Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1st Missouri Field Battery/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2021 [1].

1st Missouri Field Battery[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Bacon 04:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Missouri CSA unit, a topic I find fascinating but most of humanity probably finds dry as dirt, so many thanks in advance to all reviewers! This one was an artillery battery formed in 1862. Unlike my recent FAC of Landis's Missouri Battery, this one lasted the rest of the war. Some of its members were executed after the Battle of Jenkins' Ferry in 1864, which is probably the most unusual incident in a generally undistinguished service history. Hog Farm Bacon 04:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are all freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 10:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing coordinator duties to have a look at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As the Confederates had lost control of the state of Missouri after the Battle of Pea Ridge in early 1862, the battery was formed by Captain Westley F. Roberts in Arkansas in September as Roberts' Missouri Battery." This reads oddly. It seems to suggest that losing control of Missouri is why Roberts formed the battery.
    • I've lopped off the first part about Pea Ridge, as not really important for the lead
  • "mobilized pro-secession state militia to encamp near St. Louis" → either 'mobilized pro-secession state militia near St. Louis' or 'mobilized pro-secession state militia, which encamped near St. Louis'.
    • Done
  • IMO the second paragraph of "Background and formation" goes into too much detail.
    • Agree. Heavily trimmed.
  • Could we be told a little about the weapons? Eg, the difference between smoothbore and rifled; what 6lb and 12lb mean in this context; perhaps their ranges, types of ammunition, manoeuvrability both operationally and tactically, number of crew required for each gun, perhaps even what they did; the tactical use and vulnerabilities of cannon on an ACW battlefield?
    • The best book I have about ACW artillery gives range, projectile weight, bore, and some other details. Added.
  • "The retreat continued until the Confederates reached Van Buren." Is it known how far away this was?
    • I found a time duration - two days. That's probably more explanatory that an absolute distance, anyway, given the state of travel in northwestern Arkansas in winter during the 1860s.
  • A push pin map showing the locations of the main places mentioned would be very helpful for non-locals.
    • Added, after drafting it in my sandbox. Used the template.
Possibly put it a bit earlier, either in Background or 1862?
  • Is it known why Roberts resigned? Or what he subsequently did?
    • I haven't been able to find anything. My book sources don't say, and I haven't been able to find anything online. The online searching process is complicated by a character from the movie The Princess Bride having the name Westley Roberts.
  • "the latter point was reached on February 22". "the latter point" → 'which'.
    • Done
  • "moved to a point along the Mississippi River". Is any detail known on where this point was?
    • Source doesn't specify a specific location, so I've rephrased this.
  • "which was armed with four 6-pounders at this point". Is it known when it lost its 12-pounders and/or what happened to them?
    • I haven't seen anything. I'd say the Encyclopedia of Arkansas is an RS. It was written by volunteers, but published by a reliable group and has an extensive oversight and editorial board. The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion don't have anything significant about this action that I can find. McGhee doesn't mention a change of armament. I found something really intriguing on Google books by [[Ed Bearss] at [2]. Which gives Ruffner's battery as having 4 6-pounders at Gaines' Landing as well. It's in snippet view only, but I can get enough to back up Encyclopedia of Arkansas with Bearss, but I can't see anything further that might explain things.
  • "Some of the Confederate artillery remained in reserve until the attack quickly bogged down, after which Ruffner's Battery was called into action." IMO this doesn't really work. Maybe 'The attack quickly bogged down and Ruffner's Battery, which had remained in reserve with other Confederate artillery, was called into action' or similar?
    • Done
  • "after participating in some looting". Maybe "participating" → 'engaging'?
    • Done
  • "two 10-pounder Parrott rifles and two 12-pounder howitzers". See above. What is a Parrot; what is a howitzer; what were their tactical uses, ammunition, crew numbers etc.
    • I've made an attempt based on the source I have readily available. Gog the Mild - Are these cannon descriptions satisfactory? Hog Farm Bacon 06:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm I suspect that we need a separate discussion on this. That is a good start re technical specifications, but still throws around terms that can only be understood by reading the Wikilink (smoothbore, case shot) and activities the advantage of which is not clear (rifling, fired with a greater trajectory). I think that you need to go right back to basics. And you have not yet touched on crewing, tactics. manoeuvrability, etc. I feel for you, I have just had to explain how the constraints of German military parachute technology constrained them tactically at the Battle of Heraklion; and am still trying to recover from the lengthy "Opposing forces" section in Battle of Crécy. And let's not even think about having to explain galley tactics! But at the moment you have an article on an artillery battery in which a reader needs to know nothing at all about the cannons, which doesn't seem right to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you have worked through Gog's concerns, and I will do the MilHist for Dummies review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia: - I'll be taking any further commentary on getting the cannons stuff to where it needs to be to the talk page for this FAC, so as not to clog up the page here. Hopefully I can start on that tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 05:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "African American troops who had been massacred at Poison Spring by Confederate cavalry". Any further details on this? "Massacre" covers a fairly broad spectrum.
    • Clarified
  • "The error allowed the 2nd Kansas Colored Infantry to capture either two[25] or three of the battery's cannons." Is it known what happened to them. Ie, did they accompany the retreating Union forces?
    • All I can find so far is that they were taken back to the Union lines. Confederate recapture is not mentioned in any source I've seen, so presumably they were taken back, but nothing directly says this. I've added earlier that the 6-pounders would have been considered obsolete by this point, so I doubt they were used by the Union army, which had better guns, but again, nothing says that directly, so it can't be added.
  • "On June 7, 1865, while stationed at Alexandria, Louisiana, the men of the 1st Missouri Field Battery were paroled, ending their combat experiences, as Smith had previously signed surrender terms for the Trans-Mississippi Department on June 2."Rejig into chronological order.
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This is looking good.

  • "They were considered to be mostly obsolete by that time." 1. Suggest "mostly obsolete" → 'obsolescent'; 2. By what time?
    • Done
  • "All of the pieces would generally have required between four and six men to fire each one". Is "each one" needed?
    • Not really. Remvoed
  • "cannons that were easy enough to move that they". Swap one "that" for another word.
    • I've removed "that were"
  • "brought on campaigns". Suggest 'taken on campaign'.
    • Done
  • "had 3 inches (7.6 cm) bores"; "a 4.62 inches (11.7 cm) bore" and elsewhere, "inches" → 'inch'.
    • Added a parameter to the template to correct this.
  • I am a little concerned about the flow of both sets of descriptions of the techy stuff. It feels a bit like a lot of facts being thrown out, not totally joined up. Let's see what other reviewers make of that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gog the Mild - I've addressed the points above. I agree there's a flow issue. I'll try to look at it at a time when I'm more fully awake. Are you ready for the other reviewers to proceed? Hog Farm Bacon 06:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to formally support for now - let's see if we can get the flow issues around the new text resolved. I am probably a bit close to that and would prefer some thinking time and input from other reviewers before coming back on it. So, Peacemaker67 and SandyGeorgia, it's all yours. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: I'm glad that we have sorted that. Rather than me revisit the article now, could you ping me once you have made any changes from PM's and SG's comments and I'll give it a quick check then. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson then occupied Boonville." Is "occupied" the best word?
    • Probably not. Rephrased.
  • "Lyon attacked the combined camp of Price and McCulloch". Is there a Wikilink for this? If not, is it worth a red link?
  • "The battery was armed with cannons in October: two 12-pounder James rifles that had been taken from Union forces at the Battle of Lone Jack and two 6-pounder smoothbores. [Paragraph break] The battery was armed with horse-drawn cannons in October: two 12-pounder James rifles taken from Union forces at the Battle of Lone Jack and two obsolescent 6-pounder smoothbores". Cough.
    • Oopsie. Duplication is gone now.
  • Link trajectory.
    • Done.
  • "engaged the Union at the" → 'engaged the Union force at the'?
    • Done
  • "William D. Blocher's artillery organization". Is this worth a red link?
    • I don't think so.
  • "ending their combat experiences". Optional: delete the terminal s.
    • Done
  • Sources: Bearss 1962 should be before Bearss 1964.
    • Done.
  • Sources: Kennedy needs a publisher location. (New York)
    • Done. I actually have a template to cite that source, so it was as easy as just replacing the long citation with the template.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It reads well. Good work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Ping me once you've addressed Gog's points. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will start my review now:

  • I get the intention behind the Armament section, but this is a wiki and I don't think we are going to include all that information in every ACW artillery article when it exists elsewhere (or could if all of this was reflected in an appropriate article), so let's not start now. What I suggest is a see also template targeted on Field artillery in the American Civil War for the section below the main template, and a severely trimmed final single para of the Background and formation section which should consist of a summary of the pertinent info regarding the guns used by this battery. This flows because the last thing in the third para of the current section is the mention of the guns. The totality of what is currently in the Armament section should be included in the Field artillery in the American Civil War article, and readers wanting more information will click on the link. I'd be happy to suggest a draft para with the minimum information required. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the internet seems to have eaten my last comment. Or I am losing it. I initially misread Peacemaker67's comments as an intention. I now understand them to be an offer. PM, I think that the article needs some level of detail on the battery's weaponry. If you were to produce a draft paragraph, the other reviewers could comment on how far away, if at all, it is from their ideal? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: I'm going to be away from my computer for a week, so it'll be about that long before I can really work on it. @Gog the Mild: requested adding all of the extra information, so I think we should get some sort of consensus as to how much is appropriate. Hog Farm Bacon 12:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK @Hog Farm, Gog the Mild, Wehwalt, SandyGeorgia, and Z1720:, my take on what needs to be included in terms of a description of the armament of the battery is at User:Peacemaker67/sandbox. I have basically grabbed the last sentence of the third para of the Background and formation section, made it the basis of the first sentence of a fourth para (getting rid of the Armament subsection header), combined some of the information using a single word or phrase to replace sentences (horse-drawn, obsolete), have removed most technical details of the guns (less range, in terms of weight, bore, projectile weight), some of what I consider common knowledge (cannons were long range weapons and their barrels were made of metal), details of the types of projectiles (which properly belong in the gun articles and the Field artillery in the American Civil War article). Field artillery in the American Civil War should be added to a see also template at the top of the Background and formation section below the main template. Have a look and see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good to me. I cleaned up a link piping error. Hog Farm Bacon 05:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • HF, ping me when it is in the article and I will re-read, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me too. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through now. I have struck out some words that I consider redundant, and underlined a word I want to add (because grooves was struck out.) If this was inappropriate an editor can revert my edit. What is meant by and two effectively obsolete 6-pounder smoothbores. Can we make that more definitive? Are they obsolete, considered obsolete by this time, or maybe they were considered much less effective by a newer model? I checked ref 3 and verified the inforamtion. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were considered to be generally obsolete, but remained in use to some extent. Not sure the best way to make that more definitive without getting too wordy. Hog Farm Bacon 17:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of better wording either, so let's keep effectively. Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the technically correct word is wikt:obsolescent. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to obsolescent. Hog Farm Bacon 18:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that is a great outcome, and will give you a bit of a model for future artillery battery articles. I'll get started with my full review shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest adding the initial and subsequent armament in the lead in the appropriate spots
  • for "Lyon attacked the combined camp" link Battle of Wilson's Creek
    • Done as a piped link
  • can you add where Jackson's govt-in-exile operated from?
    • Done
  • delete "The battery was armed with cannons in October: two 12-pounder James rifles that had been taken from Union forces at the Battle of Lone Jack and two 6-pounder smoothbores" at the end of the third para of the Background and formation section
    • Done. Gog caught that as well.
  • suggest an amendment to the armament sentence beginning "Later in the war, the battery was equipped with howitzers..."→Later in the war, the battery was equipped with two 10-pounder Parrott rifles and two 12-pounder howitzers, both of which could use exploding ammunition such as shells. The Parrot rifles had a similar range to the James rifles, but the howitzers fired at a higher trajectory and only had a range of 1,072 yd (980 m)." with appropriate sourcing and linking, and delinking of later links to the the two later guns
  • what happened to the James rifles?
    • Sources don't indicate.
  • suggest "in the vicinity of Gaines' Landing"
    • Done
  • optional, but IMHO, it is better to red link a full unit name, ie [[8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)|8th]] and [[9th Missouri Infantry Regiment]]s there is at least one other example
    • Done at the two instances I see.
  • move the MG (CSA) link to first mention (Van Dorn)
    • Done.
  • "who had been killed by Confederate cavalry while trying to surrender at Poison Spring."
    • Done

That's my lot. Great job thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I've made a few hands-on edits, feel free to revert any you don't like.
  • What is a "greater trajectory"?
  • I've switched it out to "greater arc", is that clearer?
  • "some of whom were executed by African American soldiers as revenge for African American troops " Would "killed" be appropriate instead of "executed"?
    "executed" is the exact word used in the source. This is a bit of a controversial situation: basically the Confederates conducted a racially-based massacre after Poison Spring, so the Union troops killed some of the captured Confederates as a reprisal. Given the nature of the situation, I think sticking with the exact word used by McGhee, who's fairly neutral, is the best way to go about this.
The prose seemed a bit wordy, and I made some effort to correct that where I could, but I'm not really that versed on military matters. That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt - I've replied to the two points made so far above. Thanks for reviewing. I'm about to be on a week-long wikibreak, so it'll probably be awhile before I can address any new concerns. Hog Farm Bacon 02:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I want to see what things look like when the reviewers above get done, though I am leaning support. Enjoy your break.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support On looking again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

  • See my script adjustments (and install those little critters for your own use ;)
    • Thanks.
  • Not sure this however is warranted-- see the links at the top of my userpage: "However, Clark and Gause were repulsed, exposing the two batteries' positions."
    • Removed
  • The battery was formed by Captain Westley F. Roberts in Arkansas in September ... there is no year anywhere in the first paragraph, but several dates. Could we get a year in there somewhere for context? Some editors (like me) hate infoboxes, and don't go there for basic info, rather prefer to actually ... read the article :) The battery was formed in September 1862 in Arkansas by Captain Westley F. Roberts as Roberts' Missouri Battery.
    • Oops. Added
  • The unit then fought ... the unit could not have fought before it was formed, so then is redundant.
    • Fixed
  • Should there be a redirect at First Missouri Field Battery?
    • There should. Created
  • Should Samuel T. Ruffner be a redirect to this article (or is he independently notable, in which case should he be WP:RED)? Ditto for Westley F. Roberts ?
    • Neither appears to be anywhere near notable. Both redirects created
  • vary wording ... engaged three times in two sentences ... Parsons's infantry was engaged at the Battle of Pleasant Hill on April 9, Ruffner's Battery served in a reserve role and was not engaged. The Union column engaged ...
    • Rephrased out two of the three usages
  • Supply issues forced Steele from a position at Camden, Arkansas, and the Union troops were pursued to the Saline River. --> forced Steele to retreat from the position ???
    • Went with a similar, but not exact, wording
  • Steele escaped across the river that night. ... Steele, or the whole lot of them? This comes across as if he left his troops ...
    • Corrected. Clunky wording.
  • There's an abrupt change here ... A Union counterattack captured several of Ruffner's Battery's cannons. Steele escaped across the river that night. In November 1864, the unit was given the official designation of the 1st Missouri Field Battery. How about something like --> After capturing several of Ruffner's Battery's cannons, Steele and part of his forces escaped across the Saline River. Then a new para where the unit gets renamed in 1864?
    • Done, although with slightly different wording.
  • It spent the remainder of the war in Louisiana and Arkansas before being paroled on June 7, 1865, at Alexandria, Louisiana; General Edmund Kirby Smith had signed surrender terms for the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department on June 2. --->  ?? --> It spent the remainder of the war in Louisiana and Arkansas and was paroled on June 7, 1865, at Alexandria, Louisiana after General Edmund Kirby Smith signed surrender terms for the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department on June 2.
    • Done
  • Just read the entire Armament section and have no clue why it's there (presumably this was the earlier impasse on this article?). I am hoping its relevance is going to become clear in the next section. But at this point, I don't know why all this info is here, and if it is essential to understanding how the Battery functioned, it seems that the relevant portions could be considerably shorter, and then dealt with via a Wikilink to <something> and attached at the end of the paragraph where they acquired these cannons.
  • Next, by the time I get through the long discussion of the armament, I have forgotten which state we are in at this point, so ... On December 7, the battery was engaged during the Battle of Prairie Grove ... give me some idea where we are again :)
    • Done
  • Reading the 1862 section, I find no need for all of my newly acquired knowledge about rifling, boring, etc to make what happened understandable. It looks like the armament stuff is a whole separate topic.
  • At the end of 1863, I find more information about armament whose relevance to this article is unclear. It seems like general information that belongs elsewhere, and I am not understanding why I need to know this for this article.

Done. I suggest removing all of the armament info <somewhere> and linking to it as needed. That's all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Got everything except for the armament stuff done, which is awaiting resolution on the talk page. Hog Farm Bacon 04:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the rejigging of the armament information, now the flow works! Even for those who don’t know a bullet from a Buruli. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

This is not a boring article, as indicated in your nomination. I am not knowledgable in military battalions or weaponry so this review will be from a "non-expert" perspective. I'll start with the prose, which only produced a few problems:

  • For the image in "Background and formation" I was looking at the source information and I think it was published in 1914. Is there a map to represent Missouri in the 1860s? Is this map an accurate representation of the Missouri geography during the Civil War?
    • I'm pretty sure this is a decent map for the 1860s. It's from a book discussing the war, and the context in which the map appears in the book is within a discussion of 1861 and 1862 events in Missouri, so I think its okay.
  • Cannons were long-range weapons. I'm not a military expert, but I assume that cannons are long-range weapons. There might be a history of cannons I'm not knowledgeable about that makes this sentence necessary (like they were short-range when originally built?) If this sentence is kept, I would expand to contextualise the statement with something like "Cannons were long-range weapons during the American Civil War."
  • I have commented on the discussion. I will wait for its result before suggesting changes.
  • The vast majority of the pieces would have been made of either bronze (referred to as brass in period military terminology) or of various forms of iron or steel. I struck out the words that I think you should remove from this sentence.
    • Done
  • while case shot were essentially shells with iron fragments in the middle which acted as shrapnel when the projectile detonated. Remove struck out word. Is case shot plural? Should it be case shots?
    • Case shot is both the singular and plural, removed the struck word
  • Canister ammunition consisted of a number of small metal balls held in a metal container. Delete struck out words
    • Done
  • exploding before the target was reached or even while the projectile was still in the cannon. Delete struck out word
    • Done
  • undergone the rifling process. What is the rifling process? There's no wikipage for this so can it be rephrased?
    • It's actually linked in the preceding paragraph, although I've tweaked the link where it appears to make it clearer this later mention is the same thing
  • They were considered to be obsolescent by that time. Delete struck out words, and maybe change "obsolescent" to "obsolete"?
    • Done
  • but it was ordered from the Confederate left to the right by What does "left to the right" mean?
    • I've clarified and added a link for some military jargon introduced.

That's my first round of the prose. I will do a second read-through and source review after the above are addressed. Please ping me when finished. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I wikimail you scans of offline or paywalled sources if you'd like. Hog Farm Bacon 04:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review - pass

I'm still new to conducting source reviews so this might be a slow process from my end. I appreciate your patience. I can verify that all the sources exist and I believe they are of high quality. I could access the sources listed below:

  • Ref 11: I can access but since both refs are in Armaments section I will check the refs when the text is finalised.
  • Ref 14: Same as 11
  • Ref 17: Same as 11
  • Ref 28: Accessed and verified
  • Ref 30: Accessed. I could not verify On September 11, Ruffner's Battery was part of the Confederate rear guard from the source. Can you quote what you used to verify this?
    • Actually, this appears to be a misreading of mine of the phrasing On the following morning, [...] the enemy's cavalry pressed our rear guard [...] where this brigade [...] formed, and awaited their coming. So the battery apparently wasn't in the primary rear guard, but a blocking force set up after they were pressed during the retreat. Rephrased. Hog Farm Bacon 02:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 32-34: Accessed and verified
  • Ref 48: Accessed and verified

Formatting was checked with no concerns.

I would like to spot-check some scans from offline and paywall sources. Since direct quotes were not used in the article, can @Hog Farm: email me five scans of book pages, with each scan from a different book? Please don't use refs from the Armaments section (because of its ongoing discussion) and please select refs that you feel the least confident in or would want someone else to check. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get you those tomorrow. I don't really have doubts about this, as I've been the primary contributor all the way, so I'll try to hit some of the most used pages. How does McGhee p 2, Shea 187, Johnson 199, Kennedy 233, and Forsyth 162 sound? Hog Farm Bacon 02:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fine, no rush. Z1720 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 - I've got scans ready for McGhee, Kennedy, and Forsyth. However, the email user thing won't let me attach files, so you'll need to send me a mostly blank wikimail and then I can attach the files on the reply. I don't have a scanner, so it's going to be rather grainy cell phone pictures. I hope to get to Shea and Johnson soon. Hog Farm Bacon 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. Grainy photos are fine if I can read the text I need to verify and see the page number. You can send them in multiple emails if you need. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forsyth 162 (ref 45) and Kennedy 233 (ref 31 a & b) have been verified. The third scan didn't include a page number so I don't know which source it goes to. Can this be clarified in the next email, when you send the other pages? Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third scan was McGhee. I have tomorrow off work, so I should be able to get the last two. Hog Farm Bacon 03:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about close paraphrasing in McGhee 2, ref 27a. because the order of information and paragraph structure is too similar. I think the prose can be condensed, summarized and sentences rearranged to avoid the close similarity. After this is done I will do a second readthrough. 27 f says Von Puhl's battery was defunct but this is not verified in the source. In 27 g, Ruffner's Battery was assigned four new cannons, all 6-pounder smoothbores is not verified. 27 b, c, d, e and g were checked and verified. I will continue the spot check when I receive the next email. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 - The one about the new cannons was an error where I meant to cite a page range and didn't get both pages down. McGhee p. 3 says The battery received new guns after the battle at Jenkins's Ferry, which consisted of four 6-pounder smoothbores. I've added another cite to another page of McGhee where it says that Von Phul's battery disbanded and gave its cannons to Ruffner's battery. Hog Farm Bacon 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also rewritten the 27a material. The Shea and Johnson scans have also been sent. Hog Farm Bacon 17:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For those following along, ref 27 is now ref 22. I am satisfied with ref 22a. I will AGF that page 3 has that info. Shea 187 and Johnson 199 are verified. I am satisfied with my source review. I will do another prose readthrough later. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose part 2

Just one concern, listed below.

  • General Edmund Kirby Smith had signed surrender terms Remove struck word.

Since this is minor, I will give this a pass and support this FAN. Z1720 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1st_Missouri_Field_Battery/archive1&oldid=1109403238"