Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Second Battle of Independence

< 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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Second Battle of Independence edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Second Battle of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Of the four battles fought as part of Price's Raid between October 21 and October 23, Second Independence is generally the least studied. Fought on some of the same ground as the Battle of Little Blue River, at the same time as Byram's Ford, and on the day before Westport, Independence was where things fell apart for Price. Beginning with this battle, the Confederates were fighting Union soldiers on two fronts instead of one, and defeat was essentially an eventuality. I recently gave this one a top-to-bottom rewrite to remove a number of factual inaccuracies. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 00:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to split the "Battle" section into subsections? I think it would read better that way. (t · c) buidhe 00:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hog Farm Talk 14:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Battles where the Confederates were thrashed are my favourite kind of American Civil War Battles. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "suffering further defeats on the way before reaching Texas, having suffered heavy losses during the campaign" - bit repetitive. I'd also suggest splitting this sentance.
    • Split
  • "By September 1864, the Confederacy had little chance of winning the war" - I thought that the consensus is that the Confederacy was doomed by this point?
    • Rephrased to "had essentially no chance of a military victory", is this better
  • " With events east of the Mississippi River continuing to turn against the Confederates" - likewise, by this stage of the war the confederates were on the brink of collapse, with the war having long-since turned against them.
    • Went with "With the situation east of the Mississippi River collapsing"; is that better?
      • Yep. It is a bit tricky to write about this phase of the ACW: while the Confederacy's military and economy was collapsing, there was still the prospect of a victory if Lincoln lost the election, which historians agree was a real possibility for much of 1864. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the battle is good. If sources permit, I'd suggest creating an order of battle article ahead of a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An OOB would be very difficult to create - for some reason neither Sinisi nor Lause includes one, so it would have to be sourced very heavily to Collins and another sources focused on the tail end of the campaign after Confederate unit organization had gone to hell in a handbasket.
    • @Nick-D: - Many thanks for the review. I'm hoping to get this one to FAC fairly soon. Are the changes I've made satisfactory? Hog Farm Talk 23:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • Link "Major General" of the Union in the lead.
  • growing from 1,000 men to 7,000 --> "growing from 1,000 to 7,000 men" or "growing from 1,000–7,000 men"
    • Done
  • A Union cavalry division was formed on October 6 in Jefferson City --> "A Union cavalry division was formed on October 6, in Jefferson City"
    • Done
  • Blunt occupied the town of Lexington Maybe add state here? There are multiple Lexingtons in the US, especially in that area.
    • Done
  • the main Union position at Independence Same as above.
    • Done
  • The Civil War Battlefield Guide states that Union Written by whom?
  • Same as the "Reference" section in the 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate) ARC switch DD/MM/YYYY to MM/DD/YYYY.
    • Done

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @CPA-5: Thanks for the review; I think I've gotten everything addressed. Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, this looks pretty good to me. I only have a few nitpicks (please see below). Thank for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Confederate Major General Sterling Price and Thomas Caute Reynolds": was Reynolds also a major general? If so, it should probably read "Confederate Major Generals Sterling Price and Thomas Caute Reynolds..."
    • Reynolds was a governor, not a military officer. I've tried to clarify this
  • "Price's force, named the Army of Missouri, contained about 12,000 or 13,000 cavalrymen and 14 cannons": this seems at odds with the infobox which provides 7,000 as the strength. Have I missed something?
    • Not all of Price's force was engaged at Independence. The 7,000 figure comes from "Fagan's division with 4,500 men was left at Independence as a rear guard, and Marmaduke's division with 2,500 men was between Fagan and Shelby" later in the article.
      • Ok, no worries, if there is a way to make it clearer in the Opposing forces section, I would suggest doing so before taking to FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what the best way to do this will be. I'm reluctant to put the 7,000 figure in there at the start of the campaign, as it's not necessarily comparable because those units were bloodied at the Battle of Fort Davidson and the Missouri units of Marmaduke's command may have benefitted from Price's recruiting/conscription Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe a footnote could be added next to the 12,000 to 13,000 number explaining that not all of these were ultimately engaged in the battle and that the total engaged was about 7,000. Would that work? AustralianRupert (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "joined by the brigades of Clark and Freeman" --> " joined by Clark's and Freeman's brigades"?
    • Done
  • "attacked in force further south, bringing on the" --> "attacked in force further south, resulting in the"?
    • Done
  • "supported by a party of Confederate troops" --> "supported by a party of Confederate infantrymen"?
    • Price's force was only cavalrymen, source just refers to them as "troops". I reckon it's probably dismounted cavalry, but neither Sinisi, Collins, nor Lause say that (I just moved and don't have access to Kirkman or Monnett at the moment, or I'd check them)
      • No worries, I definitely think this needs tweaking when you can get your hands on the sources as the current wording implies that the supported force (Hughey's battery) potentially weren't Confederates, which I don't believe is the intention. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is "The Unionists also charged Hughey's battery and its supporting Confederate detachment" an improvement? Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clark's men resisted at Independence until about 17:00, when it began falling": the subject verb agreement is off here, I think. Suggest "Clark's men resisted at Independence until about 17:00, when they began falling..."
    • Corrected
  • "finish mopping things up. As part of the mopping-up process" --> "finish mopping things up. As part of this process"?
    • Done
  • "when Battery L, 2nd Missouri Light Artillery Regiment halted in Independence": do we know why? Did they disobey orders, outrun their supply line, or were they halted by enemy action for instance?
    • Of the three sources I have with me at the moment, Sinisi just says the battery "halted" and Collins and Lause don't provide any details on this
  • "Colonel James McFerran, remained in the rear and did not participate in the attack": do we know why?
    • Of the three sources I have with me (see above) Sinisi just says that he "lurked" with the horse holders while Collins and Lause don't provide any details on this
      • Ok, no worries, thanks for checking -- "lurked" seems to imply something less than admirable, but I'd stay silent on it in the article (as you have) unless sources can be found that clearly state a reason. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @AustralianRupert: - Checked Kirkman and Monnett, as well as a source I just acquired about Confederate cavalry in the Trans-Mississippi, and the halting of the artillery isn't mentioned at all, and McFerran is only mentioned in the context of being arrested later on in the campaign. Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the infobox provides Union losses as "unknown, at least 10" but the Aftermath doesn't seem to mention this -- I think these are the losses attributed to the 13th in the body, but it could probably stand to be a bit more clearly articulated in the Aftermath section, IMO
    • Removed the "at least 10" figure from the infobox, as it's clearly incomplete due to being for only one regiment and overall losses for USA aren't provided in sources
  • "The battlefield has been covered over by the growth of Independence" --> "In the years since the engagement, the battlefield has been built over due to the growth of Independence"?
    • Done
  • "A self-guided tour covering 10 sites related to the battlefield has been organized": perhaps state who has organised this?
    • Added

@AustralianRupert: - Thanks for reviewing this. I've done my best to respond to the points, although there are three I don't have the details to really answer. Hog Farm Talk 21:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, added my support and a couple of follow up comments above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • All sources are of high quality.
  • Spot checks: 10, 24, 46, 52, 55 - okay
  • fn 9 - Can't find the bit about Sedalia
    • Meant to cite Collins p. 63 and Kennedy, apparently forgot to add the Collins cite. Added now.
  • fn 49 - should be p. 215?
    • You may be using a different printing than me. fn 49 (Sinisi p. 216) supports and soon after that time, all of Clark's units except for the 8th Missouri Cavalry Regiment had crossed the river as well In my copy, p. 216 has Clark aimed to cross the Big Blue [...] By about 10 PM he had succeeded, while leaving only Jeffers's 8th Missouri on the other side
      We're looking at the same text. Might be because you have the paperback edition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense, given that the quoted text is literally the first three lines of p. 216. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 28 July 2021 (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/Second_Battle_of_Independence&oldid=1037654847"