Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Helena/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 12 January 2023 [1].

Battle of Helena

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederates strike at a Union post in eastern Arkansas in hopes of relieving some of the pressure on the Siege of Vicksburg. After a lot of wavering by Theophilus Holmes and a march slowed by bad weather, the Confederates attack and are figuratively taken to the woodshed (losses are about 7 Confederates to 1 Federal, using Confederate casualty numbers). It's all for naught, because Vicksburg surrenders the same day anyway. Hog Farm Talk 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Helena_Battlefield_Arkansas.jpg: legend is not legible at that size, and see MOS:COLOUR
    • Removed entirely as I'm doubting the usefulness of it anyway besides the accessibility issues, since it doesn't show positions or troops movements.
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Gone
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Have attempted this, although it's probably a bit clunky
  • File:Hindman_Hill_2.png: why is this believed to be an NPS employee work? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not, the author is known, and it would be a major pain to try to track down any pre-1927 publishing or the date of the creator's death, so I've swapped it out with a wikipedian-taken photo of one of the battery sites in 2016.

@Nikkimaria: - thanks for the image review! I've removed the two problem images and have added a new one. My one remaining concern is that the new infobox image may not do well at that size, but I'm not sure how best to fix that. Hog Farm Talk 05:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two options I can think of: have it outside the infobox, or add an upright parameter to the infobox coding. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it out of the infobox. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Infobox: on my screen I get an asterisk against Salamon and a bullet point against Price.
    • Fixed
  • "Units involved: "District of Arkansas" is a "unit"? And "Helena garrison"; is the unit involved not a division of XIII Corps?
    • The Thirteenth division, clarified. And yes, the Confederate were organizationally classifying the units present as the "District of Arkansas"
  • "The Battle of Helena was fought on July 4, 1863, in Helena, Arkansas". You sure about "in"?
    • Switched to "near"
  • "of relieving some of the pressure on Vicksburg, Mississippi." Perhaps 'of relieving some of the pressure on the Confederate army besieged at Vicksburg, Mississippi'?
    • Done
  • "... Vicksburg, Mississippi. The city was defended ..." Perhaps "The city" → 'Helena'?
    • Done
  • Suggest a paragraph break between batteries and Differing.
    • Done
  • "and eventually occupying the Mississippi River town of Helena on July 12." Delete "eventually".
    • Done
  • "received the dispatch in June". What despatch? This has not been previously mentioned.
    • Clarified
  • "delegated making the decision to attack Helena". Is that the same thing as 'delegated making the decision whether to attack Helena'?
    • Yes, done
  • "made an agreement that Price, who was much more popular with the general public, that he would publicly support". Do you mean 'made an agreement with Price, who was much more popular with the general public, that he would publicly support'?
    • Yes, reworded
  • "that he would publicly support the decision of the attack in the case of failure." Perhaps 'that he would publicly support the decision to attack in the case of a failure.'?
    • Yes, done
  • "Holmes and Fagan reached Clarendon on June 26. After reaching Clarendon, Holmes provided". "... reached Clarendon ... reaching Clarendon ..."
    • Clarified
  • "Holmes provided further advance orders". I am unsure what you mean by "advance orders'.
    • Rewritten
  • "consisted of a division of the XIII Corps". Did this division have a designation?
    • Yes, added
  • "but only one, the timberclad USS Tyler, was available when the Confederate attack struck." Is the armament of this vessel known?
    • Footnoted
  • "while the Confederates had 7,646 men." This would fit better in the prior paragraph.
    • Done
  • "Prentiss' men had superior firepower over the Confederates through their defenses". How did the defences provide any firepower?
    • Reworded
  • "and would not reform until 8:00 am." "would" → 'did'?
    • Done
  • "Holmes' order to began the attack at sunrise" and "Holmes' order to began the attack at sunrise" seem contradictory.
I meant "Holmes' order to attack at daylight" (lead), "Holmes' order to began the attack at sunrise" and then "Holmes' order to attack at daylight" is confusing. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it to be consistently using daylight, which was the word Holmes used. Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fagan's Confederates broke through the second Union line, then a third and fourth, but then halted at about 7:00 am, fought out." 1. "... then ... then ..." 2. What does "fought out" mean?
    • Reworded. "fought out" is a bit idiomatic and possibly an Americanism (I actually just noticed Peter Cozzens using the phrase while reading This Terrible Sound earlier today). My first thought for a replacement would be "tuckered out", but that's probably even worse, so I've gone with "their attack spent" and have reworded the other instance of "fought out" as well
  • "Confederate infantry with shattered morale deserted in large numbers." To my eye this reads a little clumsily.
    • Reworded

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One comment above for you to think on't, but a support nonetheless. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges

[edit]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

That's all I got. Nice work. I'll go ahead and support, assumimng the links are fixed. ~ HAL333 22:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HAL333: - I'm not sure I agree with taking the state names out. The spot Helena isn't piped is in the lead, where it's not clear that Arkansas it being referred to, and at the reference to Memphis, it's not clear that it's in a different state from Helena. Given that both Helena and Memphis are both dab pages, I'm worried that dropping the states would lead to decreased geographic context for readers. Hog Farm Talk 01:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Encyclopedia of Arkansas is a work title and should be italicized. Why does the formatting differ between footnotes and Further reading?
    • The footnotes were using cite web, and the further reading was using cite encyclopedia. I've standardized to use the cite encyclopedia, which should resolve the formatting problems here.
  • How does Schlieffer meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • Are Schlieffer and Schieffler the same person? The source link given for Schlieffer has his name as Schieffler. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's a typo on my part. Corrected throughout and standardized how the name appears.

Support from Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • Why are Frederick Salomon and Sterling Price listed as bullet points in the infobox? Is there a meaning behind that decision, because if not, they would normally have flag icons as well.
    • This should be resolved now
  • "In December 1860, the state of South Carolina seceded..." I think it would be helpful to specify exactly what South Caroline seceded from. Some Americans might understand this, but not all readers of Wikipedia will. Heck, some Americans might not even understand. Ufortunately, kids these days don't bother with studying history anymore...
    • I've clarified that it seceded from the US
  • Link President of the United States?
    • Done
  • Link garrison?
    • Done
  • "Once formed the plan called for Price, with his 3,095 infantry..." This may be just be me, but this excerpt sounded awkward at first. Perhaps a comma after "formed" would help to clarify the sentence's meaning, but that's up to you; maybe "with his 3,095 infantry" would sound better as "with his infantry of 3,095".
    • I agree the comma is needed and have added that. I don't know that "with his infantry of 3,095" is an improvement (it sounds very odd to my mind), but if you feel strongly about this I can brainstorm some ways to change the phrasing
  • I'm starting to see a lot of sentences use [number] cavalry. Is that just military terminology? If so, please disregard all comments about that.
    • See above
  • Does Schieffler's 2017 work have any sort of number identification (similar to ISBN or ISSN)?
    • It has an OCLC number, which I've added.

That's all I have. A fascinating read on a critical part of American history. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Query: If this article needs another general review I could start fairly soon? Pendright (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: This one has had enough general reviews that it might be better to review one that has had less action so far. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: The article does have four supports, but it does not have as many actual reviews - so another actual review would seem approprite in the circumstqnces. And I stand ready to do it. Pendright (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - If you're willing to do a review, I'd welcome it. You always have lots of good suggestions to improve the article, so it'll come away better from one of your reviews. Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I appreciate your kind words, however, I think you were right in the first instance. So, let me apologize for taking up your time and for being a nuisamce. Good luck with the article the rest of the way. Pendright (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Helena/archive1&oldid=1133272002"