Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Bayou Fourche

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Bayou Fourche/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hog Farm (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 18:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Hog Farm. I propose to review your GA nomination “Battle of Bayou Fourche”. Admittedly, I am only an apprentice-reviewer. I must also warn you that my English is 2nd language and that I am no subject-matter expert. I will propose corrections and suggest optional improvements. The corrections rely on the GA criteria (WP:GACR). Some are tentative. Please tell me when you disagree with a correction. I am probably wrong. You can ignore my suggestions. They have no effect on the article's promotion, but the reader might be confused.

I will start with the preliminaries and then go through the article’s sections, sometimes returning to previous sections when needed.

Before the article content

[edit]

Infobox

[edit]

The names of the parameters |unit1= and |unit2= do not sound like military units. In adition the first (Arkansas expedition) has quotes around it whereas the second (District of Arkansas) has not. There might be good reasons that I will understand later.

    • "District of Arkansas" is correct; I just acquired a new book in the last few days covering the organizational structure of the Western Union armies, which has given me the information I needed to correct the name of the Union force. Hog Farm Talk 17:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

The lead consists of one lang paragraph of 10 sentences. This is difficult to read. I would suggest to split the lead into 2 paragraphes. MOS:PARA does not suggest a paragraph but warns that "paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read". I find that this applies here.

Besides, I am not American and not familiar with Americal history and geography. I will often struggle to understand what is obvious to you and will need to be guided along in small careful steps. Many readers will be in this case.

  • Only paragraph, 1st sentence: ... took place ... – The predicate "took place" is semantically weak. I would prefer "was fought" as you did yourself in Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas.
    • I've rephrased this
  • Only paragraph, 1st sentence: ... Pulaski County ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; To name the county and the state is certainly a good way to give a location, but in this case Little Rock, the state capital which lies in the county is much more known. Perhaps it could also be named in this same sentence.
    • I've replaced "in Pulaski County" with "near Little Rock"
  • Only paragraph, 1st sentence: ... Little Rock Campaign ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; To name the campaign is certainly good, but I still do not know in which war this battle and campaign was: American Civil War should be mentioned.
    • Added a mention of the war
  • Only paragraph, 2nd sentence: Union Major General Frederick Steele ... – The links Union, Major General, and Frederick Steele form a MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
    • Rephrased to break this up
  • Only paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... from Helena, Arkansas, to ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; I did not know that Helena was east from Little Rock and expected Steele to come from the north. Perhaps you could add that he moved westwards.
    • Have rephrased to clarify this
  • Only paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... aside from the battle ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; Is not any battle more than little resistence? If Bayou Meta and Brownsville were battles of a similar rank as Bayou Fourche, they should probably be mentioned, otherwise they might fall under "little resistence" and can be passed by at the level of the lead.
  • Only paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... fortifications across the Arkansas River ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; I am still not entirely sure what "accross" means here, but it seem that Price's fortifications where on the left bank while the town was on the right bank. Perhaps at the level of the lead we only need to know that Price built fortifications along the river to defend the town.
    • I've rephrased this; I think it is necessary to understand the battle for it to be clear that Price's fortifications were on the other side of the river from Little Rock
  • Only paragraph, 4th sentence: ... Steele split his command ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; I might be necessary to add "into two" to prepare what comes next. I also suspect that he rather split his troops than his command as Davidson commanded the cavalry before just like after the "split".
    • Rephrased
  • Only paragraph, 5th sentence: ... advanced ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; I do not understand where Steele advanced along the north bank. You said he wanted to avoid the fortifications but here he seems to run into them. Perhaps he wanted to bind down the enemy forces by a fake attack? Steele's general strategy should probably be explained here.
    • I've worked on this a bit both here and in the article body - the idea was the Davidson would take a position that would force the Confederates to withdraw from the fortifications
  • Only paragraph, 5th sentence: ... pontoon bridge ... – Perhaps an irrelevant detail at the level of the lead.
    • Removed
  • Only paragraph, 7th sentence: ... Bayou Fourche ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; It should be explained was this Bayou Fourche is, a river, a lake? Add a link to explain what is a "Bayou"?
    • I've linked "bayou" and have glossed that it is a body of water; I think that should be sufficient for the lead
  • Only paragraph, 7th sentence: ... Marmaduke ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; Why this change of command? Perhaps Marmaduke brought reinforcements?
    • Marmaduke outranked Dobbins (Brig. Gen. > Colonel). I can't state this outright though, as the sources seem to think this is obvious and do not state it outright.
  • Only paragraph, 8th sentence: ... both sides ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; Probably the basic configuration of the Bayou Fourche needs to be explained. If it is a river, in with direction does it flow? Did Davidson cross this river?
    • I've added a bit here about the course of the bayou. I don't think too much detail on this would be useful in the lead
  • Only paragraph, 9th sentence: ... on the north side ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding"; was the south side still held by the confederates?
    • I've rewritten this sentence to clarify thins
  • Only paragraph, 10th sentence: ... abandon ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Perhaps we should be told something abous the surrender or successful retreat that allowed the confederates to continue the fight elsewere.
    • I've added some information on this

[—End of 2nd instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)][reply]

@Hog Farm:. Thank you for your replies. Here comes the next round.

Background

[edit]
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: ... and had won ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". This sentence might lack precision and be confusing. It says that Helena was occupied before 1863 and that the Union won major victories at unknown locations and times in northwestern Arkansas. Why not give dates and names in chronological order? The battles of Pea Rifge (March, 1862), Cane Hill (November 1862), and [Battle of Prairie Grove|Prairie Grove]] (December 7, 1862) probably are the major Union victories in northwestern Arkansas that are meant. Helena was occupied on July 12, 1862.
    • I've fleshed this out a bit, although I'm now concerned it's on the border of too much background ifnormation
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: ... multiple ... – Criterion 1a, "grammar". This should be "several" as they have not much in common beyond being Union vicories as stated. Look up what is the difference.
    • This has been resolved in the rewriting of this
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: citation. At the end of this sentence appears the 1st citation which reads {{sfn|DeBlack|1994|p=59}}. I clicked down to the source, but there is no |url= parameter. So I am left wondering whether it is available online. I have to try Google books, Internet Archive, Hathi, etc. and make searches by title or author. Could you please add URLs to the descriptions in the list of sources?
    • I've added urls to Internet Archive for the ones on there (both DeBlacks, Kennedy, and the newly-added Welcher source). I generally avoid linking to Google Books as the previews available are usually so limited as to be mostly useless
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... Arkansas River ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Readers probably do not know where Arkansas Post was, better: lower Arkansas River, or near the junction.
    • I've added a bit here to indicate geographically where this was located
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: ... involved participated ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". It took me time to understand the "participated" immediately following the "involved". Possibly better "However, instead of pushing up the Arkansas River, the troops were withdrawn to fight at the Vicksburg Compaign."
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence: Additional Union troops ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". This is not very helpfull. Can't they be named, or at least the most important one? Otherwise "Other" would be better than "Additional".
    • Is "Other Union troops stationed in Arkansas were also transferred to the operations against" better? I don't think getting into intricate details of troops movements months before the campaign this battle was associated with would be particularly on-topic here
  • 1st paragraph, 6th sentence: Additional Union troops ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Thid is not very helpfull. Can't they be named, or at least the most important one? Otherwise "Other" would be better than "Additional".
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... suffered over 1600 casualties. – Criterion 1a, "understanding". This should have been mentioned not here but above when the Battle of Helena was discussed.
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: ... fortifications accross ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". This should probably be explained in more detail instead of jusr repeating what the lead says. Placing oneself with the back to a river is not normally recomended.
    • The sources don't deal directly with Price placing a river behind him, but do note that Little Rock was only really defensible with the Confederate force available if the Union commander made a frontal assault against the fortifications; I've elaborated on this a bit. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: ... Witsburg Clarendan ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Could something be done to help the reader to understand approximately where these places are, and in which direction Davidson moved. For example, he moved westwards. Witsburg is north of Helena, he crossed the White River at Clarendon.
  • 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... but met minor ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". After having distinguished between Davidson's and Steele's troops advancing on different routes, one might expect that resistence also differed between the two routes, or did they join together at some stage? As said before, if it is colled a battle, it cannot have been so minor. Otherwise avoid calling it a battle. What about the Battle of Brownsville that was closely related to the one at Bayou Meta?
    • The relevant quote from the source is With the exception of the short Action at Bayou Meto (or Reed’s Bridge) on August 27, the Union approach to Little Rock had seen relatively light resistance. That source uses "Action at Bayou Meto" (presumably based on wording in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion) but "Battle of Bayou Meto" or "Battle of Reed's Bridge" are the primary modern names for that action. Brownsville is only called a "battle" because almost everything in this war is given the title "battle". I've added a bit indicating when Steele and Davidson joined forces. Hog Farm Talk 01:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6th paragraph, 6th sentence: ... outflank ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I propose to clarify which wing was outflanked: the Confederates right wing.
    • That isn't quite right - the idea wasn't to outflank Price's right, but to get to a position where they could get on the flank of the trenches (the Confederate left) and force the abandonment of the fortifications

—End of 3rd instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:. This is much improved and easier to understand for a foreigner like me. Here comes the next round.

Lead (revisited)

[edit]
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: ... September 10 ... – MOS:NBSP. At least on my machine, a carriage return intervenes between "September" and "10". Probably insert a non-breaking space: September 10.
    • Done for both dates in the lead
  • 2nd paragraph, 6th sentence: ... Davidson's men ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". The second half of the sentence reads "Davidson's men advanced with troops on both sides of Bayou Fourche". The "men" and "troops" seems to be repetitive. I propose "Davidson advanced with troops on both sides of bayou".
    • Done

Background (revisited)

[edit]
  • 1st paragraph, 6th sentence: ... rather than push ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". The last part of the semtence "rather than a push up the Arkansas River" seem to duplicate its beginning.
    • I've removed the ending portion of the sentence
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence: ... caualties ... – Criterion 1a, "spelling".
    • oops, fixed
  • 3rd paragraph, 6th sentence: ... XIII Corps ... – MOS:NBSP. At least on my machine, a carriage return intervenes between "XIII" and "Corps". Probably insert a non-breaking space: XIII Corps.
    • I've done this for both corps names

Battle

[edit]

I thought the Bayou Battlefield map was difficult to read even when magnified, but I only found out today how to zoom in properly and to move the visible window around. I always double-clicked. I understand that this map comes from some official battlefield conversation program and can hardly be changed. I would guess that the yellow area is the one indicated on the legend as the Potential Notianol Register Boundary but where the yellow is very faint. I am surprised to see that this yellow area lies on the left bank of the river. I wonder whether this area is where the left abutment of the pontoon bridge was or whether it represents the location of the Skirmish at Ashley's Mills that the article mentions above. If possible, the caption should be enhanced to explain that yellow area on the left bank. The map also shows quite interestingly that the battle field is partly under the Clinton National Airport and near to Interstate 440 (Arkansas) (if I understand this right).

    • There's not much that can be done with the map - it's a government publication from a program in 2010. There's some information on the Commons page for the file purporting to be a description on the now long-gone document explaining the map but I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that information. It is also possible the river has changed course somewhat; I do not know on that matter though. Hog Farm Talk 01:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: ... across the river ... – The Confederate cavalry was "across the river" as seen by the Union cavalry.". It is not made clear from which side you are looking. Also, should not better to avoid the passive voice? Possibly: "Davidson's men greatly outnumbered the Confederate cavalry, which opposed it across the river and was forced to thinly guard several potential crossing points[24] with only about 1,200 men."
    • is The Confederate cavalry was greatly outnumbered by Davidson's men on the other side of the river, and were forced to thinly guard ... better? I'm worried the proposed phrasing would introduce ambiguity about which side was forced to thinly guard the river with 1,200 men
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence: ... fortications ... – Criterion 1a, "spelling".
    • Fixed
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: ... those of Colonels John ... – Criterion 1a, "grammer". Those of Colonel John
    • I think this is grammatical - "Colonels" refers to both Glover and Merrill
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: ... Newton were ordered by Dobbins ... – Unnecessary passive voice. There are of course many occasions for good use passive voice, but not this one.
    • Rephrased

Remark: Picture on third paragraph. This map is oriented oblique as can be seen on the faintly marked oblique north-arrow on the right inside the map. Perhaps the reader should be warned. The map gives a lot of interesting detail. It also shows Price's fortifications (or at least a part of them?) on the left bank.

    • I've added a note on the map indicating which direction north is pointing
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: ... were traveling on ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". "The Union soldiers' road forked ..."
    • I don't like this proposed phrasing - it would imply that the Union soldiers owned the road or had constructed it themselves
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: ... forked ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". The text mentions two forks, but the map shows three, two of which pass the boyou between the boyau and the river while the third passes it on its upper (SW) end. Wich ones were the two forks used by the Union troops in their advance?
    • The sources do not mention a third fork, and one does not appear in the (copyrighted and thus unusable here) map accompanying the chapter in the Christ 2010 work. Bayou Fourche itself also appears different in the various secondary maps than in the Glover map - would it be better to omit this map entirely?
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... right (north) ... left (south) – Criterion 1a, "understanding". What does "north" mean on a fork? I would describe the direction where the road leads. However, the roads on these foarks are all quite bent. I would remove the (north) and (south) which are more confusing than helpfull. Defenitively, none of these forks is leading south.
    • I've just removed the "north" and "south" descriptors

—End of 4th instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:. Here comes the next round.

Lead (revisited again)

[edit]
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: ... a body of water called Bayou Fourche ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Would I be right to say the Bayou Fourche or Fourche Bayou is a boggy pool on the Fourche Creek? Or is it just another name for the entire Fourche creak?
    • It's a tributary of Fourche Creek - I've added this information to the article

Battle (revisited)

[edit]

Map on 3rd paragraph. I had not understood that Glower's map mostly ignores Merrils fight against Newton on the Union left. Perhaps you can find a way how to make this clear.

    • Well, the caption notes that it is from Glover's report, so I think it is at least somewhat clear that it would primarily focus on Glover's action
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: ... Davidson fainted ... downstreem ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". You cite Huff for this, who mentions Terry's Ferry downstreem but does, as far as I can find, not say that Davidson made a diversion there, whereas Arkansas Heritage says he made a diversion upstreem "diversionary attack upriver at Buck's Ford". So I would think the diverson was upstreem and Arkansas Heritage should be cited.
    • The quote from Huff is while at the same time making a demonstration at Buck's Ford two miles downstream. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas source has Steele also sent a diversionary force east to threaten Buck’s Ford on the Arkansas River.; the river flows west to east across Arkansas so this also indicate that Buck's Ford was downstream of Terry's Ferry, which was the crossing site. Hog Farm Talk 01:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: ... forked ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I thought about this some more and find that talking about forks on roads is not satisfactory as we cannot identify them on a map. The Arkansas Heritage text calls the two battles Union-right and Union-left. One might also call them Glower vs. Jeffers and Merrill vs. Newton. The battle on the Union-right was bigger and therefore gets more attention. The two battles were separated by a pool (the Bayou Fourche), a reach where of the Fourche creak was unusually wide and impossible to cross. Looking at Google Maps this bayou does not seem to exist any more.
    • I've worked on this some to indicate more clearly that the forks were separated by the bayou and that one fork was south of it and the other north - does this clear things up somewhat?

Battle (continued)

[edit]

Now we move forward again.

  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... left (south) fork ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". This is difficult to understand because it referrs to a road fork. I suggest "deployed on the next possible crossing of the Fourche Creek upstream of the pool (or bayou)."
    • Except that isn't really accurate - the road forked on either side of one part of the bayou and the Union troops split, with each troops going down each fork of the road. And the "next possible crossing" doesn't really equate; due to the shape of the bayou there wasn't water between Glover and Jeffers but there was between Merrill and Newton
  • 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... ordered on the southern fork ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I suggest "ordered to the left wing"
    • Done, with slightly different phrasing
  • 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence: ... northern fork ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I suggest Union-right between the bayou and the Arkansas River.
    • Done, with somewhat different phrasing
  • 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence: ... and were veteran troops ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". I suggest "both veteran troops".
    • I've rearranged the sentence to make things clearer; I'm not sure that this proposed phrasing is grammatical
  • 3rd paragraph, 6th sentence: ... To the south ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I suggest "On the Union left, opposing Merrill". At this place the description changes to the Union left. A possible place for a break.
    • Rephrased
  • 3rd paragraph, 7th sentence: ... The Confederates ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Not all the Confederates. I suggest "Newtown's troops".
    • I've merged this sentence together with the prior one
  • 3rd paragraph, 7th sentence: ... a levee ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". The Fourche Creak's levee.
    • Rephrased, but somewhat differently than as suggested
  • 3rd paragraph, 7th sentence: ... the Confederates ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I suppose these are Newtons's confederates.
    • Yes, clarified
  • 3rd paragraph, last sentence ... and was overrun ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". I suggest "and overrun".
    • I don't believe this suggestion to be an improvement - the phrasing would suggest that the retreat of the 10th Illinois left Lovejoy's battery in a state of being overrun, while actually it was not overrun until later
  • 4th paragraph, 1st sentence ... from the other side of the bayou ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I suggest "from the Union left wing." I first misunderstood this to mean from the other bank of the bayou.
    • Done
  • 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence ... After the battle ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I do not understand why this is relevant and why it appears at this place. If I understand it right, Merril never managed to cross the Fourche Creek during the battle, which he would have to do to attack Jeffers back. The reader would probable at that point want to hear what effects Glover's change of tactics produced.
    • I've removed this sentence
  • 4th paragraph, 4th sentence ... broke through ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". This break-through surprises. The last three sentences tell us about Confederate reinforcement arriving.
    • I've elaborated a bit to indicate that the Confederate reinforcements were more than offset by Steele's artillery shooting from across the river
  • 4th paragraph, 5th sentence ... with the terrain of the battlefield ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". Good enough: "with the terrain."
    • Done

Aftermath

[edit]
  • 1th paragraph, 2nd sentence ... destroyed during the Confederate retreat. – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Not really during the retreat but in its preparation: "were destroyed so that they would not fall into the enemy's hands."
    • Done with slightly different phrasing
  • 1th paragraph, 3rd sentence ... city, with ... – Criterion 1a, "grammar". Thr preposition "With" is used as a conjunction. I would cut this into two sentences "... city. Davidson's ..."
    • Done
  • 1th paragraph, 7th sentence ... especially demoralized ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". Remove "especially" demoralized is enough.
    • I think the extra adjective is warranted here - see The fall of Little Rock had a particularly demoralizing effect on the Rebel soldiers from DeBlack 2003 (the cited source); Christ and the two DeBlack sources have multiple quotes stressing that the Confederates involved the campaign took the fall of the city particularly badly.

—End of 5th instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Schade: - Thanks for your review comments so far! Replies are above - most of the changes have been made, but I'm not sure about some of them. The Glover map has some issues with how it portrays the shape of the bayou and the road network; I'm starting to suspect that the article might be better off without it. Hog Farm Talk 02:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:. Here comes the next round.

Dear Hog Farm, somehow I did not get an email message or ping about your replies. That seems to happen sometimes.

Battle (revisited)

[edit]
  • 2nd paragraph, 7th sentence ... division of Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke's division ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Twice division. Please remove one.
    • Rephrased
  • 4th paragraph, penultimate sentence ... communications problems ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I think it should be "communication problems".
    • I agree, this has been changed

This should be all. I think I can pass your nomination as soon as you have fixed the last problemws.

—End of 6th instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Bayou_Fourche&oldid=1218772902"