Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Cane Hill/archive1: Difference between revisions

Battle of Cane Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Cane Hill/archive1

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem familiar to those who reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Van Buren/archive1 in 2022. Essentially, Confederate forces under Thomas C. Hindman made an abortive push into SW Missouri (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Battle of Newtonia/archive1) but fell back into Arkansas under Union pressure. Hindman tried again later than year in a campaign that had its first major action here at Cane Hill, met stalemate at the Battle of Prairie Grove, and then ended in the aforementioned Van Buren fiasco. Cane Hill itself was a running cavalry battle that stretched over miles of Arkansas forests and mountains. Hog Farm _Talk 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox image, why is it cited? (Usually such information goes on the details page in Commons.
• The last image's caption: why is it "A 19th-century engraving" rather than 'An 1866 engraving'?

And yes, I am aware that I didn't mention these at ACR.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing to review.

• "The Battle of Cane Hill". That upper-case B, do the HQ sources consistently use it?
  • Not consistently, changed to "battle of Cane Hill" in the lead
• The first paragraph of the lead: After the first sentence, events are not retold in chronological order are they? If that's so, it may be helpful if they were - I have just read it twice and am struggling to get a grip on what happened.
  • I've tried to rearrange this

That works.

• Should there be a hyphen in "rear guard action"?
  • Not for sure; I've added one as a caution

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - does the first paragraph of the lead look better now? Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "In December 1860, the state of South Carolina ... occurred to the north in Missouri during 1861." This seems both over-detailed, and not detailed enough. in that it skips Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina seceding.
  • So - would you recommend I cut down the detail or just bring in another source that mentions TN, VA, and NC? I think some form of context as to why Americans started shooting Americans is necessary here

They need an excuse? I thought it was the national sport. If t'were me, I would trim the detail. I agree, but something a bit more general should suffice. But it's your call. I shall support now anyway, and leave it to you to trim or expand. Ping me if you want me to look over whatever you decide on.

I've trimmed a bit for now but will think this over some more. Hog Farm _Talk 03:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "took most of the soldiers and military supplies in the state with him". Really? Or just those on the Confederate side?
  • I've added "Confederate" here, although it is largely true as well because Curtis's Yankees had fallen back to Missouri until late April, by which time Van Dorn had gotten his troops across the Mississippi
• "advanced his forces back". Well, yes, he did, but it reads funny.
  • I've removed "back"
• "in early November, Marmaduke's division moved north". Is it known, even approximately, how strong this force was? Did it contain any artillery? ("Hindman decided to push a cavalry force into the Cane Hill".)
  • I've clarified here - 2,000 men and six cannon. I don't think the presence of artillery detracts from this being a cavalry force. The artillery here is merely an adjunct to the main body here

Me neither. I just felt that if there was artillery - and it is clear later that there was - it should be mentioned up front.

• "However, Blunt actually approached via the Ridge Road". I don't think "actually" is necessary.
  • Removed
• "On the Federal side, six cannons from the 2nd Indiana Battery." There seems to be no verb in this "sentence". :-)
  • Fixed. As always, I blame the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Come to think of it, there is nothing in the MoS requiring a verb in each sentence, so perhaps I should have labelled that as optional?

• "the fighting was shifting to the south toward Newburg". Perhaps give an idea of how far away that is?
  • Added
• "the fighting grew hand-to-hand". "grew"? Perhaps 'became'?
  • Done
• "visibility became very poor due to smoke". From ...?
  • Clarified - a brush fire
• Any idea what time the fighting on Reed's Mountain began/ended?
  • Marmaduke decided to stand around 2 pm per Shea; I don't have an explicit ending time but the article does indicate from Shea that this stage lasted about an hour and a half
• "among participants of the battle". "of" → 'in'.
  • changed
• "the Confederates did present a flag of truce at the end of the battle as a ruse to give the battered Confederate forces time to break contact and leave the area." Right, so that was the plan. What actually happened? Was contact broken? Did the Confederates leave the area? If so, where did they go and what were their opponents doing while this was happening?
  • I've clarified this a bit - contact was broken while aid was being provided to wounded men
• "over 12 miles (19 km)[65] or 15 miles (24 km) of ground." 'over 12 or 15 miles (19 or 24 km) of ground' would read more naturally.
  • Done
• "Shea and Scott and Burgess". Perhaps add a serial comma? And again later in the paragraph.
  • I don't know that that would be grammatical - it's only two objects - Shea and "Scott and Burgess" as a single work
• Link "preservationist".
  • Linked
• "with Montgomery stating" → 'and states'; he doesn't need naming twice in one sentence. And perhaps again with Oates?
  • Rephrased both
• Consider "the reasons casualties were so low" → 'the reason for this'.
  • Done
• "a decisive defensive battle that his command" → 'a decisive defensive battle then his command'. (Avoiding "that" twice.)
  • Done
• "The fighting at Prairie Grove ensured that Missouri and northwestern Arkansas remained under Federal control.[/] A portion of the battlefield, about 5,750 acres (2,330 ha), was listed ..." Assuming that you mean Cane Hill was listed, perhaps specify?
  • Yes, clarified

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm _Talk 03:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Encyclopedia of Arkansas is a work title and should be italicized
  • Have swapped over to use {{cite encyclopedia}} instead of cite web
• Why is Further reading a subsection of References? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have moved the heading up a level

@Nikkimaria: - thanks for the review! Comments have been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quid pro quo –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vami_IV ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, got busy. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Confederate Major General Thomas C. Hindman had made an abortive offensive into southwestern Missouri earlier in the year, Is there an article that can be linked here?
  • There is not. Prairie Grove Campaign might be worth expanding from a redirect at some point, but that doesn't begin until after the Missouri campaign that ended at Newtonia. For campaignbox purposes, Wikipedia lumps Newtonia into Template:Campaignbox Operations North of Boston Mountains with several somewhat-unrelated actions; "Operations North of Boston Mountains" was created back in the '90s by a federal government battlefield protection commission as a sort of wastebasket taxon for various activities in mainly Missouri and the Indian Territory that didn't fit cleanly into anything else
• but had withdrawn back into Arkansas. First mention of this attack being launched from Arkansas; "back" undesired. Suggest "had made an abortive offensive into southwestern Missouri from Arkansas..."
  • Done
• opportunity to attack Blunt while his division was separate from the rest of the Federal Army of the Frontier. Why "separate" and not "separated"?
  • I'm not sure; changed
• Blunt moved on the offensive to attack Marmaduke on November 27. "on the offensive" redundant; cut.
  • Removed
• Due to the Federal's artillery advantage, Possessive here wrong; Federal here means only the U.S. government and its arms and is thus plural throughout. Suggest just "Federal".
  • Fixed
• The Confederate artillery had been withdrawn due to damage and ammunition shortages, while the Federal artillery had provided support for their attacks. Without further context this feels like something that can be safely left out of the lead. As is, it's a unnecessary break in the action, almost a non sequitur.
  • Removed
• reinforcements from Springfield Surely there is a possible link here?
  • There's not - these are Herron's Division, Army of the Frontier and Totten's Division, Army of the Frontier. Both were fairly ephemeral organizations; I don't think there's any basis for an article on these subunits and Army of the Frontier itself is already linked
    • I meant Springfield, not the army, sorry. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've linked Springfield - "Queen City of Ozarks"

Background

• states in the Southern United States seceded from the United States Too many "states".
  • I've piped the the link to "the Southern United States" to "the South", which should remediate part of this
• To accomplish this rebuilding "rebuilding" superfluous.
  • Removed
• Hindman was temporarily recalled by Holmes, and in his absence, the two commanders left in charge performed poorly. I feel this could be condensed with no loss in quality. Something like "Hindman was temporarily recalled by Holmes and the two commanders left in charge in his absence performed poorly."
  • Simplified
• After the defeat, Van Dorn abandoned Arkansas [...] Hindman retained a field command, and advanced his forces into southwestern Missouri. [...] By the end of October, the Confederates had been driven back from Missouri into Arkansas If I'm not mistaken, then, they retreated into Tennessee? When did the Confederates return to Arkansas?
  • I've clarified this a little bit - Van Dorn retreated in Tennessee and took everything with him, and Hindman had to rebuild an army

Prelude

• area to distract Blunt, and he would then move the rest of his force to the rear of Blunt's force and defeat the Federal division before reinforcements from Springfield could arrive. This can be condensed.
  • Done
• The Federals cavalry's horses Federal should not be plural.
  • Done

Battle

• As the infantry moved slower than the cavalry, it was causing a delay. Redundant. That a man on his own feet is slower than a man on a horse's feet goes without saying, unless the reader has no idea what a horse is.
  • Removed. I would hope this is obvious, but you never know these days
• Six Parrott rifles from the 1st Kansas Battery opened fire on the Confederate position, and Bledsoe's battery and the two mountain howitzers from Carroll's brigade returned fire at about 1:00 pm. Recommend replacing ", and" with a semicolon.
  • Done
• During the Confederate retreats before Reed's Mountain was reached, Feels wiggly. Maybe "During the Confederate retreat towards Reed's Mountain,"?
  • Done
• The Federal commander decided to attack Is this Blunt or another commander? If it is Blunt, it seems to me that he decided to attack a long time ago.
  • I've rephrased this
• At the times, the fighting became hand-to-hand What times?
  • Removed "the" - hopefully it reads better now
• During other stages of the fighting on Reed's Mountain, the two sides could barely see each other. After about half an hour of fighting on the mountain, visibility became very poor due to smoke, as the brush had caught fire. These two should be combined, I think, or the order swapped around. As presently arranged, the cart is before the horse.
  • I've re-arranged and rephrased this

This concludes my reading. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above - I've tried to make all of the changes in a satisfactory manner. Hog Farm _Talk 03:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]