Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Yet another of Missouri Confederate units. For those who are getting rather tired of this subject matter, don't worry, there shall be many more the entries on Template:Missouri Confederate units navbox coming through here. This one has the distinction of 85% of it fatalities coming from disease, rather than combat. Also, all three of its major actions ended rather unpleasantly for the unit. Why does it seem like all of these units had rough combat careers? Hog Farm Bacon 03:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, Hog Farm, hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts so far on this article. I have the following comments/suggestions

    • Thanks for taking this on. I was starting to get the impression that nobody found this one interesting.
  • Context and background seem like similar themes -- is it really necessary to provide this much detail in a unit article? I think it might be best to trim these two sections back a little and maybe consolidate into a single section
  • "and fighting soon became more large-scale" --> "and fighting soon escalated"?
    • Changed
  • in the Sources section, Holmes is out of alphabetical order
    • Organized
  • in the 1864-1865 section, Louisiana is overlinked
    • Fixed
  • "20 of them became casaulties" --> "casualties"
    • Done
  • "slowed the momentum of the Confederate attack, the weight of Confederate numbers" --> "slowed the momentum of the Confederate attack, but the weight of Confederate numbers"?
    • Done
  • if possible, please add an image to the 1864-1865 section
    • Added an image of the battlefield at Jenkins' Ferry
  • "right was forced to retreat.[30] While the retreat" --> suggest changing one instance of "retreat" to "withdraw" to vary the language
    • Reworded
  • "Parsons' and Tappan's division became" --> "divisions" (plural)?
    • Good catch. Fixed
  • "and the retreat became very disorderly" --> suggest rewording to reduce repetitious language, or even just removing this clause
    • Changed wording to reflect a rout, which it was
  • "and two expeditions intend to forage food" --> "and two expeditions intended to forage food"
    • Fixed
  • "As Parsons's division began moving forward to attack" --> "As Parsons's division moved forward to attack"
    • Done
  • "At this point, the Clark and Gause broke" --> remove "the" or add something after "Gause"
  • "which poured enfilade fire into the Confederates ranks": missing apostrophe
    • Added.
  • is there anything that can be said about the unit's legacy? Is it perpetuated by any current units, or are there any memorials etc? How are they remembered by current day Missourians?

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

These are just getting better and better, Hog Farm. A few comments from me:

  • "It was then part of a failed attack"
    • Done
  • "Lincoln's candidacy was regionally successful" is awkwardly worded. What do you mean by that?
    • Rephrased to The election was decided largely along regional lines, as much of Lincoln's support was from the northern states, while he received no electoral votes from the Deep South. I hope that's clearer.
  • say the riot was pro-secessionist
    • Went with pro-secession
  • "Lyon pursued the secessionists, althoughand Price" as I don't get the purpose of a subordinating conjunction here
    • I don't really, either. Fixed
  • "envisioned as aa pincer attack"
    • Oops
  • "Price followed up the victory at Wilson's Creek"
    • Done
  • "In early March, Price, McCulloch" as you tell us it was on 7 and 8 March
    • Dropped that phrase and moved the 7 and 8 March part up, as I feel that it's best to have the date at the start of the sentence.
  • "The ten companies were all Missouri-raised" but wasn't it raised in Arkansas? Perhaps "all ten companies were made up of recruits from Missouri"?
    • Went with something similar
  • "John S. Smizer was its' lieutenant colonel, and W. H. L. Frazier, the former commander of Frazier's Missouri Infantry Battalion, was its major." If this is correct?
    • It is. Done.
  • "Mitchell's Missouri Infantry Regiment was movedtransferred to"
    • Used reassigned, because transferred appears in the previous sentence
  • "via steamboat" on the Arkansas River?
    • I can't act on this one right now. I don't have McGhee with me at the moment, Google Books doesn't let me access the needed page, and there's no libraries holding a copy near me that I can find.
  • "states thethat Mitchell's regiment"
    • Done
  • did the unit have a name when it was briefly a regiment after being raised?
    • Not that I've seen. Probably known by the commander's last name, as that was the standard practice, but I don't think I've ever seen anything that specifically outlines that.
  • was Pinnell's diary published before 1999?
    • Not that I can find.
  • "Colonel Simon P. Burns' brigade"
    • Done
  • suggest "This decision was made in part because some of Banks' subordinates had lost confidence in him"
    • Done
  • "With little food remaining and in the knowledge that Banks had retreated"
    • Done
  • just be consistent with the possessive, either Parsons's or Parsons', I don't think there is a "right" answer
    • My preference is Parsons', so I'll go with that.
  • "which wouldwas to align with Clark"
    • Done
  • "advanced nearclose to the Union line with support from Ruffner's..."
    • Done
  • "Clark and Gause hitassaulted the Union line"
    • Done

Otherwise this is in great nick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source + image reviews

edit
  • Image review: pass, no issues; all images are freely licensed
  • Source review—pass
    • OUP book is attributed to "Richard Holmes, Charles Singleton, and Dr Spencer Jones" according to OUP website[1] This article has just Holmes.
    • Sources seem to meet minimum standard for reliability. I did not find any additional sources by searching.
Comment
  • "While the historian James McGhee states that Mitchell's regiment did not take part in the campaign, instead remaining at Fort Pleasant,[2] other sources[which?] state that the regiment was engaged in a skirmish near Gaines' Landing on the Mississippi on June 28, along with the 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment and the 1st Missouri Field Battery." reads a bit run-on, might benefit from being chopped in half.
  • It would be ideal to specify which sources say this, if possible. (t · c) buidhe 10:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified, (only one I can really confirm, so bad wording on my part). Also truncated the sentence, as I don't think naming the other units adds anything in particular. Hog Farm Bacon 15:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine for ACR, although for FAC I would expect a bit more investigation of these differing accounts: where do they come from, what is the evidence? (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I don't see this one at FAC anytime soon. Aside from a couple of the artillery batteries, most of these Missouri Confederate units have a likely ceiling at A-class or even GA for a few. Hog Farm Bacon 23:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

I have done a little copy editing. Shout if there is anything I have got wrong or that you don't understand.

  • "the 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment was paroled on June 7". A picky point: surely its members were paroled?
    • Done
  • "Jackson decided to mobilize the state militia to a point outside of St. Louis". 1. Delete "of" 2. Do you mean that he moved the (already mobilised) militia? Because if they were mobilised outside St Louis, "to" → 'at'. 3. Consider deleting "to a point".
    • 1. Done 2. Tweaked 3. Done
  • "Fire from the 1st Kansas Battery"> Perhaps specify 'Artillery fire from the 1st Kansas Battery'?
    • Done
  • "were cobbled together". Optional: → 'were amalgamated'.
    • Done, it's more encyclopedic that way
  • "the unit could again be called a regiment." Optional: "called" → 'designated'?
    • I've got designated in the next sentence, so I'll keep it this way to prevent excess duplication
  • "The ten companies were made up with recruits from Missouri". I am unsure what is meant here. 'made up of'? 'brought up to strength with'?
    • Should've been of, not with.
  • "the regiment transitioned to winter quarters." Optional: "transitioned to" → 'went into'.
    • Done
  • No article on the Union capture of Little Rock? Is it worth red linking?
    • Oddly enough, we have a Confederate order of battle for the campaign, as well as a campaignbox, but no article. (For some reason, the campaignbox oddly includes the Siege of Vicksburg as part of the Little Rock campaign]].) Redlinked, but there's enough of a mess there I don't feel like cleaning up that campaign at the moment
  • "Additional Union units reentered the fray" I am not sure about this, if they "reentered" in what way were they "aditional"?
    • Additional in addition to the 58th Illinois Infantry Regiment
  • "While the withdrawal was initially orderly, Parsons' and Tappan's divisions became panicked as night fell, and it became a rout. The Confederates to the left of Parsons and Tappan had failed to make any meaningful progress against Union breastworks, and the battle ended with nightfall." These two sentences seem to be in reverse chronological order.
    • Actually occurring a bit concurrently, does adding a "Meanwhile" to the start of the second sentence help this?
  • "suffered 29 casualties, including seven men killed." you should consistently use either numbers or words.
    • Went with numbers
  • Mention when the war ended.
    • Done
  • Cite 13 should be 'pp.'.
    • Fixed. Good catch.

A cracking little article. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/8th_Missouri_Infantry_Regiment_(Confederate)&oldid=987233262"