Talk:First Battle of Springfield/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 09:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No duplicated links
No edit wars
File:Hungarians in the American civil war (1913) (14762685895).jpg could probably do with another, more standard, us pd
- Added
Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

"on a scout towards Springfield" "scouting mission"?
- Rephased
"north at around dark" > "north when darkness fell"?
- Have rephrased this. "At around dark" seems the most natural to me, but some searches on google for that exact string suggests that this is primarily a regional or colloquial use.
Why does the lede exclusively use "Federal" instead of "Union", as the infobox does?
- So I've introduced this in the article as Federal (Union) now. Union is the traditional term, but Federal is starting to come into vogue now.
Worth mentioning in the Lede the connection between the MSG and CSA
- done
"Frémont’s Body-Guard" this spelling of bodyguard is only used in the infobox
- Based on the sources "Body Guard" without the hyphen is the historically accurate spelling, so I've switched over to that in the article
Don't need ranks in the infobox
- Removed, although they'll be invariably added back by somebody reading the article in the future, as pretty much always happens when I remove them from infoboxen
Infobox reads as if the Prairie Scouts were a part of the bodyguard which I don't think was the case?
- Should be a bit clearer now
"Praire Scouts" sp
- Oops
You might want to fix the Operations to Control Missouri navbox; this battle isn't currently bolded out because it's a redirect
- Fixed

"Late on October 24, Zagonyi and the bodyguard" try not to begin sections with dates
- Added another sentence in here to lead off
"the Federal ran into a small party" something missing here
- Fixed
"swung his troops ~~to a detour~~ to approach Springfield from the west"
- removed
Lede says Zagonyi's report was "at the expense of the Prairie Scouts" but main text only says "at the expense of other Federal soldiers"
- Have made this a bit more consistent now
"has two companies charging with Zagonyi ~~charging~~ through a gap"
- Done

Could give Johnston his rank, but it's post-war so not necessary
- I don't think it's necessary, given that this is long postwar
Would it be appropriate to add some of these casualty figures to the infobox?
- I don't know how helpful it would be, given the divergency among the sources. Anything from Zagonyi's report is suspect, and I personally doubt that Johnston would have any particular way of knowing much about this battle

References look good. AGF for print sources.
This provides some information about modern memorialisation of the battle
- Have added a sentence about this

@Hog Farm: Hi, that's all I have for now. Will await your responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. My apologies for taking so long to get back to this! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]