03:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whole lotta clauses here: By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave incumbent president Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States Presidential Election over George B. McClellan, who promoted ending the war. Could it be split to:
    In the 1864 United States Presidential Election, incumbent president Abraham Lincoln supported continuing the war, while George B. McClellan promoted ending the war. By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Lincoln an edge in the election over McClellan.
    Done.
  • However, this proved to be impossible, ... "however" not needed here (implied)?? See overuse of however.
    Removed this instance, as well as another up in the background section that wasn't really necessary
  • That night, Slayback sent a note to ... Slayback's unit was then positioned north of the fort in order to detect any potential Union movement.[19] That night, the Union garrison retreated without being detected That night twice in para, vary wording?
    Rephrased the first one
  • Slayback's battalion then retreated 2 miles ... what does "then" add?
    Removed the offending word. I speak a rural form of South Midland English, which adds words like "then" and "yet" in sentences where they don't really belong. In RL, I probably end sentences with "yet" as much as I do any other word.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good ... a few more (my time is divided these days :)

  • The battalion's first action was at the Battle of Pilot Knob on September 27; it later participated in actions at Sedalia, Lexington, and the Little Blue River. On October 22, the unit was used to find an alternate river crossing during the Battle of the Big Blue River. Slayback's unit then saw action at the Battle of Westport on October 23, the Battle of Marmiton River on October 25, and the Second Battle of Newtonia on October 28. Do we need to burden those readers who only look at leads (which according to some WMF people are most of them) will this long string of dates? How about:
  • The battalion's first action was at the Battle of Pilot Knob on September 27; later that month, it participated in actions at Sedalia, Lexington, and the Little Blue River. In October, the unit was used to find an alternate river crossing during the Battle of the Big Blue River. The unit then saw action that month at the Battle of Westport, the Battle of Marmiton River, and the Second Battle of Newtonia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went with something similar (I rephrased the battles with piped links, so the word "battle" was only used once.
  • The militia were sent to the vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri, where Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon dispersed the group using Union Army troops in the Camp Jackson affair on May 10. OK, now I'm going backwards on what I said above wrt dates, because in the body of the article, I think we can provide more detail. Since not all readers will know in what MONTH of 1861 the war started (per the previous sentence), it would be helpful to add the 1861 to the May 10 here. That is, IF the war had started say, in November, the May 10 date would have been the next year ... we can spell out the exact date here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added to clarify that the war began in April 1861; does that make it clear enough that adding the 1861 to May isn't necessary?
  • The words "pro-secession" are used three times in the first paragraph of Background. Perhaps you can find a way to vary the prose ... maybe use "secessionist" ... or find a way to re-cast the sentences to avoid the repetition? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rephrased the middle instance
  • John Newman Edwards, an adjutant serving with Shelby, claimed that a stop ... it is not clear here why we are using an WTA, "claimed".
    Worded as "Stated" instead. Edwards isn't a particularly reliable eyewitnesses, but probably best stated with neutral attribution
  • the regiment contained ten companies --> the regiment comprised ten companies ???
    Done
  • incumbent president Abraham Lincoln supported continuing the war, while George B. McClellan promoted ending the war --> incumbent president Abraham Lincoln supported continuing the war, while George B. McClellan promoted ending it (my bad :)
    Done.
  • At this point, the Confederacy had very little chance of winning the war. ... I am not fond of the "at this point", but don't know how to fix it. Also, because we use the word "war" a lot here, how about "very little chance of victory" to vary the wording?
    Done the second. I'm not sure how to fix the first one. IMO, something like that is necessary, as the Confederates had a decent chance to win in early 1863
  • preventing a large scale crossing ... hyphen on large-scale ??
    Think so. Done.
  • would be an effective offensive; Smith approved the plan and appointed Price to command the offensive. Price expected that the offensive ... need to vary wording ... perhaps use other terms like operation, attack, or something else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased two of the three instances

Everything resolved. I know nothing of the sources, trusting the MILHIST A-class review, but will look in again later to make sure no one has pooped on your sourcing. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia, just checking if that was an offer to do a source review - which is needed - before I post it at Requests. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild and Hog Farm: I see very few online sources ... Hog Farm, is there anything you can email me if I undertake the source review? Even if only some scans of book pages, I would be willing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OOps, never mind ... saved by the Harrias bell! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

I looked at this at ACR. Let's see what else I can find to pick at.

  • "Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson supported secession". Maybe 'secession from the United States'? So non-North Americans know what you are talking about.
    • Done
  • "At this point, the Confederacy had very little chance of victory." Optional: 'By this point'.
    • Previous sentence starts with "by", so I'll probably leave this as is for now
  • "leaving the Missouri State Militia to be the state's primary defensive force". Consider "to be" → 'as'.
    • Done. Thought I'd already done this, but it was at the Marais des Cygnes ACR. I've done too many Price's Raid articles.
  • "On September 27, 1864, Slayback's unit made a minor assault against the defenses of Fort Davidson during the Battle of Pilot Knob; the unit suffered light casualties" Can we avoid "unit" twice in the sentence?
    • Sure. Done.
  • "suggesting that Ewing's African American soldiers would be massacred in events similar to the Fort Pillow Massacre if the fort fell, as Price might not be able to restrain his soldiers from starting a massacre" "massacred" and "massacre". I suggest deleting "from starting a massacre." It is clear from context anyway.
    • Done
  • "overinflated" → 'inflated'.
    • Done
  • "to give up on taking the city and head west." Optional: Use more encyclopedic language.
  • *Done
  • "to scout the approach of this force" → 'to scout for the approach of this force.'
    • Done
  • "The unit next fought at the Battle of Marmiton River later that day" Could we be reminded which day?
    • Done
  • Final paragraph: mention the war ending.
    • I've added a brief bit; check if its enough

That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, this is a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this at GAN and Milhist ACR, so I may be too familiar with the material to see the wood for the trees, but I'll give it the once over. BTW, I'm glad you've brought this here, I am a strong believer that any article on a truly notable subject can reach FA if it is truly comprehensive.

  • in the lead, the phrase "were stationed at different points" implies they were still on duty and under orders, which clashes with the concept that the unit had actually disbanded. Perhaps "were located at different points"?
    • Done
  • "At the outset of the American Civil War in 1861, the state of Missouri was a slave state" to avoid repetition of "state"
    • Removed
  • "commission as a major general" link officer (armed forces) to commission
    • Done
  • say who John Newman Edwards was
    • Glossed
  • say Lincoln was the incumbent president
    • Done
  • "Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department" as it isn't clear what side we are talking about
    • Done. I sometimes forget that while Smith and the Trans-Mississippi Department are familiar to me, they're completely unfamiliar to somewhere around 98% of the English-speaking population
  • Given Fox has been introduced as the governor of Missouri, some sort of introduction to Reynolds is needed "new Confederate Governor..."? When did he become governor?
    • Done, but I relegated the date to a footnote
  • suggest "suggesting that if the fort fell, Ewing's African American soldiers would be massacred in events similar to the Fort Pillow Massacre." But this is unclear, was Slayback threatening that he and others would do this, or warning Ewing so he would hold on? This has implications for the outcome, given Slayback's troops didn't detect the Union departure.
    • Slayback didn't think Price could keep his army from massacring everyone. I've added this, is this better for understanding?
  • "On October 2, while stationed at Union" Union, Missouri? Or is this a typo?
    • Union, Missouri. It was linked above, but I've duplinked, which I think is acceptable, given the ambiguity of "Union" in this article.
  • "Meanwhile, the Confederates were moving steadily westwards towards Kansas City", do you mean the Confederate main body?
    • Done. I also realized that I neglected to mention that Thompson had rejoined the main column.
  • "hittingattacking Colonel Charles R. Jennison's brigade in the flank"
    • Done
  • Because Rector has religious and academic meanings, "Rector Johnson" is confusing unless you add his rank. My quick search indicates he was a major, which makes sense given he commanded a battalion
    • Added the rank of Major. I'm Baptist, and we don't have rectors as a title, so I never thought of that possible confusion
  • It isn't clear prior to "Shelby then ordered Thompson's brigade to charge" that Slayback's battalion was part of his brigade
    • Added, as it was part of Thompson's brigade at this point, although the sources imply that Slayback operated independently from Thompson at Second Newtonia
  • link rearguard
    • Linked
  • "each briefly holding up the Union pursuit" if that is what is meant? if so, then perhaps "then falling back some distance in turn"
    • Yes, done. Appears to have been a common tactic of Shelby's, as he also used it in the 1862 Battle of Cane Hill
  • "The rear rank contained disorganized elements of the divisions of Marmaduke Major General James F. Fagan" what is a Marmaduke Major General? Or do you mean "The rear rank contained disorganized elements of the divisions of Marmaduke and Major General James F. Fagan, and..."?
    • Missing an "and", which I've added.

That's all I could find. Great job on this, it has improved quite a lot since I first reviewed it at GAN. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Peacemaker67: - All replied to above. I've also tweaked the final sentence to better reflect the sources. I personally think that a claim that the unit was issued lances in lieu of firearms has been accepted by at least Sellmeyer is indicative of the entire level ad hoc that Price's Raid existed in. Hog Farm Bacon 19:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24 edit

Non-Milhist reviewer here Aza24 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • what do you mean by "raised as", the meaning here seems somewhat ambiguous, raised as in "trained" or "formed"? Perhaps just remove "raised as" and keep "Originally" (using "Formerly" could also work to)
    • Replaced "raised" with "formed", as the latter word is going to make more sense to a non-MILHIST person
  • Since the riot is in between the dates May 10 and May 12 it seemed to have happen quickly after May 10, maybe change to "A pro-secession riot in St. Louis soon/quickly followed"? Just a random idea
    • Riot actually started later on May 10, so I've clarified there
  • Another minor thing, you link the armies of the Confederacy/Union and the Confederacy itself, but not the Union (Union (American Civil War)) perhaps add to "retreated in the face of Union reinforcements"?
    • Done
  • Union, Missouri is double linked
    • Fixed
  • Shouldn't regiment be linked earlier – as you can see, am I struggling to find things to comments on, lol...
    • It should be, corrected
  • Surely Lincoln and George B. McClellan should have links? Probably garrison as well
    • Thought I'd linked them. Done
  • Would also like to see some kind of identifier for George B. McClellan, like how Lincoln has "president"
    • Glossed that he was a former Union general
  • Since McGee is introduced a sentence earlier, his second mention can simply be "...although McGhee considers that claim..."
    • Done. I forgot to update this when I added the earlier mention of McGhee during the pre-FAC tuneup.
  • "considers that claim to likely be inaccurate" seems kind of redundant with both "considers" and "likely", although maybe it's just me
    • Rephrased
  • Really not much to say about the prose, especially in the Service history section, a very engaging read! Aza24 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aza24 - Thanks for taking a look at this, I've replied to all of your comments above. Hog Farm Bacon 19:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, happy to support this nomination. Aza24 (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass edit

Consistency and formatting

  • Rather than "sos.mo.gov" as the work title and "Missouri State Archives" as the publisher, it would seem to make more sense to me to have "Missouri State Archives" as the work title and "Missouri Office of the Secretary of State" as the publisher.
    • Done
  • Otherwise sources seem to be consistently and appropriately formatted.

Been called away, but will check quality, coverage and accuracy later. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Harrias - I can email you some scans of Kennedy or Sinisi (although I used a borrowed edition of Sinisi than the one I own, so pagination will be different). Probably a week before I can get copies of the right pages of McGhee, Busch, or Monnett. Hog Farm Bacon 22:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and coverage

  • The sources used all appear to be reliable and of good quality. The 1893 Official Records, a primary source, are used sparingly and mostly for attributed opinions of those present. There is one usage, ref #41a, where a quote "melted away" is used without inline attribution; please add that.
  • Various searches reveal no obvious missing source literature.

Accuracy: spotchecks

  • Ref #4 checks out fine.
  • Ref #12a checks out fine.
  • Ref #17 checks out fine.
  • Ref #31 check out fine.

One minor attribution fix I would appreciate, but otherwise this is all fine. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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/Slayback%27s_Missouri_Cavalry_Regiment/archive1&oldid=1109403259"