Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Van Buren

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Van Buren[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Van Buren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

My 96th good article, this one is another example of the Confederates being incompetent in Arkansas. Hindman's Confederates are falling back across the mountains during a nasty Ozarks winter, and stop at Van Buren. The officer put in charge of watching the roads north had previously gotten in trouble for being negligent, so it should perhaps be no surprise when his Texans come running into Van Buren one morning chased by Union cavalry. Hindman brings up reinforcements who content themselves with shelling a town full of both Union troops and their own civilians, while Union cavalry chases down Confederate steamboats trying to escape. Meanwhile, the Confederates tasked with evacuating supplies and burning what could not be taken panic and torch everything. Hog Farm Talk 14:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review the flag image is said to have been published before 1927 but I don't see where that is supported. Under us copyright law distribution is required to count as publication. Putting the image on a website would count but not waving it around. (t · c) buidhe 19:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that whoever produced the flag back in the 1860s had any thought of copyrighting the work, but I've removed the image, buidhe. Alternative images would be one of the fort at Fort Smith, of one of the types of cannons referenced in the article, or I could try to dredge up an image of Blunt/Herron/Hindman from an old book, whichever would be viewed as most relevant. (oldest image I can find for Van Buren itself postdates the battle by 25 years). Hog Farm Talk 20:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The map section looked a little weird, with the bits of border at the top and left, so I recropped it very slightly. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 16:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a photograph of a wartime commissary building at Fort Smith that I took myself. Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—pass: sources look ok. Checks done on Bearss 1967. "Hindman retained a field command under Holmes and pushed the troops under his command into northern Arkansas and southwestern Missouri." -> the source doesn't use the term field command, but I'll assume it's obvious. Fixed pagination for one of the refs but found no other issues. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comments SupportGeorgejdorner (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First pass[edit]

This is my first A Class review. I am probably going to be awfully slow in this evaluation. I intend to proceed bit by bit.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last sentence in lede is puzzling. Recommend adding "The battles of" to begin the sentence.
    • Done
  • "...his methods were unpopular and sometimes extra-legal." Can you elaborate on this?
    • The whole thing is a bit too detailed for this, but I've added a quote from a historian referring to his actions as "fanaticism and a complete disregard for constitutional rights"
  • 7 miles or 9 miles north of Van Buren? Which is it? Also, single digit numerals are spelled out.
    • I'm not sure, the sources disagree so I've listed both numbers. The modern distance is not relevant because of significant changes in the road network. The single digit numeral is due to the use of {{convert}} which I do believe is capable of spelling out numeric outputs. From my past experience at FAC (where this is headed eventually), it's considered acceptable to have the minor MOS issue with the single digits instead of just hard-keying all of the conversions, which is not desirable
      • How about amending to say, "about 8 miles"?
        • Done (this also takes care of the awkward single barely-related cite to Dedmondt) Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was unaware of the FAC policy. In lower level assessments, I have been chastised for using single digits.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a bit of a gray area - it's not desirable to hardkey those conversions but the template then mandates the single digits which isn't desirable either. Hog Farm Talk 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about an explanatory footnote concerning the distance?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix single digit numbers throughout article.
    • See above.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think all of the single digit numbers are either produced by the convert template (see above) or are dates
      • Again, see above.
  • Is it necessary for you to mention the names of historians in text when they are listed in cites and bibliography?
    • I think it most cases it is desirable, for in-text attribution purposes of who says what. I've been asked to do similar things in FACs in the past, so I generally just list the historians outright when there's disagreement.
      • Ah, so the historians' names are given in the text to spare readers the toil of clicking a cite? Doesn't make sense to me. And I have not seen anyone else doing this.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Gog the Mild and Buidhe: - Any thoughts here? My preference is to keep the in-text attribution as useful, although it might be because I'm an auditor and feel the need to have everything clear and tied out. Hog Farm Talk 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't Theophilus Holmes mentioned in the info box?
    • Holmes was in Little Rock a long ways off on bad roads and played no meaningful role in what actually happened in the battle besides the orders to Hindman to pull out. Holmes was an infamously passive commander (if you think it'd be helpful, I can add that Holmes was sent west because he'd been too incompetent in more important areas)
      • A military commander is always responsible for the actions of his troops, no matter what. Holmes was in command and should be listed. Your suggestion that he had little to do with his troops' movements would be a great additiion.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not directly stated in any of the the "major" sources (both Sheas, Bearss 1967, Christ) but the fact that none of those sources mentions Holmes at all between his December 21 visit and his order to Hindman mentioned in the aftermath section. In the American Civil War, it was not uncommon to have department or theater-level officers who did precious little of anything; from what I've seen the standard with American Civil War battles is to list only the commanders who were effectively making decisions on the field. Otherwise we'd have to list Henry Halleck for darn near 40% of all battles when he had basically nothing to do with most of them. Hog Farm Talk 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Command responsibility lies on those in command positions, but not on staff officers. Holmes' presence on the battlefield may have turned the tide of battle. As you have noted, he shirked his responsibilities. Whether he was absent or present, it was still Holmes' command.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added Holmes. In all fairness, I do have to say that Holmes wasn't necessarily shirking - Van Buren was out in the middle of nowhere in a low-infrastructure area Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have no access to the Sources, I take them in good faith. With nearly a dozen listed, it's obvious someone did their research.
    • I've got print copies of about half of them (Castel, Christ, Foote, Hess et al., Piston & Rutherford, Shea 1994, and Shea 2009).

I'll be back. (Let your imagination supply the ghostly music.)23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Second pass[edit]

The added Background material substantially improves the article's quality, as do the other previous editorial changes. You are adding some quality tweaks here.

I clicked through the Toolbox and noted no problems.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you realize this article is an orphan? It has a list of connected User pages, but they aren't available to the general reader to use as entry.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure where you're seeing that ... I'm seeing 116 links from the articlespace, including some from both direct links and navbox/campaignbox inclusions. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nor do I now. What could I have mis-clicked?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you might have mis-clicked onto the links check for this ACR itself, which is mainly linked in the userspace and the wikipedia space. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are red links allowed in a Class A article?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, if they're reasonably likely to become an article. I've removed the redlink for Shaler as he's fairly marginal but the one for Tilden's battery is reasonable. I could hammer out a GAN-able article on Tilden's battery in 2 or 3 hours if I had the time (which I don't really right now)
  • A5 criteria suggests two or three illustrations for a short article like this. I would suggest two more--a steamboat, and a cavalryman.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tacked on an image of one of the types of cannons used and one of Blunt, as they're probably a bit more closely related to the battle. (I try to avoid using generic cavalry images, as ACW cavalry, especially the Confederates, are often way over-romanticized)
  • Have you considered date-month-year format for greater clarity?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that actually adds clarity, and from what I've seen, most scholarly ACW sources actually use month-date-year instead. Randomly pulling 7 scholarly works off my bookshelf shows 7 mdy and 0 dmy (sample: Civil War on the Western Border [Monaghan], Civil War in Louisiana [Winters], On to Petersburg [Rhea], Defending the Arteries of Rebellion [Chatelain], Shenandoah 1862 [Cozzens], General A. P. Hill [Robertson], Battle of New Market [Davis])
      • Both formats are acceptable, per MOS. Having the date and year numerals separated by the month aids in comprehension; I have carried the usage over from my military service. Nevertheless, you are not wrong, and your format is probably true to your sources. I should have noted from the start that your format is okay.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final sentence of the text lacks a year date, and seems oddly placed. The sentence before it is an excellent ending summary sentence. I would recommend incorporating it into the sentence beginning, "Holmes ordered Hindman to abandon the Fort Smith area..." That is, if the Union did indeed capture Fort Smith in 1862.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved the sentence up to the prior mention of Ft. Smith and clarified that the capture happened in 1863, so hopefully this works better
      • You had a great closing sentence there; you just had to close with it.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Background: Could we start with a short paragraph explaining what the American Civil War was and summarising what had happened in it prior to March 1862?
    • I have (quite lazily) copied and properly attributed the relevant material from the Battle of St. Charles article
I thought that you might. Very sensible.
  • "leaving very little military organization remaining in the state." Delete "remaining".
    • Removed
  • "with Fort Smith to the southwest and on the south bank of the river." Delete "and".
    • Done
  • Link seniority.
    • Done
  • "Bacon had also been destroyed as well." You don't need "as well" as well as "also".
    • Removed "As well"
  • "By January 8, 1863, only parts of two cavalry regiments and one infantry regiment remained at Fort Smith." Of which side?
    • Confederate. Added

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: - sorry for a second ping on this review page in a matter of minutes, but these are all done (the new background material might need a look over but it's been through FAC once so it's hopefully not in terrible shape). Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA[edit]

  • "convention adjourned on March 21 without" --> "convention adjourned on March 21, without"
    • Done
  • "United States-held fort in seceded territory on April 12" Same as above.
    • Done
  • "After significant military activity in Missouri throughout 1861, Major General Earl Van Dorn" Link Major General.
    • Done
  • "which was about 8 miles (13 km)[26][25]" Reorder the refs here.
    • Done
  • "Holmes visited the Van Buren area on December 21" --> "Holmes visited the Van Buren area on December 21,"
    • Done
  • "After spreading disinformation on December 26 that the Union" Same as above.
    • Doesn't seem right to me but done
  • I see a lot of miles. Maybe replace them with abbreviations of them?
    • Should be abbreviated on all except the first

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Van_Buren&oldid=1093221566"