Talk:Battle of Mine Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 14:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I can take this on. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "had attempted an expedition to restore Confederate control of Missouri" -> "Had begun an expedition to restore Confederate control of Missouri in [DATE]"? might work better to show the reader when the expedition happened
  • Done
• "Price's army would be defeated" I think 'was defeated' might fit better here
  • done
• A link to Cavalry in the American Civil War might be appropriate?
  • done
• "while it was still stalled" -> "while it was stalled"?
  • done
• "defend against the Union assaulted"
  • done
• " gained another victory over Price" I'd prefer "again defeated Price" to drive home the fact that Price was continuously beaten, but either way is technically fine
  • done
• Lede could probably be split into two paragraphs
  • split
• Is there a reason why Price Raid is bolded and italicized in the infobox
  • It's apparently the name of the painting, I removed the bolding at the word "The" to make it clearer
• "During the American Civil War, in the fall of 1864, Major General Sterling Price led an expedition into Missouri hoping to capture that state for the Confederacy, or at least to negatively affect United States President Abraham Lincoln's chances for reelection in November" quite a mouthful, I think you could split or eliminate some of the commas?
  • "During the American Civil War, in the fall of 1864, Major General Sterling Price led an expedition into Missouri hoping to capture that state for the Confederacy and affect the 1864 United States Presidential Election" - Changed to that. How does it sound?
• Some more of the battles could use dates in the background
  • Done
• "which was commanded"
  • Simplified
• Some numbers for size in 'Opposing forces' would be appreciated
  • I'll see what I can do. Numbers are gonna be kinda sketchy for a variety of reasons. Only about a quarter of the Union force available actually fought at Mine Creek, and the Confederate arming was coming apart at the seams after Westport. I've seen numbers for Westport, Mine Creek specifically, and 12,000 men for Price at the start of the campaign, but nothing that specifically states total for the whole armies on October 25. I don't know how relevant the Westport numbers would be, given the falling apart of Price's army and the Westport casualties.
• "One of the driving factors behind the decision to attack was Benteen's belief that the Confederates had made an error in the emplacement of their artillery" What was the error?
  • Clarified
• "would be made" -> "was made"?
  • Done. I have a bad habit of using "would be" in my milhist articles
• " too disorganized to attempt a counterattack, though,"?
  • Done
• Why did the Union attack stop in the first place? Is it known
  • Done to the best of detail provided, it's a little hazy, but believed to be because of heavy fire
• "would not hold long" -> "did not hold long"?
  • Done
• "gave them a definite firepower advantage" ?
  • Done
• "would be captured" -> "were captured"?
  • fixed
• "Confusion began to reign over the field" might be better expressed as " confusion began to overtake the field"?
  • Done
• You never explicitly describe texas as 'safe' in the body
  • Removed the description of "security" in the lead

That's it for a first pass, very nicely done. I'll revisit once you respond, may have some more. As always, my comments are open to discussion in any way, shape or form. Regards, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Collins 2016 is published by the 'Combat Studies Institute Press', the website should be 'Army University Press', but I don't know that's necessary, it might be better off as {{cite book}}
  • Converted to cite book since it has an ISBN, I left the url in so it can be accessed for verifiability.
• I don't see #1b specifically saying it's largely unaltered, could you specify slightly?
  • Changed phrasing
• I don't see "Engagement on Little Osage River" cited?
  • That's an odd one, it was in there when I started working on this and saw no reason to doubt it. I've actually removed it. None of the book sources I used seemed to use that name, and an online search brings up usage that suggests it may not be referencing Mine Creek. Several sources refer to it as the Battle of the Osage, so I'll add that in there. Also removed the hatnote, since it's not really confusable with "Engagment on the Little Osage River" not in there, and Mine Creek is a separate body of water from the Little Osage River
• Otherwise referencing seems to line up

This article is now well referenced, written, illustrated; does not contain copyvio, is reasonably comprehensive and otherwise meets the GA criteria. I can now promote this article in good faith. Well done! (Just an aside, File:Battle of Mine Creek.gif could use a {{PD-art}} tag.) Happy editing, and best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)