Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capture of Sedalia/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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 14 November 2021 [1].

Capture of Sedalia[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the most obscure topic that will run through FAC this year. M. Jeff Thompson and his Confederate cavalry rode in, scattered the small and poorly trained garrison, and then engaged in a debated amount of looting. While Thompson stated that "no outrage or murder" was committed, tales circulated of people riding around with whiskey-filled boots and Thompson "spanking" soldiers with a sword. I created this in summer 2020; it passed GA in August 2020 and ACR in July 2021. As a warning, it is a bit thin in some spots because there is very little detail in sources. Only two military reports were left for this in the first place - a Union officer trying to explain away why his troops ran away, and Thompson trying to make it sound like his troops didn't get out of control. Hog Farm Talk 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I looked at this at both GAN and ACR, and will recuse to see what else I can find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little hopefully uncontroversial copy editing. If any causes you alarm could you flag it up here?

  • "He sent side raids to Glasgow and Sedalia. One of these brigades". "these brigades"; what brigades? You have only mentioned raids.
    • Reworded
  • "One of these brigades, led by Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson of the Missouri State Guard led a brigade". Repitition of "led"; repetition of "brigade".
    • Down to one usage of each
  • "significant Union movements". What was significant about them?
    • Removed word
  • "and quickly overwhelmed its approximately 830-man garrison. After paroling or releasing their prisoners" To my eye there is something missing in the middle, if only 'capturing most of them' or similar. The lead contains very little about the topic of the article.
    • I've added several more sentences about the battle to the lead, is this better? Hog Farm Talk 03:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bouncing around in various places before landing in Marshall, Texas". {{WP:INFORMAL]]?
    • I've rephrased this
  • "The Union gained control of in March". Where is this place "in"?
    • Missouri. Added
  • "Price decided to abandon the attempt against St. Louis". "the attempt", what attempt?
    • Rephrased and clarified
  • Lead "Price soon needed supplies, weapons, and remounts"; body "Price, needing weapons and supplies".
    • Removed from lead
  • "Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby's division". Genuine question, does "Confederate" add anything here?
    • I think its useful to clarify what's a bit of a technicality. Thompson's troops were part of the Confederate army, while Thompson himself was commissioned in the Missouri State Guard (allied but distinct from CSA) and wasn't technically a Confederate officer. I've had issues with the fairly-spurious addition of the Missouri State Guard to the article as a combatant due to the presence of Thompson, and I've trying to nip that in the bud by explicitly making it clear in the article that while the commander here was not officially Confederate, everyone else was so this can be referred to as a Confederate action The line between MSG/CSA can be quite blurred but also a point of contention, which can make this a more difficult angle to address. One of my ancestors actually served in both forces before he was executed by John McNeil
I understand that, kinda. But you are telling readers, in an oblique way, that part of the "Confederate" armed forces weren't Confederates. If this is important it seems to me worth expressly stating somewhere. If not, lose the reference: it is already in a hideously complicated clause ("Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby's division") which is in an even more convoluted sentence ("Price, needing weapons and supplies, then authorized two raids away from his main body of troops: Brigadier General John B. Clark Jr. was sent to Glasgow, and Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby's division to Sedalia"). Only the most anoraky of aficionados would pick up the reference. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped
  • The first paragraph of Battle is long. Maybe break after "had moved towards the west"?
    • Done
  • "Two redoubts and some rifle pits defended the town." I am not sure that inanimate objects can defend. Consider rephrasing?
    • Rephrased
  • "were driven back into town and scattered". Maybe swap the order?
    • Done, and rephrased the next sentence accordingly
  • "reported capturing hundreds of weapons and wagons of "goods suitable for soldiers" ... reported capturing a number of weapons and some military goods".
    • Done for the first part. The "good suitable for soldiers" is Thompson's exact words - I'm inclined to think that maybe the direct quote to Thompson should be used, as the official line is a bit dubious based on what the secondary sources are saying here. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this though.
I love that phrase. It smacks of Thompson desperately trying to suggest that he kept control of things without actually lying. I mean, if soldiers took them, they must have been suitable for soldiers, no? But it reads as if you are giving the same information twice. If Price's "number of weapons and some military goods" is separate, could this bit be rephrased?
I think I misunderstood your original comment. I've removed the second reference to this, as it appears to be Price regurgitating Thompson's report
  • "captured almost 2,000 mules and cattle". It seems odd to conflate these. Does the source not differentiate?
    • It does not
  • Add JSTOR for Geise.
    • Added

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Gog the Mild: - Replies above; I'd like to hear your thoughts about the "goods suitable for soldiers" one. Hog Farm Talk 05:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second read[edit]
  • "which was primarily defended by various classes of militia." Optional: 'which was primarily defended by militia'?
    • Done
  • "The Confederates then retreated into Texas, but not before suffering defeats at the battles of Mine Creek and Second Newtonia later in October." Consider recasting in chronological order.
    • Done
  • "who promoted ending the war". Well Lincoln wanted to end it too. Suggest unpacking this a little.
    • I've added a bit, McClellan wanted an armistice that would preserve slavery
  • "1st Missouri State Militia Cavalry Regiment. Additionally, 33 men of the 7th Missouri State Militia Cavalry". Why does one unit have "Regiment" on the end and the other not?
    • Standardized
  • "The National Park Service reports that the Union suffered one man killed and 23 wounded". Why in this single instance do you specify the source?
    • Not sure. Removed the specification

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the Price's Raid map
    • Done (1.2)
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed
  • File:Map_of_Pettis_County,_Missouri,_1872_LOC_2012593079.jpg: what's the author's date of death?
  • File:Price_Raid_(cropped).jpg: when was this digitized? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suspecting current licensing may be wrong - does this description of photographic reproduction from 1914 count as publishment?
      • Potentially, but unclear, per the definition here; any more details about who got copies and under what circumstances? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: - I can find no further details, likely because the concept of modern copyright rigor wasn't an issue people would have thought of in Kansas in the 1910s; I'd say it about has to be public domain with the painting made in 1865 and the artist verifiably deceased in 1914. I don't know if I can prove it, though. Unfortunately, the other Price's Raid depictions I'm aware of are even more dubious with licensing, I may have to purge this one from most of the series. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is the earliest publication that can be verified? If you can't find any, then do we know when it was digitized? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Nikkimaria: - I can't really find anything in the pre-internet age; although I did turn up a reference to it being publicly displayed by a state historical society at least before the 1940s. Should I just remove it? I could correct the weak licensing at File:Meriwether Jeff Thompson.jpg (a derivative was published in an 1880s book as shown here and use that as a replacement. Hog Farm Talk 05:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • That would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Nikkimaria: - I've swapped the Reader drawing for the Thompson image with updated licensing. Is there anything that needs done with the 1872 Pettis County map? Hog Farm Talk 06:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Because the country of origin is the US, we can use just the pre-1926 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - replies above on two kinda tricky items, will do the others shortly. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: just to clarify, is this review passed? (t · c) buidhe 22:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Jenkins, Paul Burrill (1906) current OCLC links to a 2009 edition published by "Bibliolife, Llc", change OCLC to 475778855 of correct date and publisher.
    • Good catch, corrected
  • Kennedy, Frances H., ed. (1998) is the location either Boston or New York, or is it both? If it's both, suggest Boston & New York, if either, retain Boston/New York.
    • Source's title page has the text "Houghton Mifflin Company * Boston * New York", I'm not sure if that should be interpreted as one or both
  • McGhee, James E. (2008) linked book is from 2011, suggest date of 2011 and 2008 orig-year, if you used the online version to write the article. ISBN is correct for both.
    • I used a borrowed print copy 2008 edition
  • @Hog Farm: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Iazyges: - Thanks for the source review! I have absolutely no idea what I should do with the Boston/New York thing. Hog Farm Talk 05:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If it lists as both in the original text I'd assume both publishing locations did print some of them and go with Boston, Massachusetts & New York, or a more simple Boston & New York. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. It's pulling through {{Cite Kennedy 1998}} so it may take some time for the change to be visible in the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Article passes source review. May be around as a reviewer later depending on timeline. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator note[edit]

As this nomination enters its fourth week it has received just the single general review. Unless it sees more activity over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Back soon - Pendright (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The capture of Sedalia occurred during the American Civil War when a Confederate force attacked the Union garrison of Sedalia, Missouri, on October 15, 1864
Why not tell readers the Confederate force that actually captured Sedalia?
Done
  • Confederate Major General Sterling Price had launched an invasion into the state of Missouri on August 29.
How about a brief introductory for Price before the above sentence?
@Pendright: - for Price himself or Price's Raid? The article intentionally doesn't say much about Price as he wasn't as critical to this action as others. Hog Farm Talk 06:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just Price and the circumstances that form the setting for the event or idea. Pendright (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>@Hog Farm: Afterthought: Tell readers just enough so they can understand how Price fits into the scheme of things. Pendright (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to both the body and the lead that Price was a former governor who had led the Missouri State Guard before entering Confederate service
  • Price had to abandon his goal of capturing St. Louis after a bloody repulse at the Battle of Fort Davidson, and moved into the pro-Confederate region of Little Dixie in central Missouri.
Drop the comma after Davidson or add a subject to the clause
Removed
  • Many recruits joined the Confederates in the region, and Price soon needed supplies and weapons for these men.
Consider taking "in the region" and inserting it after recruits
Done
  • He sent side raids to Glasgow and Sedalia.
Do you mean side "raiders"?
Use of "raids" here is intentional, do you think an alternate phrasing would be superior?
  • One of these, led by Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson of the Missouri State Guard, involved sending a brigade, numbering about 1,200 men, towards Sedalia.
This 25 word sentence contains four commas - suggest rephrasing for better readability
Got it down a couple words shorter and got all of the commas out of it.

Price's raid:

  • On October 7, the Confederates approached Jefferson City, which was held by about 7,000 men, mostly inexperienced militia.
Insert "reportedly" between which and was
Not sure about this one, but I'm willing to be talked into it. The true number was 7,000 per the secondary source, the "reportedly" number Price would have known is the 15,000 in the next sentence
Your call! Pendright (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faulty Confederate intelligence placed Union strength at 15,000, and Price, fearing another defeat like Pilot Knob, decided not to attack the city, and began moving his army toward Boonville the next day.
toward -> elsewhere usage is towards?
Done.

Battle:

  • The unit reported that Union cavalry was operating in the area and had moved towards the west.[22]
  • was operating or were operating?
  • Not entirely sure, but I've changed to "were", which I feel like is more likely to be corrected
  • I stand corrected - was is the better choice. Pendright (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change and to but for contrast
  • Done
  • Thompson believed that surprise gave him the greatest chance of success,[24] and attacked before daylight on October 15.[18]
Drop the comma after sucess or add a subject to the clause
Comma is gone
  • Within ten minutes, the rest of the Thompson's brigade, including the artillery, arrived.
Drop "the" after of
Removed
  • Confederate soldiers chased the militiamen as they fled through the prairie, inflicting an unknown number of casualties.[29]
Replace "through" with "across"
Done

Aftermath:

  • The modern historian Kyle Sinisi stated that Thompson attempted to keep the capture of military property orderly, although things got of Thompson's control despite the Confederate commander performing actions such as shooting the mule a soldier was riding and spanking some of his men with the flat of his sword.
"the" mule -> "a" mule
Done
  • Two days later, Union Major General James G. Blunt attempted to stop Price at the crossing of the Little Blue River, but was defeated in the ensuing Battle of Little Blue River.
Is it necessary to repeat the "Little Blue Rver"?
Piped linked the battle's name, so Little Blue River is in there only once now
  • Union troops continued pursuing Price until the Confederates reached the Arkansas River on November 8; the Confederates did not stop retreating until they reached Texas[43] towards the end of the month.[44]
towards the end of the month" -> Suggtest towards the end of November 1864.
Done

Postscript:

  • The lead indicates that "He" [Price] hoped to distract the Union from more important areas and cause a popular uprising against Union control of the state."
Did he or did he not accomplish this? If either can be sourced, it might be a good ending to the piece.
He did not. I've added this to the very end of the article

Thompson image:

  • "M. Jeff Thompson" -> Confederate Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson of the Missouri State Guard
Went with "Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson of the Missouri State Guard", because Thompson technically never officially joined the CSA, despite commanding Confederate troops and serving under Confederate officers

Finished - Pendright (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - Thanks for the review! I've tried to address everything, although there's one or two not done. Hog Farm Talk 07:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thanks for your respones - glad to support. Pendright (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

Not much to quibble over here although I stand to be corrected by Pendright...

  • Background: The Union gained control of Missouri in March 1862 after the Battle of Pea Ridge,[5] and Missouri... because of the repeated usage of Missouri in this sentence, perhaps change the second mention to "the state"?
    • Done
  • Price's Raid: After abandoning the St. Louis thrust the abandoning language is repeated from the previous sentence, suggest altering for variety, perhaps "giving up the proposed St. Louis thrust..."?
    • Done
  • Price's Raid: The attack, known as the Battle of Fort Davidson, occurred on October 27, the linked article says the battle was on September 27. There are dates in following sections that would be out of sequence if it was October 27
    • Good catch - mix up there
  • Price's Raid: fearing another defeat like Pilot Knob, for accuracy, perhaps Pilot Knob be replaced with Fort Davidson?
    • Corrected. The battle is known as both Fort Davidson and Pilot Knob. Fort Davidson is probably more common in RS, Pilot Knob is more common in general parlance in Missouri, which is why it popped up in my usage there.
  • Aftermath: although things got of Thompson's control... shouldn't that be "things got out of Thompson's..."?
    • Corrected
  • Aftermath: a few hundred were classified as home guard move the link here to first mention of home guard in the 3rd paragraph of the battle section.
    • Moved

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All good here, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:34, 12 November 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/Capture_of_Sedalia/archive1&oldid=1109403214"