Talk:Battle of Hobkirk's Hill

Expanding Article

I am in the process of expanding this article to at least B class. If you wish to contribute, please feel free. dashiellx (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

article review

some comments on what strikes me about the article:

• Nathanael Greene is dropped into the introductory section without explanation of who he is. The introduction should be a straightforward summary of the whole of the article, which also should not puzzle a reader.
• 'After Guilford Court House,': I have never heard of guildford court house, is it a nice country house where there was a party? Who is cornwallis? On first mention, you need to explain terms eg be completely explicit it was a battle at Guildford court, and cornwallis was a commander/general/captain/chap who just happened to be there. This might all happen in the intro summary with something like following the battle of Guildford House, british forces under XXX/lord/king/governor Cornwalis withdrew from South Carolina. American militia forces under cornet/etc Greene attempted to draw Cornwalis back by attacking the town of Camden. This was defended by Lord Francis Rawdon with 900 troops. Rawdon took the offensive, attempting to catch Greene while some of his troops were absent. The ruse failed, but Rawden still managed to defeat the Colonial force. Sorry if that is a bit of a confused summary, but I havn't got all the details. In general you need to be a bit precise/pedantic when you start out to make sure every reader is up to speed on who is doing what.
• 'The movement was part of an intricate campaign ordered by Green involving Continental and Militia troops all across the colony.' I'm not quite sure whether Greene was just ordering troops, or whether he had command of the 'partisans' also?
• what happened to the 400 soldiers who were no longer coming to relieve camden?
• sallied forth? is that a bit literally close to the source material? some language updating is helpfull, I havn't sallied for ages.
• was carrington a colonel or Lietenant colonel? Only necessary to state his rank once, but need to get it right. In general, only link any item once, the first time it appears in the body of the article. Might link it again if it appears in a picture caption or references etc.(ie if it appears anywhere a reader might see it having skipped the main bit, just looked at the pictures first or maybe checking refs first)
• Is it possible to get a higher resolution scan of the map of the battle? I tried clicking on the maps to see a bigger version and still couldn't see much. The originals may not be good enough, but if they are....
• The full stop goes before the refs, which should touch each other without spaces between them.
• I don't understand 'who was in command to the right of the 1st Maryland regiment,...' was he commanding the maryland regiment which was on the right, or was he commanding some other troops to the right of the Maryland regiment?
• So Rawden beat Greene, but what happened next? were the lot slaughtered, or did they run for it, or taken prisoner?
• what were the consequences of Greene loosing? Need to place the battle into context. Why does the infobox call it a tactical british victory, but a strategic American one? The infobox is also a summary, and the stuff in it needs to also be in the body of the article somewhere. Greene's views in the intro also seem to suggest it was both a strategic and tactical british victory, contradicting the box?
• Is the quote correct? it looks as though a 'the' is missing (of the opinion?). The quote is also confusing, since I am not immediately familiar with scipio and it is not obvious what he meant. needs a bit of explanation somehow?

Sorry its a bit of a long, picky list. Hope it helps. I have edited some of the points into the text as I have gone through. Sandpiper (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

The introduction is replete with apologist WW phrases, qualifying in heavy handd fashion the fact that the fight was a victory although with limited advantages for the victors- 'Tactical success'/tactical defeat' being classic examples.

Videlicet:

"After a fierce clash, Greene retreated a few miles, leaving Rawdon's soldiers in possession of the hill'

'Even though Rawdon was the victor, he soon fell back'

'Despite his tactical success, Rawdon found it necessary to abandon Camden two weeks later

'The battle was one of four contests in which Greene met tactical defeat, though his overall strategy was successful..'

In any case I would suggest that statements of this kind belong in the Aftermath section, rather than qualifying the account of the battle at the outset

And what is the purpose of this phrase- "A small American army under Nathanael Greene defended a ridge known as Hobkirk's Hill against an attack by an even smaller British force led by Francis Rawdon."?

-and how does it compare with -" Greene considered the battle a lost opportunity to defeat a significant British force of the British Army ."?

All of which creates considerable sense of POV. Indeed with the disproportionat focus on General Greene. at times it seems the article might be re-titled, 'How we fought the British at Hobkirk Hill and weren't totally defeated." There is little explanation of British policy or objectives; the Crown forces being presented as almost wholly reactive.

Proposed amendment:"A small American force under Nathanael Greene occupying Hobkirk's Hill, north of Camden, was attacked by British troops led by Francis Rawdon. After a fierce clash, Greene retreated, leaving Rawdon's smaller force in possession of the hill. .

Despite the victory, Rawdon soon fell back to Camden and two weeks later found it necessary to abandon Camden and withdraw toward Charleston, South Carolina. The battle was one of four contests in which Greene was defeated, though his overall strategy was successful in depriving the British of all South Carolina except Charleston." The battlefield marker is located at Broad Street and Greene Street two miles north of the center of modern Camden."