Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After my last one wasn't really that well written due to lack of experience writing about books, I think this one's in a lot better shape and is a better nomination. Another Mo. CSA cavalry unit, Nichols's regiment tore up railroad tracks in Arkansas before joining Price's Raid. It played a key role in the Battle of Little Blue River (also at ACR), but was otherwise undistinguished. Hog Farm Bacon 17:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "After entering Confederate service". This seems an odd phrase. Whose service was it in before?
    • Rephrased.
  • "the unit participated in Price's Raid". Maybe a brief description of what this was?
    • Added
  • "Nichols's regiment's men". A little clumsy. Perhaps 'The men of Nichols's regiment'?
    • Done
  • "Before the war ended in 1865, the unit disbanded, with few of the men reporting to Shreveport, Louisiana in June to receive their paroles" this seems over-summarised to the point of becoming unclear.
    • It's about as detailed as I can get. I've added that this probably occurred in Texas, but any specific details just aren't known in this case. Confederate records in the Trans-Mississippi in 1864 and 1865 are really fragmentary and hazy and often didn't exist in the first place.
  • "the number of casualties suffered". Perhaps insert 'total'? So readers don't think that it just applies to August.
    • Clarified

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "to continue recruiting. He led his recruits" Are we talking infantry or cavalry here?
    • Cavalry. Specified
  • "while the names of the other companies are unknown" Should "names" be 'designations'?
    • Changed
  • Link Memphis and Little Rock Railroad.
    • Linked
  • Infantry is dup-linked.
    • Unlinked
  • "with a Union surrender by the time Nichols's men arrived". Would "by" → 'before' make the situation clearer?
    • Probably. Done.
  • "the action ended as the Confederates disengaged." Optional: "as" → 'when'.
    • Done
  • "Nichols's regiment saw little action until" → 'Nichols's regiment saw little further action until'.
    • Done
  • "Around 300 men were part of the regiment during the month of August." It may be your US-speak, but does that mean that the total complement of the regiment was around 300?
    • Yes. This phrasing would be acceptable in American English.
  • "By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States"> Perhaps 'military events'? (I assume that is what you mean?)
    • Added "military", as that's primarily what I was referring to and all of the given examples are military events.
  • "Meanwhile, in the Trans-Mississippi Theater, the Confederates had defeated a Union expedition during the Red River campaign in Louisiana from March through May." I think this might benefit from rphrasing.
    • Significantly rephrased, is this better?
  • "suggested that an invasion into Missouri". It may just be me, but that reads oddly. 'invasion of'?
    • Done
  • "divert Union troops away from principal theaters of combat". 'the principal'.
    • Done
  • "on September 19, Price's column entered the state", I suggest making this a separate sentence.
    • Done
  • "where it aligned south of the town". "aligned" seems an odd choice of word.
    • Changed to "deployed"
  • "Price authorized a raid towards Glasgow". "towards" Glasgow, or 'against' Glasgow?
    • Changed to against, as Glasgow was the primary target
  • "allowing them to escape". Who is "them".
    • Clarified
  • "but reinforcements for both sides arrived, under Union Major General James G. Blunt and Confederates under Shelby's command" The phrase "reinforcements for both sides arrived, under Union Major General James G. Blunt" causes something of a double take. Possibly rephrase?
    • Rephrased, but not sure how much of an improvement it is
It looks good to me.
  • "Union artillery was moved from other parts of the line to counter Nichols's attack, which in turn weakened the Confederate center". How does Union artillery moving weaken any part of the Confederates?
    • Must not have had enough caffeine when writing this one. Should've been Union, rather than Confederate.
  • "The next day, some of Shelby's men broke through a Union line defending the Big Blue River in the opening stages of the Battle of Byram's Ford. After breaking through the Union line, Jackman's brigade and the 5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment encountered a Union unit". "broke through breaking ... through". Maybe 'The next day, some of Shelby's men broke through a Union line defending the Big Blue River in the opening stages of the Battle of Byram's Ford. Jackman's brigade and the 5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment then encountered a Union unit ...' or similar?
    • Done. Also found a missing comma later the in second sentence while rephrasing it.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Union cavalry commanded by Major General Alfred Pleasonton had been following Price from the east and attacked and defeated the Confederate rear guard in the Second Battle of Independence" This seems to come a bit out of nowhere. Who was attacked - Price or Jackman - and when.
    • Clarified when and who
  • "until the Union pursuers broke contact." Was this the same day?
    • Clarified
  • "to catch back up to them." I assume that this is US English, but even so it seems a little clunky. Rephrase?
    • Done
  • "During the Second Battle of Newtonia, Nichols's regiment was held to the rear of the right side of the Confederate line, supporting Collins's Missouri Battery.[37] The regiment did not see close combat at Newtonia." Maybe 'During the Second Battle of Newtonia, Nichols's regiment was held to the rear of the right side of the Confederate line, supporting Collins's Missouri Battery, and did not see close combat at Newtonia.'?
    • Done
  • "few of the men from Nichols's regiment reported to Shreveport, Louisiana, in June to receive their paroles" I think this needs a little further explanation.
    • Unfortunately, the two sources I've been able to turn up that discuss the disbanding of the regiment (McGhee and NPS) give no further details on this. I'm assuming since the unit disbanded before the surrender, most of the men just went home or to Mexico and didn't bother to travel to Shreveport to get their paperwork, but nothing explicitly states this.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another neat piece of work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Hog Farm. Thanks for your work on this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • no dup links, no dab links (no action required)
  • suggest adding some sort of sub header to the first paragraph of the Service history section
    • Done
  • newly-recruited unit --> suggest removing the hyphen for the -ly adverb per [1]
    • Seems odd to me, but done.
  • the lead states that the regiment officially formed on June 22, but the body doesn't seem to use such language, instead talking about Jackman's arrival on that day
    • Rephrased in the body
  • and other with the letter H --> "and another with the letter H"?
    • Done
  • Union cavalry commanded by Major General Alfred Pleasonton had been following Price from the east --> "Union cavalry commanded by Major General Alfred Pleasonton who had been following Price from the east"?
    • Done
  • Nichols's regiment was furloughed on October 30: do we know why this took place? Was this a normal practice?
    • Added a little bit as to the rationale behind this.
  • receive their paroles: suggest explaining the paroles occurred at the end of the war following the Confederates' defeat?
    • Briefly mentioned that the paroles would end their combat experiences.
  • "New York, New York" --> just "New York", IMO

=CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Will do this later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The unit was recruited in early 1864 by Colonel Sidney D. Jackman Maybe add a location here?
    • Prefer not to. There's also not an explicit statement of where in the body, either. Jackman was in northeastern Arkansas when he was authorized to recruit, and he reported his recruits in Arkansas, but the unit was credited to Missouri and sources don't explicitly state where the men were recruited.
  • battery during the Second Battle of Newtonia on October 28 and did not Is one of the few dates that doesn't use a comma [or a full stop] behind it.
    • Added one here and in the spot below
  • An element of the unit moved on August 23 to join Same as above.
    • Done, see above
  • Union offensive known as the Red River campaign during The article uses an upper case to "campaign"?
  • On September 30 and October 1, the regiment operated One of the few dates that doesn't use a comma [or a full stop] behind it.
    • Added, although this one feels a little jarring to me for some reason
  • The militia were sent to the vicinity of Isn't it "was" in British English you might use this in American I'm not sure?
    • I'm not sure, so I've changed to militiamen. I'm likely to trim this background stuff before a FAC, as I've been asked to do that at a few FACs, and some of the background details are probably undue.
  • attacked and defeated his rear guard in the Isn't it "rearguard"?
    • Both are acceptable in American English, I believe.
  • conducted a rear guard action while dismounted before retreating Same as above.
    • See above
  • Shelby led a rear guard action Same as above.
    • See above
  • but mostly were due to a lack of food Isn't it "most"?
    • Switched around to "were mostly due to a ...", which I think is fine in American English.

Just some nitpicks. Good job! :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I've addressed this now.

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Return soon! Pendright (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • After joining Major General Sterling Price's command, the unit participated in Price's Raid, an attempt to create a popular uprising against Union control of Missouri and draw Union troops away from more important theaters of the war.
Isn't this phrase "the unit participated in Price's Raid" essential to the meaning of the sentence?
Removed the first comma, I think that fixes it
  • On October 12, Nichols's regiment was engaged in a small action at Boonville, Missouri.
in a small acetion -> In military parlance it would probably be comsidered a"minor" action.
Done
  • The unit supported an artillery battery during the Second Battle of Newtonia on October 28, and did not see close combat.
and did not see close combat -> "but" shows contrast as opposed to in addition
Done

Background:

  • In November, while at Neosho, Jackson and the pro-secession legislators voted to secede, and joined the Confederate States of America, functioning as a government-in-exile.
Eliminating the comma afar November would join the two connecting phrases into what would seen to be a compllete introductory phrase?
Done. This section will probably be trimmed somewhat before this goes to FAC

Operations in Arkansas:

  • An element of the unit moved on August 23, to join in an attack on a station of the Memphis & Little Rock, but the fight had ended with a Union surrender before the time Nichols's men arrived.
  • A squad seems more in keeping with miitary terms than element?
  • Done
  • Why the comma after August 23?
  • I've been told that dates should generally have commas after them. I'm not familiar enough with comma rules to really judge what is best with those
  • "an attack on a station of the Memphis & Little Rock" -> Add "held by union soldiers" would seem to benefit the clause?
  • Added

Price's Raid:

  • As events east of the Mississippi River turned against the Confederates, General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department, was ordered to transfer the infantry under his command to the fighting in the Eastern and Western Theaters.
Confederates -> Confederacy might be more apprpriate here.
Done
  • The Confederate attacks were repulsed with significant losses, although the Union troops abandoned the fort overnight. Price ordered Shelby to form part of the pursuit of the retreating Union soldiers.
"with significant losses," -> to whom?
The Confederates. I've rephrased this sentence.
  • On September 27, Marmaduke's and Fagan's men attacked the Union soldiers, who had occupied Fort Davidson.
"who had occupied Fort Davidson" -> How does this phrase fit into the scheme of things?
Not sure. Heavily rephrased.
  • Jackman's brigade then headed to Jefferson City, and Nichols's regiment fought in several small skirmishes on the way.
"several small skirmishes" -> Small vs. minor - same as above
Done
  • During the battle, hundreds of Confederate soldiers including Marmaduke, as well as cannons and supplies, were captured.[34]
Weaving "were captured" between the words soldiers & including might be a better fit?
Done.
  • After Mine Creek, the Confederates reentered Missouri, where they stopped near the town of Newtonia on October 28, only for Blunt's troops to reestablish contact.[36]
"reentered" is hyphenated!
Oops, fixed.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC) @Hog Farm:[reply]

@Pendright: - Thanks for the review! Replies above. Hog Farm Talk 15:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Supporting - Pendright (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Nichols%27s_Missouri_Cavalry_Regiment&oldid=1017531733"