Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2021 [1].

4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With Landis's Missouri Battery and Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment already at FA, I'm shooting to complete the trifecta of Missouri Confederate military branches with an infantry unit. The 4th existed for about six months before being shredded at the Second Battle of Corinth and consolidated with another unit. It's somewhat nonstandard flag is held by a museum. This will likely be entered in the WikiCup if it passes. Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source reviews—pass[edit]

Mostly based on the ACR, but I also managed to check a few of the print sources, finding no issues with verifiability. (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a bit more info here which I think is a reliable enough source, it says that 40 officers were surplus when the regiment was merged (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: - I've added the detail about the 40 surplus officers. The Pea Ridge bit is somewhat problematic, as the 4th Mo. Infantry CSA did not exist at Pea Ridge (the 4th Mo. Regiment listed at Pea Ridge Confederate order of battle was a Missouri State Guard unit) and the source does not give enough detail to state which component unit of the future 4th Mo. Infantry CSA Sitton was part of. Hog Farm Talk 21:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK seems reasonable. Support as after looking over the article I believe it meets all FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Buidhe: - There's another image added, per @Sturmvogel 66:'s comments. It'll need checked over. I'm almost certain it would be PD, but I wasn't sure how to phrase the licensing. Hog Farm Talk 23:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not sure, the source website does not say that the photograph is freely licensed. Tassels are somewhat three-dimensional so I think you would need a separate license for the photo. Personally, I would just use the svg version. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Buidhe - It's been removed. Not sure enough to nom it for deletion on Commons, and it's far from the most dubious image on Commons, so I'll probably let it be over there. Hog Farm Talk 02:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Organized on April 28, 1862". Is there a reason for "Organized"? 'Raised', 'Formed' or 'Recognized' would seem more appropriate.
    • Switched to "formed", which is the word used in the body.
  • "The 4th Missouri Infantry's battle flag is displayed at the Museum of the Confederacy.". I am not sure this still exists. "In November 2013, the Museum of the Confederacy and the American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar merged, creating the American Civil War Museum."
    • Changing the text references to the current name of American Civil War Museum. Essentially a rebranding. Although thanks for making me look into this, as I can now have a functioning link for the flag in collection citation - as late as last summer when I wrote this article, the collection website was still at the museum of the confederacy domain, but it's now at the current title. So I don't have to use the web archive there now.
  • "were of Anglo-Saxon descent." I don't think that link is helpful.
    • Removed
  • "At this time, Price was in command of the Army of the West". Optional: delete "At this time".
    • Done
  • "At Corinth, the 4th Missouri Infantry was in Green's brigade of Brigadier General Louis Hébert's division of Price's corps of the Army of West Tennessee". Bleh! Can we liven this up? 'At Corinth, the 4th Missouri Infantry made up part of Green's brigade, which was in Brigadier General Louis Hébert's division; Hébert's formation in turn was a component of Price's corps, in turn under the command of the Army of West Tennessee' or something?
    • Made an attempt, is this better?
  • "of Colonel Elijah Gates's brigade and Brigadier General Charles W. Phifer's brigade" → 'of Colonel Elijah Gates's and Brigadier General Charles W. Phifer's brigades'.
    • Done
  • "with the 30 remaining minutes of daylight and to wait for the morning of the 4th to resume the battle." Maybe something like 'as only 30 minutes of daylight remained; instead he waited for the morning of the 4th to resume the battle'?
    • Done
  • "with the objective of the attack being a fortification known as Battery Powell"> Delete "being".
    • Done
  • In the last paragraph of "Service history" "Moore's brigade" is used three times in three consecutive sentences. Any chance of some variety?
    • I've rephrased two out of three appearances
  • "ending the threat". What threat?
    • I've just removed those three words
  • In the first two sentences of "Legacy", "consolidated" occurs three times. Any chance of some synomyns?
    • Replaced one. The final one (in the unit title) is not replaceable.
  • "came to an agreement where McFarlane became colonel"> Should "where" not be 'whereby'?
    • Didn't know that. Done
  • "the Battle of Grand Gulf, Battle of Champion Hill, Battle of Big Black River Bridge". You need 'the' in front of each "Battle".
    • Done
  • "the Battle of New Hope Church, Battle of Kennesaw Mountain, Siege of Atlanta, Battle of Allatoona, and the Battle of Franklin." Ditto. And "Siege".
    • Done

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

While reviewing I had occasion to check cites 10e, 24 and 25. They were fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

  • The battle flag is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Heartfox: - I've added some alt text describing the design of the flag. Hog Farm Talk 04:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not an expert by any means but looks good to me! Heartfox (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

  • Is there a reason why you link Brigadier General and comparable instead of Brigadier general (Confederate States Army)?
    • I've tweaked the link in the lead, which should have been to the CSA article. The link to Brig. Gen. in the body is to the USA link because it's linked to Union general Lyon. The body link to the generic Major General for Price is to the generic article because Price wasn't part of the CSA at that point.
  • Why would a Missouri regiment be formed in Tennessee only to be immediately moved elsewhere? You may not know...
    • It's hard to make this clear without stretching the sources with OR and SYNTH, but what's going on is that when the MSG forces with Van Dorn got shipped out of Arkansas across the Mississippi, apparently the ones that became this unit must have ended up in Memphis. As stated, the MSG people mostly joined the CSA, which is what happened in Memphis. There's some fairly heavy geographical and military reasons why Corinth was important, but all that really is due weight for this article is that the unit went to Corinth, where some stuff happened. The sources don't do a good job of tying all of the stuff into the formation of this unit, and I'm not how best to state all that beyond the MSG went east of the Mississippi and joined the CSA and that the 4th Mo. Inf. Regiment was formed from MSG units east of the Mississippi, and then transferred to another part of the front.
  • "A muster, carried out on May 5, " As the first date in the section, suggest adding a year
    • Done
  • I feel like there's a lot of detail about Iuka for a battle that the regiment didn't even participate in. Why not summarize it along the lines of "On September 19, Price fought 17,000 men under Major General Ulysses S. Grant, the Union commander in the region, in the Battle of Iuka."?
    • I've tried to trim this down in a way that I feel is both due weight and gives the reader and idea of the movements. Does this look acceptable?
  • "After escaping, Price joined Van Dorn," I'm not sure what was escaped from? The last I knew there was a battle where the confederates defeated one wing...
    • I think the new description of Iuka makes this clearer. Grant was explicitly trying to trap Price's army so it could be defeated in detail
  • "At 10:00 on October 3," in the morning? It's not clear what timeframe is being used
    • Clarified as a.m.. I prefer to use 24-hour time in military articles, but you're right, it's ambiguous here, and there's no other times to establish which clock system is being used
  • " although this attack was supported by elements" how does "although" fit in?
    • It doesn't. Rephrased.
  • " as only 30 remaining minutes of daylight" -> "as there were only 30 remaining of daylight" or "as only 30 minutes of daylight remained"?
    • Yeah, I'm a terrible copy editor. Corrected.
  • I think that's just about anything from me, though may have some more. nicely done. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to Support now. You may want to re-add the date of Iuka for context. If you have a problem with a.m., you could probably get away with "in the morning". Nice work. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

(edit conflict)*Unengaged reads oddly to me. Perhaps something along the lines of present but did not see action? Or maybe just say that it was in reserve instead.

    • Done.
  • Clarify that the regiment was assigned to Green's brigade during 2nd Corinth. The current wording makes me wonder about that
    • Done, I think
  • Clarify that the 1865 surrender was at the end of the war for readers who might not know that. And combat tenure reads oddly
    • Rephrased on both points
  • Compress the first paragraph of the Background so that it's more focused on the circumstances just before the regiment was raised. I'd suggest cutting the 1861 info down to a sentence or two.
    • How about a compromise at three sentences? I think it's useful to introduce Price and the MSG there, as they are relevant in the history of the unit.
  • as only 30 remaining minutes of daylight Missing words?
    • Corrected as part of Eddie's comments.
  • clear line of attack Not sure what this means
    • Rephrased
  • Is there nothing available detailing the reg't's participation in the 1864–1865 battles? This is the basis of my oppose as this is a hole in the completeness criteria big enough to drive a truck through.
  • Can you upload a photo of the flag to Commons?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but it won't be of particularly high quality. The museum holding the flag claims copyright (although it's probably PD) and has a watermark on the image. this grainy one is one of the better ones I can find. Everything else I can find seems to be people selling stuff embroidered with that pattern (probably because most online retailers don't let people sell well-known CSA flag patterns, so they go for the obscure ones), and some crappy .svg drawing that look a lot like the one already in the article. Hog Farm Talk 23:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sturmvogel 66: - Do you have any thoughts about what to do for the flag image, given that Buidhe above says it may not be PD because of the significant 3D fringe on the original? Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically all flags are 3D objects, but I think that that's generally ignored for copyright determinations. So, no, I don't think that it matters.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This article could do with a run through by a non-military history regular, to check that the language is sufficiently free of jargon and specialist terminology to be broadly comprehensible to a general audience. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/archive1#SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: - With four supports (including one non-MILHIST) and passed image and source reviews, could I get a dispensation for a second nomination? If not, I'm perfectly fine with waiting until this one closes. Hog Farm Talk 07:07, 22 February 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/4th_Missouri_Infantry_Regiment_(Confederate)/archive1&oldid=1109403199"