Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Battle of Newtonia

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

First Battle of Newtonia

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

First Battle of Newtonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/First Battle of Newtonia/archive1

This will be my first experience with the A-Class system, although I have been active at GA, so I have a decent idea of article standards. This one's a bit more of an obscure topic - a battle on the fringes of the American Civil War. It recently passed a Good Article nomination, and I think it's close to the A-class requirements. Warning - a fair deal of the sourcing is offline, and in somewhat obscure texts. Again, this is my first A-Class experience, so please bear with me. Hog Farm (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Kges1901 Always good to see more coverage of the Civil War.

Gerteis and O'Flaherty's accounts are good for a summary, but because they were covering broad subjects, they could not extensively detail the battle. Ed Bearss has an article about the battle in the Missouri Historical Review that you can access online.

• In terms of coverage, I'd suggest adding an order of battle between the background and battle sections that details the forces involved in the battle, where you can also state their strengths. That way you can specifically refer to the 9th Kansas Cavalry and the other units in the battle by name.
  • I'll see what I can do. The secondary sources I've consulted so far (Wood, Gerteis, O'Flaherty, Foote, Kennedy, etc.) don't give detailed orders of battle. I've found a Confederate return of casualties in the Official Records, but it only gives regiments by their commanders' names, which wouldn't be particularly helpful if I'm discussing the 31st Texas Cavalry because that's how the secondary sources identify the regiment while the primary source refers to Hawpe's regiment, Alexander's regiment, and Jean's regiment. Additionally, the report I've found doesn't distinguish between infantry and cavalry (and refers to the Confederate battery as Howell's battery, while all of the secondary sources I've seen use Bledsoe's battery) The NPS gives a good Union order of battle, so I'll use that and see what I can turn up on the Confederate side. Hog Farm (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Added. How does it look? OR was the best I've found so far.
      • On Bledsoe's Battery, I think you should go with the preponderance of sources. McGhee's unit guide is arguably the best source in the movements of MO CSA units and his statement that Hiram Bledsoe's battery was at Corinth at the time is pretty definitive. As Joseph Bledsoe's battery was regularly attached to Shelby's brigade at the time of Newtonia it seems pretty clear that it is Joseph Bledsoe's battery and that O'Flaherty was in error. Note Howell's battery is a completely different unit (a Texas battery), see Bearss who states that it was a fresh unit sent from Camp Coffee (a reinforcement I presume). If you've noticed, the figures in the ORs are used by Bearss for Confederate casualties.
• Foote is good, but he didn't use inline refs in his books, though I'm sure that his figures are from the ORs. The Bearss article can shed more light on the strength as well.
• Wood may have something to add as well, if he didn't rely exclusively on Bearss, you'll have to check to see what sources he used
  • The inside cover of Wood contains a disclaimer stating that the information in the book is true to the best knowledge of the publisher, but that the publisher makes no guarantees as to accuracy. I've never seen that in a book before, so I'm unsure about the reliability of Wood.
    • That looks like publisher boilerplate, probably because they have a heavy emphasis on local history where some books may shade into storytelling. I wouldn't use Wood too much either except for the fact that the CWBA review of the Newtonia book [1] mentions that he used the University of Missouri's manuscript collections, so there might be something new there.
• There's also Embattled Arkansas: The Prairie Grove Campaign of 1862 by Michael E. Banasik, which apparently covers in the battle in detail as well.
• For A-class, you'll need to significantly expand the battle section to make it detailed enough. If this were a battle where there wasn't detailed information available, Gerteis & O'Flaherty's accounts would be sufficient, but since Bearss wrote several pages about it there's enough to add several more paragraphs.
  • Heavily expanded battle section using Bearss, I'll skim Wood later and see if there's anything new in that work.

Background

• the state of Missouri went through a period of decreased military activity - The takeaway from Gerteis seems to be that the Union commanders declared victory, but this quickly proved a tenuous claim with a few months
  • Stated directly
• the chaotic state of affairs - Schofield was replaced on September 24 per Gerteis, a week before Newtonia, so the date may be relevant as the shift might have had an impact on Union command & control. Also, given that Gerteis notes that Schofield was replaced because Confederate activities gave the lie to Union claims to have full control of Missouri, the exact reasons should be mentioned more than just 'chaotic state of affairs.'
  • I've made this a little clearer
• When introducing Cooper's raid, the reasons for why they were in Newtonia instead of other places should be explained, as Gerteis mentions that the Confederates were after the grain at the town's mill. Bearss also notes that the town was a key road junction. Kges1901 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Expanded
    • @Kges1901: - How does the clearer background information and the expanded battle section look? Hog Farm (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
      • The description of the background and expanded battle section is satisfactory except that the details become much more vague in the last paragraph. Bearss has more details about the rout and the intervention of Hall's Missouri militia brigade to discourage the Confederate pursuit. Kges1901 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Kges1901: - It's clear to me now in hindsight that at the time of the nomination, this article was nowhere near the depth required for A-class. Does this article after the expansion stand a reasonable chance of reaching that high standard, or should I withdraw this nomination? Thanks for your helpful comments and work on the article, it's in a much better state than it was a week ago. Hog Farm (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Given that Bearss probably wrote the most in terms of detail about the battle, you've covered the standard that ACRs comprehensively use the reliable sources about the battle. This article does have a good chance of promotion. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright

Thank you for nominating this article. The comments that follow are meant to help make a good article better. Pendright (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead:

• A Confederate force commanded by Colonel Douglas H. Cooper composed mostly of cavalry led by Colonel Joseph O. Shelby and a brigade of Native Americans moved into southwestern Missouri and encamped near the town of Newtonia.

This is a sentence of 36 words without a punctuated pause?

Split into two sentences

<>A Confederate force commanded by Colonel Douglas H. Cooper moved into southwestern Missouri and encamped near the town of Newtonia.

Add a comma after Missouri to join the independent clauses - Pendright (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Added

• Shortly before nightfall, Cooper's Confederates made an all-out attack against the Union line, leading Salomon [to decide] to withdraw from the field.

• Replace the comma after line with a semcolon to properly join the indepeden clauses.

Done

• [to decide] - seems unnecessary?

Removed

• Unionist militia commanded by Colonel George Hall covered the Union retreat, although Confederate artillery fire struck the retreating Union forces.

Need the definite article to begin the sentence and before confederate.

Done

• A large Union force began advancing towards Newtonia in early October, leading Cooper [to decide] to abandon Missouri.

• Replace the comma with a semicolon to join the independent clauses.

Done

• [to decide] seems unnecessary?

Omitted

• A portion of the battlefield was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2004 as the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District.

• Do you mean "just" a portion of the balltefield is listed, but the site is identified as the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District?

Yes. Only part of the site is listed, and the listing is referred to by that name

<>Okay, thanks - Pendright (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• "is listed vs was listed?

I feel like was listed is the correct usage, since the sentence is referring to the action of the listing, which occurred in 2004.

<>Good point - Pendright (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Background:

• After Union victories at the Battle of Pea Ridge and the Battle of Island Number Ten in early 1862, Union control of Missouri seemed secure, with the Union high command proclaiming that "[there was] no Rebel flag now flying in Missouri".

Add the definite article before Union control

• • Added
• Confederate Major General Sterling Price sent some of his troops into Missouri in order to get supplies and new volunteers, and Confederate officers such as Colonel Joseph C. Porter raided into the state.

This sentence is problematic for me! Read it again, and we'll discuss it if need be?

Changed to "Confederate Major General Sterling Price sent some of his troops into Missouri [in order] to get supplies and new volunteers. The state was also raided by Confederate officers such as Colonel Joseph C. Porter.", is this better?

<>Deleting [in order] would make it even better! Pendright (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed "in order"

• Union forces suffered another defeat on August 15, this time at the Battle of Lone Jack.

Add "The" before Union

Added

• Cooper's force included the Confederate cavalry of Colonel Joseph O. Shelby as well as a brigade of Confederate-sympathizing Native Americans and several Texas cavalry regiments.

Add a comma after Shelby

Added

• Cooper sent a scouting force commanded by Colonel Trezevant C. Hawpe, composed of the 31st Texas Cavalry (Hawpe's Regiment) and the 1st Cherokee Battalion, to scout the Newtonia area on September 27.

Consider this or something like it - • Cooper sent a scouting force to the Newtonia area on September 27; it was commanded by Colonel Trezevant C. Hawpe, and composed of the 31st Texas Cavalry (Hawpe's Regiment) and the 1st Cherokee Battalion.

Done

Union:

• The Union force engaged at Newtonia was a mixture of all three arms of the Union army: infantry, cavalry, and artillery.

Union Army is considered a proper noun

Fixed

Confederate:

• Foote estimated the total Confederate strength to be around 5,500 men,[11] an estimate which is consistent with the range found in other sources.

Change which to that - that is used when what follows is essential to the meaning of the sentence.

Done

September 29:

• After realizing the his cannons lacked the range to shell Newtonia,

• "the" or "his"?

It was intended to be "that his"

• While this link does speak to cannons, it does mot address specifically the various types of cannons actually used during the Civil War. Suggest relinking cannons to Field artillery in the American Civil War.

Done.

September 30:

• Some of the infantrymen of the 9th Wisconsin moved to the cover [of some] of the houses on the edge of Newtonia and began sniping at the cannoneers of Bledsoe's battery.

• Delete [of some]

Removed

• Add a comma after Newtonia

Went with "the edge of Newtonia; they began sniping", I like that a little better stylistically. If that phrasing is objectional, I'll change it

<>It's fine - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• The 22nd Texas had planned on assaulting the Union artillery position, but the Missouri cavalry, commanded by [a] Colonel Gordon, mistook the Texans for Union troops, and the delay caused by the confrontation eliminated the opportunity for an assault.

Why the [a]?

I didn't have the colonel's full name at first, I've hunted it down and removed the a

<>Good - Pendright (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• He then proceeded to arrange the cannons on hand, the 6th Kansas Cavalry, the 3rd Indian Home Guard, and a portion of the 9th Wisconsin into a defensive line.

... "into a defensive line" seems more appropriate in the opening clause instead of at the end of the sentence?

Rearranged the whole sentence to "He then proceeded to form a defensive line from the cannons on hand, the 6th Kansas Cavalry, the 3rd Indian Home Guard, and a portion of the 9th Wisconsin."

<>Good enough - Pendright (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the cannon crews that had seen heavy action in Lynde's morning action, along with the 10th Kansas Infantry, formed a reserve.

The word action appears twice in the first clause - you might consider replacing one of them.

Replaced the first one with fighting

• The 3rd Indian Home Guard pursued the retreating Confederates[,] and threatened the stability of the main Confederate line, but a counterattack by the 1st Choctaw Regiment and the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles stabilized the situation.

Add a [,] comma as above

Done

• Salomon then order a withdrawal, and the Union troops began to retreat from the field.

... order or ordered?

Should've been past tense

• Confederate casualties were the highest in Shelby's Regiment, which lost 15 men, including four killed.

...which lost 15 men - does this men injured and kiled?

Are you referring to "Confederate casualties were the highest in Shelby's Regiment, which lost 15 men, including four killed." ? I think it's pretty clear, I also wrote it though. I've inserted the word overall after men, does that help clarify?

<>I’ll rephrase my comment! Of the 15 "lost", four were killed but a reader is left wondering what happened to the other 11 solders. What does "lost" specifically mean in this context? Here, lost is being used as a verb and can mean " having perished or been destroyed". Pendright (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It was four killed and 11 wounded, I've specified that in the text now.

• Union losses were highest in the 9th Wisconsin and Lynde's cavalry.

Add the before Union.

Done

• I suspect related images of this battle are difficult to come by.

In their absence, an image of a Civil War artillery piece would certainly complement this section of the article.

Yeah, I don't believe there's any quality images from the time of the battle in existence. I'll hunt something down.

I went with an image of the flags of one of the regiments that fought at Newtonia, the regiment is mentioned in the text, and the flag has a clear "Newtonia" battle honor, so I thought that was more relevant than a generic cannon

<>Since you did not select a neutral image, I suggest you also add something relative to the Confederate Army – which would reflect a more balanced viewpoint. Pendright (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Image of Shelby (Confederate second-in-command) added to the aftermath section, since Shelby is the primary figure in that section

<>Okay - Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath:

• However, Shelby's additional stay in Newtonia was short, as he soon received word that his line of retreat was in danger of being cut by the Union advance.

Change cut to cutoff

Went with cut off, as cutoff can have a different indication in some forms of American English

<>You are correct - Pendright (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• ... and [the] Union troops occupied Newtonia after a brief shelling of the town.

Add [the] as above

Done

• First Newtonia was the first battle in the American Civil War in which Native Americans fought on both sides in an organized manner.

Replace "in which" with "that" - that is used when the informatin is essdential to the meaning of the sentence.

Changed to "First Newtonia was the first battle in the American Civil War that saw Native Americans fight on both sides in an organized manner"

• In the 1864 battle, a Union army commanded by Blunt attacked and defeated a Confederate army led by Sterling Price as the Confederates retreated southwards after being defeated at the battles of Westport, Missouri and Mine Creek, Kansas.

• a Union army should be the Union Army

I disagree. In many contexts, Union Army refers to the whole Union war effort, while this was only a subarmy

• a Confederate army should be the Confederate Army

I disagree. Confederate Army is the overalll Confederate States Army, while this was only a portion of that

<>There is room here for debate, but it would be a useless excercose. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Add a comma after Price

Split sentence, not necessary

<>Resolved with sentence breakup. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Add a comma after Missouri

Done

• You might also consider breaking up this sentence into two

Split sentence to "In the 1864 battle, a Union army commanded by Blunt attacked and defeated a Confederate army led by Sterling Price. The Confederates had been retreating southwards after being defeated at the battles of Westport, Missouri, and Mine Creek, Kansas."

<>Okay - Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Much as he did in the 1862 battle, Shelby would play a prominent role for the Confederates in the Second Battle of Newtonia.

Replace he with Shelby and Shelby with he

Done, without noting - Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Preservation:

• 152.3 acres (61.6 ha) of the battlefield are preserved in the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2004.

"Avoid beginning a sentence with a number" say some style guides.

Rearranged the sentence

• While much of the land in the district is privately owned, although the Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association has ownership of 20 acres (8.1 ha) within the district.

• Is although necessary?

Nope, removed

• ... within the district seems redundant?

Removed

• ... preserved 8 acres (0.032 km2)

Why the switch to km from ha?

Oversight, fixed

The article is interesting and, for the most part, well written, but it certainly would have benefitted from a copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors before its nomination.Pendright (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pendright: - I've replied to all of your points above. Hog Farm (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

All of my comments have been addressed, and I gladly support this nomination for A-class promotion. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I am not a ACW buff, so defer to Kges1901 and any other editors with more intimate knowledge. A few comments:

• what type of troops were the a brigade of Native Americans? Infantry, skirmishers, cavalry? Also in the body
  • I have no idea. Bearss just calls them "Indians", O'Flaherty and Wood use "Indian troops", and Gerteis uses "Indian brigade". Not sure.
• at the top of the Background section, use a main template linking to Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War
  • Done
• Confederate units of regimental or battalion size that are notable should be linked or redlinked, this may extend down to artillery battery level in the ACW if this source is reliable.
  • Done. The piped link for Howell's Battery is a little awkward, can you think of a better way to accomplish that link?
    • Tricky one. Evenb though it is a bit of an Easter egg and longer, I suggest "and, Bledsoe's Battery and Captain Sylvanus Howell's Battery." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Done. Thanks.
• Alexander's 34th Texas Cavalry Regiment, who was Alexander? full name? same with Alexander, Jeans, Shelby, Stevens, Howell, also Jean's regiment was the 12th Missouri Cavalry Regiment, wasn't it?
  • Shelby's is Jo Shelby, who's been named above. It still bore his name even though Gordon was in charge of the regiment
  • Working on the other's full name,s got Jeans and Stevens so far. Alexander also done, and Howell too.
  • Yes, Jean's is the 12th. However, since all of the sources I've seen refer to it as "Jeans' Regiment", I've just footnoted it and I think since the sources all use that nomenclature, I should keep it that way in the text.
• instead of "Action of September 29" I suggest "Preliminary action" as the lead says the battle occurred on September 30.
  • Done
• suggest "On September 29, Salomon sent a 150-man scouting force towards Newtonia, commanded by Colonel Edward Lynde from the 9th Kansas Cavalry."
  • Done
• "The detachment from the 9th Wisconsin would reached the Newtonia area on the morning of September 30."
  • Fixed, use of would is a bad habit of mine
• which unit were the Union mountain howitzers from?
  • Bearss doesn't say, Lynde's battle report suggests Company "F" of the 9th Kansas Cavalry. Added a footnote
• "The artillery duelexchange was inconclusive"
  • Done
• "34th Texas Cavalry (Alexander's Regiment)"
  • Done
• "Bledsoe's guns would ruan low on ammunition"
  • Done
• use either 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles or First Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles
  • Standardized
• "one of Shelby's Missouri cavalry regiments arrived" which one, Jeans or Shelby?
  • The 5th. Specified
• "22nd Texas Cavalry (Stevens' Regiment)"
  • Done
• Jeans' cavalry regiment→the 12th Missouri Cavalry Regiment
  • See my comment above
• "Captain Sylvanus Howell" as you should have given his name in full in the Opposing forces section
  • Fixed
• "Howell's Confederate artillery" as you will have established that he was a Confederate, there is a later instance of this
  • Done
• "Cooper would later sendt an officer"
  • Done
• Shelby's Regiment→5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment
  • Done
• 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Rifles Mounted Rifles
  • Fixed
• Lynde's cavalry→the 9th Kansas Cavalry
  • Done
• Salomon's brigade had represented only the advance guard, and link advance guard
  • Went with "Salomon's command", as it appears that some of the units may have technically been from other brigades, but assigned to Salomon
• what regiments made up "Shelby's cavalry"?
  • Wood, the source for this, doesn't say. I'll look in Bearss later, but he didn't go into as much detail about the retreat.
  • Bearss doesn't mention anything about the retreat, he only covers through the end of the fighting.
  • O'Flaherty, who is focused on Shelby's actions, isn't specific, either.
• On October 28, 1864, the Second Battle of Newtonia would bewas fought near the site of the 1862 battle.
  • Done
• Much as Shelby did in the 1862 battle, he would played a prominent role
  • Done
• author-link Shelby Foote in the References
  • Linked Foote and Bearss

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: - The website I can access Bearss' article on is currently down, so I'll need to wait on most of the rest of these until it's functioning again. The website has a good history of working properly, so it shouldn't be long. Hog Farm (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Peacemaker67: - I've replied to everything. There's one or two points I disagree with, but I'm open to further discussion there. There's also a couple points where the sources just don't answer the questions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just one suggestion outstanding, but nothing to prevent my support. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by AustralianRupert

G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I did a little copy editing, please check that I didn't change your intended meaning and that you are happy with the changes. If not, please adjust as you see fit.
  • Thanks, looks good.
• Shortly before nightfall, Cooper's Confederates made an all-out attack against the Union line; leading Salomon to withdraw from the field --> "Shortly before nightfall, Cooper's Confederates made an all-out attack against the Union line; this led Salomon to withdraw from the field"?
  • Done
• suggest splitting the lead paragaph as it is quite long (potentially at "Both sides brought up..."
  • Done
• in the Battle section, suggest splitting the paragraph beginning with "Cooper sent Jeans' Regiment..." (per the above)
  • Split where I though logical, between the statement that Salomon left the field and that Hall arrived.
• suggest adding a citation next to the quote here (even if it is a named ref): that "[there was] no Rebel flag now flying in Missouri".
  • Done
• suggest adding the author names for citations 15, 16 and 20 -- also I think these should use short citation style for consistency with the others
  • Converted to short citation style. There's no good author name to use, the work's a compilation of hundreds of official military documents, and with the short citation style, I can't really name all the ones I use
• there is a mixture in the date format used. For instance compare "9 May 2020" with "September 30, 1862". Either is fine, IMO, but I think it should be consistent either way
  • Done
• in the Preliminary action section, 9th Kansas and 9th Wisconsin are overlinked
  • Removed. Found a few overlinks of Confederate units, removed them too.
• suggest left aligning "File:6th Kansas Cavalry flag.jpg" to overset the images throughout the text
  • Done
• Union artillery batteries contained 12 cannons: do we know the calibre of these guns?
  • Unfortunately, not really. Caliber and type for three, type for another two.
• After realizing that his cannons: move the link for cannons here to the earlier mention
  • Done
• suggest moving the casualties paragraph into the Aftermath section
  • Done
• this seemed a little awkward to me: Shelby's additional stay in Newtonia was short --> could this be worded differently?
  • Is However, he did not remain in Newtonia long better?
    • Yes, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• suggest adding mention of Blunt to the body of the article (currently only in the lead and then in the Aftermath)
  • Added Blunt to the background section.
• there are no dab links and the external links all work (no action required)
  • @AustralianRupert: - I believe that's everything. Hog Farm (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • No worries, nice work. I have added my support now. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:FCSalomon.jpg File:DHCooper.jpg need publication info to show PD status. Also, they are violating MOS:IMAGELOC by breaking across sections. Since neither image is adding much to the article, I would just remove them.

Both removed

• File:Joseph O. Shelby.jpg Needs publication info. (t · c) buidhe 06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with a different one of Shelby. Since the author of the new image is known (and died in 1879) I think {{PD-US-expired}} works, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not super strong at licensing. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: - My computer is broken right now, so I won't be able to address this for awhile. Hog Farm (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, just ping me when you're able to fix the issue. (t · c) buidhe 19:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: - I've got this done, but there's a bit of a query. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• That's good enough for me, passing. (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - support

• All sources are reliable sources
• Spot checks:
  • " Historian Shelby Foote would later estimate the total strength of the Union column to be about 4,000 men" - Foote states that the column was 4000 not "about 4000", and doesn't say this was his personal estimate.

Fixed

• • " Foote estimated the total Confederate strength to be around 5,500 men" - again, Foote states that the size of the force was about 5500, and doesn't note this as being his personal estimate. I'd suggest also using his breakdown of the force as 2,500 Missouri cavalry and "about 3000 Indians and guerrillas"

Fixed

• • " First Newtonia was the first battle in the American Civil War that saw Native Americans fight on both sides in an organized manner" - checks out
  • "and was used as a field hospital after the fighting" - ditto
  • "Also known as Gordon's Regiment" - I can't see where this is in the source?

Removed

• • "The Confederate forces at Newtonia included the 1st Cherokee Battalion, the 1st Choctaw Regiment, the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles, Colonel A. M. Alexander's 34th Texas Cavalry Regiment, Lieutenant Colonel Beal G. Jeans' Missouri Cavalry Regiment,[a] Hawpe's 31st Texas Cavalry Regiment, Shelby's 5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment ,[b] Colonel James G. Stevens' 22nd Texas Cavalry Regiment, Bledsoe's Battery, and Captain Sylvanus Howell's Battery" - the reference refers to units other than the Cherokee units as being named after their commander, and not numbered so the source doesn't support these unit names.

I added page numbers from Bearss to support the designations of 31st, 22nd, and 34th. I've dropped "Shelby's" from the 5th, and supported with Bearss. If desired, I can add a reference to McGhee to support that Shelby's = 5th Mo.

• • "The Confederates also lost 15 officers" - "lost" usually refers to people being killed, when this is killed and wounded.

Rephrased. Using lost for total casualties is a bad habit of mine

• • "Three of the cannons were 3-inch rifles and two were mountain howitzers" - checks out.
  • The passage starting with "Union reinforcements brought the number of cannons Lynde had available to five" checks out
  • "The Union losses were highest in the 9th Wisconsin and the 9th Kansas Cavalry" - the source doesn't state that these units suffered the highest casualties, as it notes that Solomon didn't file a report of his casualties. It notes that other reports stated that those two units had particularly high casualties.

Rephrased, is this version more accurate?

• Overall, this is a higher rate of problems with spot checks than I'm comfortable with. None of the issues here are large, but the cumulative effect of multiple minor inaccuracies is not good. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D: My computer is broken, so I won't be able to address this for awhile. The regiment names issue is due to Bearss and the Official Records using different naming conventions, and my previous attempt to work around the issue was deemed awkward by previous commenters. Hog Farm (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D: - I've replied to all above. What happens next? I've never done this badly at a source review. If desired, I can create a subpage somewhere with the relevant quotes from O'Flaherty, Wood, Gerteis, Kennedy, and McGhee, so those can be checked. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D: - I've gone through all of the sources and made corrections, there were several more minor slips, like you were worried about. I also had to adjust some page numbers. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm happy to support on sourcing here. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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.