Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Second Battle of Newtonia
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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Second Battle of Newtonia edit
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Second Battle of Newtonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
After passing GAN in October, this article has since been expanded with two additional sources, and I now believe it's ACR-able. Another Price's Raid action, towards the end of the campaign. While this action was essentially just a series of attacks and counterattacks that fizzled out into a Union victory, it shares a couple characters with the First Battle of Newtonia, which went through ACR earlier this year - James G. Blunt and Jo Shelby. Hog Farm Bacon 04:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- are there any iconic paintings of the battle that might be able to be used in the infobox? Currently, all we have are maps -- which is fine if that's all we can access within copyright restrictions -- but a painting or iconic photo would help improve the visual appeal of the article
- Nothing free use of this battle, but there's one of Price's Raid in general I'll add.
- should the first battle of Newtonia be mentioned in the Background?
- Done, but only a brief mention, as the two fights don't have much relation to each other beyond Blunt, Shelby, and Newtonia
- but was forced to fight three battles–Marais des Cygnes: spaced endash or unspaced emdash
- I've actually rewritten this specific bit out of existence as part of the trimming suggested by Buidhe below
- the Price and the MSG were --> remove "the" in front of Price
- Done
- An element of Fagan's division --> has Fagan been introduced at this point in the article?
- Thought I had, apparently I didn't. Glossed and linked
- two brigades, who --> "two brigades, which"?
- Done
- position with four guns: do we know what calibre these were?
- Sinisi refers to McLain's Parrott rifles, but isn't any more specific. Added the Parrott rifles, will check Wood to see if he gives specific caliber tomorrow.
- The two guns of Collins' Missouri Battery: same as the above?
- parts of which routed --> "parts of which were routed" or "parts of which withdrew"?
- Done
- began making preparation to withdraw --> " began making preparations to withdraw" or "prepared to withdraw"?
- Done
- By now, it was approaching sundown, and Union reinforcements commanded by Brigadier General John B. Sanborn arrived on the field, having forced marched from Fort Scott, Kansas: how were these requested, do we know?
- Added. Via Curtis earlier in the day
- Two cannons of Battery H, 2nd Missouri Light Artillery Regiment: do we know what calibre these were?
- Sinisi calls them Rodman guns. Added that, will check Wood tomorrow to see if he is more specific.
- One modern historian places: suggest naming this person in text
- Done
- began completely falling apart --> "began falling completely apart"?
- Done
- Most of areas where fighting occurred --> "Most of the areas where fighting occurred"
- Added
- in the Sources, I suggest adding a page range for Castel's chapter in Kennedy's work
- Added
- I'll work on these once I get back to my laptop in a few days. Hog Farm Bacon 05:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Source review edit
Sources look OK. (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Source checks, some of Collins 2016, verified the content. (t · c) buidhe 05:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Other comments
- The "Background" material looks disproportionate; it makes up almost 1/3 of the total non-lead content. Is there anything here that is not absolutely essential for the reader to know? (t · c) buidhe 05:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe - I've taken the pruning shears to it with some success, although I fear it may still be too long. I mainly removed a lot of the references to individual battles that didn't have great bearing on this scrap. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by CPA-5
edit
Will do this later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Price had lost over two thirds of his army --> "Price had lost over two-thirds of his army"
- Added hyphen
- I see two "howevers" in the "Background" section maybe move one to another section?
- Reworded to remove one outright
- voted to reject secession, essentially giving the state two governments --> "voted to reject secession, essentially giving the state two disputed governments"?
- Went with "competing", as the Union government was not disputed much due to Union control of the state
- controlled the Mississippi River, preventing a large scale crossing --> "controlled the Mississippi River, preventing a large-scale crossing"
- Added hyphen
- I see this "Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment" and "Collins' Battery" maybe standardise them unless they both are proper nouns.
- Standardized with Collins's
- American Battlefield Trust estimated 400 and 250, respectively Switch numbers here.
- Done, in both spots
- total Union casualties at 26 and those for the Confederates at 24 Same as above.
- Done, in both spots
- During the night, most of Shelby's The night of 28/29 October right?
- Clarified
- pursuit ended on November 8 at the Arkansas This is the only date who doesn't have a comma all the rest do have one?
- Added
- had cost Price more than two thirds of the men --> "had cost Price more than two-thirds of the men"
- Added hyphen
- on an elevation behind his main line --> "on an elevation behind his mainline"
- "mainline" wouldn't work here in American English
- The "References" section uses DD/MM/YYYY while the "Sources" section uses MM/DD/YYYY maybe standardise the "References" section.
- Done
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Eddie891 edit
- Huh, guess I reviewed this at GAN. Will endeavor to have a read through this week. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cavalry feels like an overlinked term, may not be though
- Apparently Albert E. Castel was the only overlink
- " essentially giving the state two competing governments" is there a reason not to drop "essentially"?
- Removed
- "to ferret out the Union defenders." could a more encyclopedic word than "ferret" be used? Not sure how commonly understood the phrase is...
- Replaced
- " All in all" perhaps "in total"?
- Done
- Any idea what time the battle ended at?
- Looked at Castel, Collins, Sinisi, and a source that I got off of Amazon recently that I will add before a FAC, and none give an exact time, although I've added a couple comparative times from Sinisi. I don't have Wood with me, but I can get ahold of a copy at some point and check to see if he has a specific time
- Any reason how you ordered the casualty estimates? I'd put the contemporary report or the battlefield trust first followed by the two historians.
- Re-ordered
- "The American Battlefield Trust has been part of the preservation" not really sure what this means
- Rephrased, is this better?
highly readable, seems well done to my eyes. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
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.