Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Poison Spring/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) 30 May 2024 [1].

Battle of Poison Spring

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells the story of what one academic has described as the "worst war crime ever committed on Arkansas soil". On April 18, a Union wagon train was ambushed by Confederate cavalry. Despite the sounds of the battle being audible at the main Union camp, no assistance was sent. The battle then devolves into racially motivated butchery. While not as well-known as the Fort Pillow Massacre or the Lawrence Massacre, this is still one of the most infamous war crimes of the American Civil War. Hog Farm Talk 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 03:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elli

[edit]

Will review shortly. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • Given that the Red River campaign and the Camden Expedition are linked prominently in prose, hatnote probably isn't necessary.
    • Removed
  • Would it be possible to include a map showing the military situation? Fine if not ofc.
  • "began a joint operation up the Red River" wouldn't "along" make more sense? "up" implies going upstream, but the forces in Arkansas would be heading downstream towards Louisiana. Looking at the article on the campaign it seems like forces headed in from both directions, so "along" would contextually make more sense here.
    • Rephrased both here and in the lead
  • A map showing the details of the campaign would also be useful (such as the movements from Little Rock to Arkadelphia and the meeting in Prairie D'Ane with troops from Fort Smith).
Prelude
  • "All but one of the steam-powered gristmills in the area had been destroyed; Stelle sent part of the 36th Iowa Infantry Regiment to operate it on April 17." would probably read clearer as "Only one of the steam-powered gristmills in the area remained usable; Stelle sent part of the 36th Iowa Infantry Regiment to operate it on April 17."
    • Done
  • "quartermaster, Captain Charles A. Henry with" should have either a comma after "Henry", or not one after "quartermaster"
    • Added one after Henry
  • link no quarter in the quote?
    • Done
  • The first mention of White Oak Creek implies we should already know what it is. Was that their destination? Should probably mention the name earlier if so.
    • I've added a reference earlier - Thayer told Williams that there was probably a lot of forage around White Oak Creek
Battle
  • Fixed a few typos here.
    • Thank you!
  • "Steele did not attempt to aid the foraging party" do we know why? (fine if not ofc)
    • Nobody really seems to know; I've added a statement to this effect sourced to DeBlack 2003b
Massacre
  • Do any scans of this Washington Telegraph "reporting" exist?
    • Eakin's later racist screed had been clipped on newspapers.com. Ditto with "Choctaw Humor". I'd rather not include an image of the editorial as it doesn't directly refer to Poison Spring and is incredibly inflammatory and I don't think the short "Choctaw Humor" piece really warrants an image. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay after reading, not wanting to include those is totally understandable. Maybe including links to these as additional citations or footnotes would make sense? Ultimately your editorial call but I was interested to read the full writings after reading that paragraph and I don't think I would be the only one. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've included the longer piece as an external link
Aftermath and preservation
  • Given that this appears to have received recent scholarship, is it worth discussing analysis of this battle/massacre explicitly? I know this is discussed some in the Massacre section but wondering if more could be added here.
    • I don't know that there's much basis for a discussion like this. The scholarship doesn't really interact with each other at all, and all of the modern sources tend to agree pretty well on what happened. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Maybe worth mentioning that this was part of the Camden Expedition in the infobox as well?
    • Done
  • Would suggest a mention of this being considered a particularly notable massacre.
    • Done

Didn't conduct a source review here so my comments are just based on the prose. Nice work! This was an interesting though rather sad read. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: - Thanks for the review! I've replied above. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any free to use good maps for the Camden Expedition. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look good so happy to support. And yeah, unfortunately making such maps is outside of my expertise as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "fought in Ouachita County, Arkansas on", "had moved from Little Rock, Arkansas towards": per MOS:GEOCOMMA there should be a comma after Arkansas.
    • Done
  • "By early 1864, the Confederacy's likelihood of winning the American Civil War against the Union was slimming. The Confederate situation in Arkansas was particularly bad." I think these two sentences should be merged, perhaps "By early 1864, the Confederacy's likelihood of winning the American Civil War against the Union was slimming and the Confederate situation in Arkansas was particularly bad."
    • Done
  • The "Battle" section is quite long, with large paragraphs and lots of text. I suggest dividing up the larger paragraphs and splitting this with level 3 headings. This will make it easier and more inviting for the reader.
    • I've split this into two subsections. I do think we tend to underestimate our readers' attention spans. Although I also read 600 page books from cover to cover for fun, so I may not be the best judge on this matter. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I base my observations about attention span on my high school students, who struggle with reading large amounts of text. I also think subsections are great for navigation and helping readers find the information they are looking for. Z1720 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the battle section uses phrasing like "the operation would depend on Maxey's men", "and would provide cover to Confederate troops" I would prefer more definitive statements here (removing a lot of "would") and instead talk about what actually happened. Is this planning language used to try to describe why certain troops made the decisions that they did?
    • I've removed one use of "would" (the Maxey example given above). For the most part, I'm trying use it as planning language to describe the situation as it was seen by the participants. For instance, the "would provide cover" exaple is in a section discussing the initial Union deployment - it doesn't make sense to me to say "provided cover to Confederate troops" in that spot when chronologically this is before Maxey's men take up a position there Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams's soldiers were running out of ammunition for both their small arms and artillery." Is there an indication when in the battle this was noted? If so, it should be included in the article.
    • I've clarified this
  • "and focus of saving his remaining men." and focus on?
    • Done
  • "The 1st Kansas Colored alone lost 182 men. Of those 182 losses, 117 were killed and 65 wounded; it was unusual during the war for units to have more men killed than wounded." -> "The 1st Kansas Colored lost 182 men, of which 117 were killed and 65 wounded; it was unusual during the war for units to have more men killed than wounded."
    • Done
  • "the historian Mark K. Christ" remove the as is it not necessary here. There's a couple other places where "the historian" is used and "the" can be removed, so if this is removed the rest of the article should also be checked.
    • I've actually been advised by reviewers on other articles specifically to include the "the" in order to avoid a false title
  • "The historian Gregory J. W. Urwin describes" Is this Gregory J. W. Urwin? If so, wikilink
    • Yes, that's him. The Civil War History article listed in the bibliography there was slightly edited and reprinted as the Urwin 2000 source being cited. Linked.
  • "with the only reference to the massacre being publishing the story about using dead" -> with only one reference to the massacre in a story about...
    • Done

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in this. One respond above about section length, but overall my concerns have been addressed so I support. Z1720 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino

[edit]

Another interesting episode. Small things from a first readthrough. Will return to it this evening for another go. Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The article cites 16 sources. Five are books published by university publishing houses of local universities. The Bearss book is from Pioneer Press, which I couldn't find out much about; but Bearss himself was a National Park Service historian with a strong reputation, so that seems solid. Forsyth teaches military history at a US military college, and the publisher is known in this field. Two from a book published by Houghton Mifflin; reputable publisher. Three from a book published by August House – presumably not the same this one that seems to publish children's books? Either way the three chapters are written by professors of military history, so I'm not concerned. The last is a paper in American Journalism. Seems solid. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas source is probably reliable (the author has published several books on adjacent topics), and it's only used with direct attribution for the author's estimate, so that seems uncontroversial. Two parks websites provide uncontroversial details.

All said, this seems like a clear source review pass. Another excellent piece of work. Ajpolino (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per this August House use to be based in Arkansas and would publish some Arkansas-centric material. The copyright info in the print copy indicates that it was published in association with the Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Our article at August House combined with the Encyclopedia of Arkansas information gives me the impression that the people who bought it out in '04 were mainly interested in the children's books line. Pioneer Press also published Sterling Price: Lee of the West in the '50s and it looks like they also published some CS unit histories around that same time too. "Confederate-themed publisher in the South in the '50s and '60s" usually doesn't bode well, but anything by Bearss is generally above reproach so I think it's fine. Hog Farm Talk 17:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds solid to me. I admit this review made me chuckle (academics can be harsh), but otherwise Bearss seemed to garner universal praise. Ajpolino (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Bearss 1967 needs an OCLC - 1843035
    • Added
  • And Rhodes 2005 - ISSNN 0882-1127; OCLC 1075937713.
    • Added
  • "In the April 30 Battle of Jenkins' Ferry, men from the 2nd Kansas Colored Infantry Regiment murdered Confederate soldiers in revenge of the massacre at Poison Spring. It has been referred to as the worst massacre in the history of Arkansas." I am guessing that you don't mean to state that the battle of Jenkins' Ferry "has been referred to as the worst massacre in the history of Arkansas"? I could be wrong.
    • Oops, reworded
  • "was slimming"! Maybe 'By By early 1864, it was unlikely that the Confederacy's would win the American Civil War against the Union, and the ...' or similar?
    • Done
  • "skirmishing between the two sides occurred over the next few days in the Battle of Prairie D'Ane". Perhaps a little more information about this?
    • I've changed to "protracted skirmishing between ...". There's really nothing to describe Prairie D'Ane as besides several days of skirmishing
  • "three understrength cavalry divisions". Is the number of combatants known?
    • 1,500 for Maxey and 3,200 in the other two. Added.
  • "Williams pushed his men on further on the morning". Can we avoid "... on further on .."?
    • Rephrased
  • The last two paragraphs of "Battle" are long.
    • Split
  • "Maxey met with Marmaduke and deferred to Marmaduke's plan of action." Maybe 'and accepted to Marmaduke's plan of action'?
    • Done
  • "published by the journal American Journalism". When?
    • Clarified

Looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 03:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I'll write out some comments in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • First sentence in background: "was slimming" seems extraneous. I'm guessing it's the result of a recent rewording.
  • I had to read "the dispersal of Confederate forces in that region of the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department" a couple times. Maybe it's the repetition of "Confederacy". Perhaps swap it out with "Confederacy's"? I think the issue is that it didn't immediately make sense to me that a department would have a region. So perhaps instead it could read more like "Militarily, the campaign targeted Shreveport, Louisiana, dispersing Confederate forces within its region of the Trans-Mississippi Department."
    • How about "Militarily, the campaign targeted Shreveport, Louisiana, to disperse Confederate forces within that region."? I've moved the link for the Trans-Mississippi Department down to a later mention Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count five MOS:SOB issues with military titles immediately preceding human names: Banks, Porter, Thayer, Williams, and Smith. I pondered over the first two and couldn't think of a rewording that didn't seem overly wordy. I would offer my commendation if the adjacent Wikilinks were separated in these instances.
    • I've never satisfactorily been able to come up with something that resolves this. I think it's unavoidable as for instance "Nathaniel Banks, a major general, led the army forces ..." is a bit clunky in my opinion. The relevant literature consistently uses the "Major General Nathaniel P. Banks" and similar wording, but of course a print book doesn't have to deal with matters of linkage. Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think linking feint would be helpful for the majority of us who don't come across the word regularly.
  • I think "latter place" would read just a little easier as "latter city".
  • I seems appropriate to turn "Prairie D'Ane area" into a piped link to Prairie D'Ane Battlefield
  • The sentence that starts "While Confederates soldiers searched" is a bit clunky and could stand to be rewritten and perhaps broken into separate sentences; "some of it made it into" particularly tripped me up.
  • "Colonel James M. Williams, the commander of" – "the" is extraneous.
  • "former slaves from" would read better as "formerly enslaved in", but if there is knowledge of their occupations before the military, it would be even better as "formerly enslaved farmers from" or whatever.
    • Rephrased. The literature doesn't specify what the general occupations were before the war. The Missouri/Arkansas region wasn't like the Deep South where it was mostly field laborers; in the Missouri/Arkansas area you would have had agriculture, mining, household labor, etc. Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most Confederates hated" seems not the best language to me for use on Wikipedia. Partly it's the use of "hated" and partly it's the blanket statement of "most Confederates", which seemingly could apply to rank and file soldiers and sailors, though I assume we are talking about military leadership here. Not having read the supporting sources myself, I wonder if it would be appropriate to say something like "Confederate strongly resented" or something else that speaks well to the sentiment as explicitly expressed and/or understood to be true by historians' analysis.
    • I'll need to look over the sourcing again, but this was a very widespread view in the Confederacy and there were many in the north who didn't approve of this either, especially earlier in the war. Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have rephrased to "Most Confederate soldiers strongly resented the use of African American troops, viewing it as a form of servile insurrection". From the source is: The use of African-American soldiers was not simply the utilization of another source of manpower; for white Southerners it represented the raising of the South's slave population in servile insurrection, the ultimate threat to society and In the end, the idea of confronting black soldiers produced anger and outrage among most Confederate soldiers" Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included 438 from" would be more clear as "included 438 soldiers from", if I understand that correctly.
  • "belongs" is supposed to be "belongings"?

I'll add more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "95 cavalrymen from the same units that Williams cavalry contingent was drawn from" – is that supposed to be Williams's?
  • "soldiers's" doesn't need the extra S.
  • Should Poison Spring massacre be fully capitalized?
  • "Union soldier with a dead African American soldier" – I'm guessing they were both Union and both dead, but that the first was white. I recommend clarifying the race of the first since it is relevant. I think you could get by without pointing out one was dead if that makes your rewording too wordy.
    • I'll need to check this as well, but I don't think the ethnicity of the first Union soldier is ever directly stated. Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, the original reporting of this only refers to a "Yankee". Urwin doesn't extrapolate as to ethnicity here. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my experience, I find "Yankee" traditionally used to refer to Anglo-Saxon New Englanders. From at least the mid-19th century until well into the 20th century, I see "Yankee" being used to differentiate that group from non-Anglo-Europeans like Irish, Germans, French Canadians, Italians, and other immigrant groups who were common in that region at different points during that period (see Yankee#New England use. Additionally, I find that when a person's race is omitted from a discussion (especially if the author is white), then a white identity is implied. Given those two factors, I would feel comfortable changing "Union" for "white" in the aforementioned passage, for clarity. But I would leave it up to you given your deeper experience with the sources. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • In Confederate parlance, "Yankee" was likely just a derogatory name applied to any northerner fighting against the Confederacy. I especially don't think the general New England implication is relevant here, given that the Union troops involved were from Kansas, Iowa, and Indiana. Hog Farm Talk 01:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still need to read through the rest of the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "on the Battle" should be "in the Battle", right?
  • The Wikipedia standard seems to be "African American(s)" as a noun and "African-American" as an adjective. Currently, it is hyphenated nowhere, but I think it should be in every instance except the one instance in which the article uses "African Americans".

And thus concludes my comments on individual points in the prose. I'll next look at the responses to my comments and make another comment or two about the article as a whole. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trusting the source review above, I didn't do one myself, but skimming over the titles and publishing houses and publication dates, the source list looks reliable and comprehensive. I think the length of the article looks appropriate and neither dwells on any one area too much nor seems to omit anything I can think to ask about. I think the lead section does a good job of quickly summarizing the main points of the article without leaving anything too important out. Everything seems to be supported by inline citations. I think it is well-written with an appropriately neutral voice. At this point I just have two very minor comments to address. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing all my comments addressed and given my observations in the last bullet point above, I see fit to support this nomination. Hog Farm, this current FAC nomination of mine is just over a week old with only one reviewer. Could you find some time to comment on it? I offer my appreciation in advance. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hog Farm, some comments:

  • Per MOS:SANDWICH, the significant sites map should be right aligned, as it is currently sandwiching the text with the infobox image.
  • Alt text should be added for the last 4 images.
  • Bailey 1990 needs an identifier, whether JSTOR, DOI or OCLC. I could onyl find the journal's ISSN at the UNT website, but could not find a link to this source.
    • I can't find an OCLC or any other identifier for this one. I haven't been able to find a copy of this online that has been digitized; I was only able to get access to this source through WP:RSX. Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN format is incosistent, 8 sources do not have the 978 prefix. There are many ISBNs which break when this prefix is added, is that the case? If not, consider adding?
  • Is August House Publishers the same as August House? If so, consider linking?
  • Consider linking to McFarland & Company, and removing the Inc. suffix?
    • I've linked for all publishers except for the non-notable Pioneer Press and then the Military History of the Southwest one, which doesn't have a WP article. If I remember right, that journal has been renamed since Bailey's article was published. Hog Farm Talk 18:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking to Gregory Urwin in the biblio?
  • Consider adding Cabell as a commander in the infobox?
    • I'm limiting this to only the primary commanders - Williams as the overall USA commander, Maxey as the technical CSA commander, and Marmaduke as the CSA commander who actually directed most of what occurred. Hog Farm Talk 18:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any military historians come up with a map which shows the movements of the 2 armies? Keeping up with the constantly changing flanks through just text is tough, an image would be easier to understand. This is not a deal breaker though.

That is all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: - Thanks for the review! Responses are above; I can't find an identifier for the Bailey article. Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider adding a hidden note to this ref then. Overall a very good article, happy to extend my support for promotion to FA class. Matarisvan (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2024 (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_Poison_Spring/archive1&oldid=1226493044"