Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second Battle of Newtonia/archive1

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) 22 June 2021 [1].

---

Second Battle of Newtonia

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Having been given permission for a second nom, here comes another minor ACW cavalry fight. On the run after defeats at Westport and Mine Creek, Price's Confederates halted at Newtonia before entering the wasteland of 1864 northwestern Arkansas. Pursuing Union cavalry caught up, attacked, and got a little more than the bargained for before reinforcements came up and the Confederates fell back. Both sides claimed victory, but history has attributed the win to the Union. Hog Farm _Talk 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Source review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• All infobox entries should start with an upper case letter.
  • Done for the "near Newtonia" one, which I think it where the issue is
• "he instead began moving his force west towards Kansas City" seems a little clumsy. 'instead he moved his force west towards Kansas City'?
  • Done
• "Price ordered the withdrawal of his main army, and ordered Shelby". Any way to avoid "ordered ... ordered"?
  • Rephrased
• "Blunt's smaller line". Perhaps "smaller" → 'shorter'?
  • Done
• "supplies and soldiers were lost to capture." "lost to capture" → 'captured'.
  • Done
• "Claims of execution of prisoners" → 'Claims of the execution of prisoners'.
  • Done
• "arrived on the field". A bit jargony, and not very informative - just where did they arrive?
  • Rephrased, and added the direction from which Ford's men reached the battlefield.
• "Blunt personally fought with the 16th Kansas Cavalry during this stage of the fighting." I suggest moving this to the last sentence of this paragraph.
  • Yes, it makes more sense to state that Blunt arrived before it is mentioned that he is fighting - not sure why I didn't notice that. Moved.
• "the entire Union army was upon him". "upon" → 'attacking'.
  • Done
• "Regardless, Shelby's command was the only functioning force left in the Confederate army." What is "Regardless" trying to communicate?
  • I have no idea why I added that word. Removed.
• "aligned left to right in the order of" → 'from left to right'.
  • Done
• "Shelby aligned his men". This may be a USEng thing, but I find the use of "aligned" confusing. Here and in later uses. (What does it mean anyway?)
  • In USEng, this would indicate that Shelby formed his men into a line. I've rephrased all instances
• "In total, Shelby had about 2,000 or 3,500 men on the field" This seems to hide a debate. Any chance of some detail as to who said which, when, ideally why, and possibly alterna'e break downs of these numbers?
  • Made a little clearer. No breakdowns of these numbers are really given. To me it looks like two historians spitballing numbers based on vague/unreliable source, as neither explicitly states where they got their numbers, and given what had happened to Price's army in the last 5 days, I don't think anybody really knew or cared exactly how many men were around.
• "The Union lines fell all the way back to the Ritchey Farm" → 'The Union lines fell back all the way to the Ritchey Farm'.
  • Done
• "Even after this lined was formed". "lined"?
  • Fixed. I'm a bad copyeditor.
• "temporarily threw the Confederates into surprise." I don't think that one can be thrown into surprise - although I like the image. 'caught the Confederates by surprise and temporarily threw them into confusion'?
  • Rephrased
• "forced marched". This is a noun, not a verb.
  • Rephrased. I didn't think that was grammar, but I kinda hoped it was for some reason
• "These newly arrived guns fire 22 shots". "fire" → 'fired'.
  • Fixed. Probably shoulda got this copyedited.
• "the artillery advantage growing more disparate". An advantage cannot grow more disparate. A 'differential' can, or an advantage can become more 'marked', for example.
  • Rephrased
• "In addition, the modern historian Mark A. Lause". Delete "In addition". Possibly reinsert after "participated in the action".
  • Done
• "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle." I assume this relates to the earlier part of the sentence, but you don't tell us how.
  • @Gog the Mild: - I have no idea how to address this. Lause states "At least parts of Price's other two divisions [Marmaduke and Fagan] also pitched in to the fight ...[evidence for Fagan's participation] ... At least one commander from General John S. Marmaduke's division also filed a report on its fighting there." So Lause seems to be implying that this report is (basically all) the justification for assuming that Marmaduke's men participated. Lause lumps all of the footnotes for this paragraph together, so its unclear what exactly he is referring to. As other sources do not mention the involvement of Marmaduke's men, this statement is attributed to Lause, but I'm not sure how to draw the connection in the article without OR-ing when Lause is vague on this. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would delete "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle". Who cares why secondary sources believe what they do? You don't try to justify every other claim in the article.

I have removed it.

• "they occupied the town itself". Delete "itself".
  • Removed
• "were probably similar or even less than those of the Union". Why "even"?
  • Removed
• "and that Union officer Richard J. Hinton provided a figure of 114 casualties". For which side?
  • Union. Added
• "The American Battlefield Trust estimated 250 and 400". Should that be "estimated" → 'estimates'? Or have they since changed their mind?
  • Yes, it should be estimates. Changed.
• "due to the Price's army's inability to transport them." Delete "the".
  • Done

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

All good. Your one query responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Support by Zawed

This looks to be in good shape. Just a few nitpicks:

• The first two sentences of the 2nd para of the background section uses the word 'war' 3 times. Suggest swapping the 2nd one out for 'conflict'?
  • Done; I've also removed the third one as well.
• Battle: suggest a group of soldiers of his brigade to meet the threat.? This would provide antecedence for the mention of his brigade in the 3rd para of this section
  • Done
• Battle: suggest ...Curtis described as "badly cut up". Curtis He helped to rally...? Curtis is used three times in close succession
  • Done
• Battle: Lause believes that part of Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke's Confederate division participated in the action in addition. I'm not sure what " the action" is here - the move to the woods or the battle itself? Regardless, suggest "also participated" and deleting "in addition".
  • The battle. Clarified
• Aftermath: been driven back 3 miles (5 km)
  • Done

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• • @Zawed: - Thanks for the review; all points have been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Heartfox

• "In September 1864, Confederate Major General Sterling Price had entered the state of Missouri" → from where; with who?
  • Clarified
    • I believe you forgot to write "entered" in the sentence "On September 19, Price the state from Arkansas with the Army of Missouri."
      • Yes, added now.
• "Price's column halted" → I think column should be linked; also in "On September 19, Price's column entered the state."
  • I've simply used a different word. Column has a technical military sense, but it's also used frequently in a more general meaning to mean a sizable organized body of troops. Because it's used in an informal sense here, I've simply swapped for a different word.
• "he ordered Shelby to provide a rear guard" → Without reading the lead, I don't know who Shelby is.
  • Glossed
• "McLain's battery"; "helped to rally the Colorado battery" → is "battery" supposed to be capitalized? I'm not really familiar with this.
  • In these two contexts, it's not a proper formal name, so lowercase is fine
• "An armed mob after Marmiton River" → Can "Marmiton River" link to something? Heartfox (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Glossed
  • Heartfox - Thanks for taking the time to review this; I've replied to all points above. Sorry about the lack of glossing in places; this is part of a multiple-article series of mine, and they're all on very similar topics which leads to me forgetting what I've linked and what I haven't in individual ones. Hog Farm _Talk 03:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• I would add basic alt texts for the map images, like alt=refer to adjacent text. Heartfox (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this is done. Hog Farm _Talk 04:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support. Heartfox (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Strength "1,500 or 2,000 2,000 or 3,500" should be "1,500-2,000 2,000-3,500". "or" implies that it is not a figure in between.
  • This is an odd case - source provide different estimates without really supporting a range there, so it seems kinda synth-y to try to call it a range
• "As the American Civil War began in 1861". "When" the American Civil War began in 1861" sounds better to me
  • Done
• "This movement prevented Price from sending any reinforcements to Shelby during the ensuing battle, even though they would be requested. Shelby's command was the only functioning force left in the Confederate army." This is unclear. If Shelby's was the only functioning force, presumably he could not have been reinforced even if the main army had not retreated?
  • Wood does stress that element a bit (that Shelby wouldn't have received anything useful anway), so I've tried to rephrase to make this clearer, as well as replacing functioning with Wood's exact word of "effective"
• "While the two mountain howitzers helped hold the Union right against Confederate threat". the Confederate threat?
  • went with "Confederate threats"
• "there were now about 1,500 or 2,000 Union soldiers in the fight". Again "or" sounds wrong.
  • Same as above with the "or"
• "The Confederate force, which Castel described as being essentially an armed mob after the October 25 Battle of Marmiton River". Does this mean the main Confederate army?
  • Yes, clarified
• "Curtis' pursuit ended on November 8, at the Arkansas". The Arkansas River?
  • These grammar rules suggest the usage is probably okay since IMO the context seems to indicate that the place being referred to here is the river. I'm also a hick who standardly refers to rivers in this way, though. Gog the Mild - as the resident copy editing expert, what do you think here? Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I do not think it is a matter of grammar. I would refer to the Mississipi or the Thames. I just found it confusing as a foreigner because I had only heard of Arkansas as a state before. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've added the word river. Hog Farm _Talk 21:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The campaign had cost Price more than two-thirds of the men he had taken into Missouri." Is there any estimate of how many he lost through desertion and how many from death, capture etc? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: - neither Castel 1998 nor Collins 2016 nor Lause 2016 provide a breakdown. I'll be hopefully digging Sinisi 2020 out of storage to work on another article tomorrow, but I'd be amazed if such a breakdown is provideable - it was simply a complete disintegration of an army barely surviving, that didn't seem to have been too keen on record-keeping. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine apart from "1,500 or 2,000 2,000 or 3,500". As they are both clearly rough estimates I do not think it is synth to show it as a range. Maybe another point where Gog the Mild can advise. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Please consider me a non-expert.

• "Sanborn formed on Blunt's left, and the Union troops counterattacked." Counterattacked is wikilinked here, but I'm not sure it is necessary. I know very little about war stuff but I know what a counterattack is. I'll leave this to your discretion.
  • Done. Yeah, everyone probably knows what an attack is, and the formation is probably reasonably obvious that a counterattack is to counter an attack
• "Shelby ordered a retreat, and the Union troops did not begin to pursue until October 30. Once the pursuit resumed, it continued until they reached the Arkansas River." Was there one pursuit, which began on October 30, or was there more than one pursuit, one of which resumed until the river? Perhaps resumed should be replaced with began?
  • Good point. Swapped resumed for began
• "By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the conflict." This feels like a very long sentence with lots of commas. Maybe split in two? Suggestion: "By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Abraham Lincoln an advantage in the 1864 United States presidential election. Lincoln supported continuing the war while his opponent, George B. McClellan, favored ending the conflict." (I also replaced "an edge" because that sounds a little too WP:IDIOM to me, but I'll leave that to your discretion.)
  • Done
• "overwhelm Collins;[29] Shelby ordered an attack," I think that semi-colon should be a comma
  • Corrected
• "that Curtis described as "badly cut up"." It takes a couple of sentences to get to a citation; since this is a direct quote, I think a ref should be present here.
  • Done. Especially since the next citation is three citations, and I had to look in the sources to determine where this was coming from
• I also checked the summary and infobox to ensure that their information was also present in the article, and I found no concerns.
• I recommend archiving the American Battlefield Trust references.
  • Done via IAbot run

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• • @Z1720: - I think everything should be addressed. Thanks for the review! Hog Farm _Talk 01:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    • My comments have been addressed, I support this FAC. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.