Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Battle of Marais des Cygnes/archive1

TFA blurb review

The vicinity of the battlefield in 2012

The Battle of Marais des Cygnes took place on October 25, 1864, in Linn County, Kansas, during Price's Missouri Raid in the American Civil War. A large Confederate cavalry incursion into Missouri in late 1864 attempted to draw Union troops away from the fighting further east. After several victories the Confederates were defeated at the Battle of Westport and withdrew into Kansas. They camped along the banks of the Marais des Cygnes River on the night of October 24 while Union cavalry pursuers skirmished with their rear guard. The battle began early the next morning as 3,500 Union troops drove this force from its position, capturing cannons, prisoners, and wagons. An attempted stand at the river crossing was outflanked by a Union cavalry regiment, forcing the Confederates to abandon it. A rear guard action by a 1,200-man Confederate brigade bought time to disengage and retreat. After two further defeats on the 25th and another on October 28, the Confederates retreated to Texas. (Full article...)

1,010 characters, including spaces.

Hi Hog Farm and congratulations. A draft blurb for this article is above. Thoughts, comments and edits from you or from anyone else interested are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - I've tweaked the caption to reflect the fact that the picture may not be of the exact battleground, is the caption still TFA-compliant? Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm: Yep. (IMO!) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

• The maintenance template says mdy but there was dmy; did I miss a step? Please revert me if needed.
  • I've got no idea. I thought I fixed it to mdy, but apparently I didn't get it all
• Check throughout (but don't over do it :) [1]
  • I added non-breaking spaces between the unit number and name for the non-linked units; I think that's what is needed.
• Besides general frustration with the overuse of however on Wikipedia, (see also User:John/however), using however at the beginning of a sentence is best avoided according to a master.
  • Removed all four, as none of them add anything
• I also think that a lot of the also redundancy could be removed here ... see User:Tony1/How to improve your writing; he gets into also, for example, in several places at User:Tony1/Advanced_editing_exercises and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Copy-editing_essentials.
  • I found three that I considered to be completely unnecessary, and removed them. Do more need to go?
• I have seen art editors complain that we should give dates on artwork ... not sure if that is guideline-based, but don't see that it hurts ... Confederate cavalry during Price's Raid drawn by Samuel J. Reader
  • Added
• These people always give a date at the bottom of the source page ... it is good to include that date because, ten years from now when we are looking at articles that need FAR, we need to know if they are using outdated pages of sources that are constantly updating ... check throughout for this ... as an example, this page says "Last updated: February 14, 2021" and you are using that version (based on your access-date) so that date should be listed for the citation. Check others ...

  "National Register Database and Research". National Park Service. Retrieved February 23, 2021.

  Added for the National Register Database and Research, which seems to be the only one with that situation

• ??? invaded the state of Missouri with a cavalry force in the hope of drawing Union troops away from the primary theaters of fighting further east. --> invaded the state of Missouri with a cavalry force, attempting to draw Union troops away from the primary theaters further east.
  • Done
• Not sure despite is best choice here. Despite several victories early in the campaign, Price's Confederate troops were defeated at the Battle of Westport on October 23 near Kansas City, Missouri. --> Price's Confederate troops had several victories early in the campaign, but were defeated at the Battle of Westport on October 23 near Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Is "After" better?
• I got tangled here: The battle began early the next morning as Sanborn, now reinforced by cavalry under Lieutenant Colonel Frederick W. Benteen, bringing the total Union strength to 3,500, drove Major General John S. Marmaduke's Confederate rear guard from its position north of the river. --> Overnight Sanborn's troops were reinforced by cavalry under Lieutenant Colonel Frederick W. Benteen, bringing the total Union strength to 3,500. The battle began early the next morning as Sanborn drove Major General John S. Marmaduke's Confederate rear guard from its position north of the river.
  • Done
• It may be revealed as I keep reading, but at this point in the lead, I am not understanding how a supply train can be an encumbrance ... I could understand not wanting supplies to fall into enemy hands, but the statement left me confused ... it shall be revealed as I keep reading ? after which Price burned his supply train so it was no longer an encumbrance.
  • Clarified
• same here ... will be revealed in body, but how does "defeat to Texas via Arkansas" work ? Price's column fell back in defeat to Texas via Arkansas and the Indian Territory.
  • Rephrased, is this better?

Background

• It is possible to solve this "however":

  When the American Civil War began in 1861, the state of Missouri was a slave state, but did not secede. However, the state was politically divided: Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson and the Missouri State Guard (MSG) supported secession and the Confederate States of America, while Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon and the portion of the Union Army under his command supported the United States and opposed secession.

  When the American Civil War began in 1861, the state of Missouri was a slave state, but did not secede because the state was politically divided. Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson and the Missouri State Guard (MSG) supported secession and the Confederate States of America, while Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon and the portion of the Union Army under his command supported the United States and opposed secession.

  Done

• However not needed: However, this proved to be impossible, as the Union Navy controlled the Mississippi River, preventing a large scale crossing.[9]
  • Removed
• Find a way to split ... long sentence plus a parenthetical ... Price expected that the offensive would create a popular uprising against Union control of Missouri, divert Union troops away from principal theaters of combat (many of the Union troops previously defending Missouri had been transferred out of the state, leaving the Missouri State Militia as the state's primary defensive force), and aid McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln;[9] on September 19, Price's column entered the state. ... suggestion ?

  Many of the Union troops previously defending Missouri had been transferred out of the state, leaving the Missouri State Militia as the state's primary defensive force. Price expected that the offensive would create a popular uprising against Union control of Missouri, divert Union troops away from principal theaters of combat, and aid McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln;[9] on September 19, Price's column entered the state.

  Turned the parenthetical into its own sentence, and split at the semicolon. This should make it easier to read.

Prelude

• ah, ha ... encumbrance revealed :) although the Confederates were slowed by bringing along a large supply train ... so back to the lead ... after which Price burned his supply train so it was no longer an encumbrance. --> ??? ... burned his large supply train so its length would no longer an encumbrance
  • Corrected in the lead
• Personal preference, I would use a stronger break here, via dashes ... about 7,000 men, mostly inexperienced militia,
  • Done
• historian Charles D. Collins states 1,200 men;[18] Christopher Phillips, writing for the Kansas City Public Library, provides 2,000 men,[19] and the historian Kyle Sinisi states that a minimum of 2,500 men joined the Confederates in the region. ... a semi-colon after the first in the list, but commas separating the next two ...
  • Went with a semicolon, as some of them include commas
• Price, needing weapons,[19] then authorized two raids away from his main body of troops (then can be like also, often redundant ...
  • Done
• Price's army then fought a series --> Price's army next fought a series
  • Done
• Pleasonton, who was heavily fatigued, then gave temporary control of his division
  • Done

Battle

• Kill two redundant also-birds with one stone: Curtis also had some of his staff officers assist Sanborn, who had been at least partially stymied by lack of staff assistance. An artillery battery was also deployed at this time. --> Curtis had some of his staff officers assist Sanborn, who had been at least partially stymied by lack of staff assistance, and an artillery battery was deployed.
  • Removed them both
• This is a common problem caused by converts, which User:Tony1 explains, I think in his writing exercises:

  on a pair of two 140-foot tall mounds.

  correct hyphenation would be 140-foot-tall mounds (140-foot is not modifying "tall", rather 140-foot-tall is modifying mounds). Jo-Jo Eumerus has to deal with this issue throughout the volcano articles. When you add a convert to a convoluted construct requiring hyphens, you end up with a mess, so a solution is to re-cast the sentence to avoid the convoluted hyphens. --> on a pair of two mounds that were 140-foot (43 m) tall. But I don't know how to make foot be feet ... Jo-Jo may know.

  Perhaps putting |feet| into the convert template might do the trick? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  That worked, thanks Jo-Jo!

• Could you find another word to vary the wording and avoid fired, firing ... Union artillery fired on the mounds, but despite firing at a 15° elevation, ... I can't think of one ...
  • Went with "aiming"
• and partially cooked food were also found left in the camp,
  • Removed
• The river crossing was also obstructed with two downed trees
  • Removed
• Sanborn then ordered the 7th Provisional Enrolled Missouri Militia to
  • Done
• who had by now regained command of his division from Sanborn
  • Removed

Aftermath and preservation

• This feels significant enough to find a place in the lead ... By December, Price only had 3,500 men left in an army that had begun the campaign with 12,000.
  • Added
• However is not needed ... However, since the land is preserved as a wildlife site instead of a historic site, the only public interpretation of the battle is some signage and trails present at a rest stop maintained by the Kansas Department of Transportation.
  • Removed
• semi-colon here is wonky ... While the site of the battle is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places as of 2021;[65][66] a 2010 survey performed by the American Battlefield Protection Program determined that it is likely eligible for listing.[67] --> The site of the battle is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places as of 2021,[65][66] although a 2010 survey performed by the American Battlefield Protection Program determined that it is likely eligible for listing.[67]
  • Done

While this is lengthy, a lot of it is nitpicking; I anticipate Supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A glitch here: That evening, the Battle of Marmiton River became the day's third action, after which Price burned his supply train so it was no longer slowed the retreat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed

All addressed, thanks HF! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)