Talk:Battle of Glasgow, Missouri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBattle of Glasgow, Missouri is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 30, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
November 7, 2020Good article nomineeListed
March 4, 2022WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
April 18, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 15, 2009, October 15, 2014, October 15, 2019, and October 15, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

Survey[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

Any additional feedback would be appreciated, although I do feel that I have been given good guidance regarding my writing style in Wikipedia in general.

  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

Writing good articles is the only significant writing that I do outside of my commitments to school.

  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

My writing style is influenced by the MoS regarding military history. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failed[edit]

I'm sorry, but you failed the Good Article review.

  1. There is a huge space of emptiness that needs to be fixed due to a picture problem.
  1. There are at least 5-7 citations that are labled by the number [2], and many others are out of order.
  1. It is far too small of an article to be rated as good yet.

If you have any further questions, ask me on my talk page. Try again after you fix the major issues above. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second. What huge empty space? You mean the one created by the table of contents? Because in my browser at least, that's the only empty space, and tables of contents are supposed to create those.
Using one source repeatedly isn't an issue either, if the source is considered a reliable one and it's not asserting anything ridiculous. Source 2 appears to be a blog however, so it would be good to hear what makes it a reliable source from the page authors.
And lack of length isn't an issue under the GA criteria either, provided the article is sufficiently broad in its coverage of the subject. (Indeed, GAs were originally created to handle articles that were high quality but there was too little to say about their subjects to ever reach FA.)
So before you outright fail this, I'd like to hear from the nominator. --erachima talk 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the image at right is the empty space.

Second of all, I do not think that the article covered the topic sufficiently. However, it is a well written article, and if you add some more, I'd willingly pass it in a heartbeat. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 14:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has assessed this article. I am embarrassed to say, but I missed the fact that the aforementioned source of information I used is a blog entry. I will get rid of the information associated with that source, and I will try to replace the information that will be deleted with information from a reliable source.

">ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ, I am afraid I cannot see the empty space you have pointed out on the article itself, and thus I am unable to treat the problem. Would you be willing to solve that particular problem?

In regards to me referencing a source lots of times, all the guidelines and regulations I have seen regarding sources state that there is nothing wrong with referencing a source lots of times, so long as the source is reliable. If I am wrong in my thinking, please do show me somewhere which states I cannot reference a source lots of times.

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§, you state "and many others are out of order". Please elaborate. As for as I can see, all the other sources can be considered reliable.

As for length of article, I do believe that I have exhausted all reliable sources available to me relating to the battle of Glasgow itself (the information from the unreliable source concerns Price's raid as a whole, and I should be able to find a more reliable source to take information from to replace the unreliable facts). I accept that it is a short article, but will the fact that there is limited information regarding the battle be taken into account? I cannot write anymore, if there is no more information I can expand it with.

There is something I am a little confused about. The quick-fail guide : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article, states that an article can only be failed on the basis of unreliable sources, if the article has a "A complete lack of reliable sources". Only one source is disputed. What is your rationale then for outrightly failing my article, instead of putting it on hold?

In fact, here is the quick-fail criteria for GA nominations:

Before conducting an extensive review, determine whether the article should be "quick failed". Issues that may warrant a "quick fail" of the nomination include:

A complete lack of reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.[2] An obvious non-neutral treatment of a topic - see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.[3] Presence of any correctly applied cleanup banners, including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}} or similar tags. The article has been the subject of recent, unresolved edit wars. The article specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint.[4] If the article meets any of the quick-fail criteria, leave a message on the article talk page explaining the issue and fail the nomination as described on Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

My article has broken none of the criteria clauses. Therefore, how can you justify the quick-fail of this article, when it should have been put on hold? Only one source is shown to be unreliable. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more info[edit]

This action was not particularly consequential, so there has not been a lot written about it. If you cannot find adequate secondary sources to flesh out the article, you may wish to consult the Official Records. For example, if you go to http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ANU4519-0083 you will find reports on Price's Missouri Expedition. Col Harding's report starts on page 434, for instance, and there are other Union reports nearby. Clark's report starts on page 678. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hal Jespersen, thank you for providing a link to this information. I really appreciate that.

I will work on integrating information from those records, into the article. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting resource is http://books.google.com/books?id=VxQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA117&dq=supreme+court+insurance+boon+harding&ei=hj4bSJnmNIaqtgOJ2OCEAg Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization and repetition[edit]

I reorganized and rewrote this article to reduce the reduntant information it contained, with some things being repeated more than once in the previous version. I also hoped to make it more readable, and reduce or even eliminate the "spacing" problems referred to in earlier entries on this page. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 14:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Glasgow Battle of Glasgow (1864) → Battle of Glasgow, Missouri – Or Battle of Glasgow (1864)? (Already moved to "1864") We have Battle of Glasgow (1544) and Battle of Glasgow (1560). The Scottish city has always been the primary topic of "Glasgow". This discussion regards to "Battle of Glasgow". The battle from the American Civil War appeared twice on the Main Page as the "On this day..." part, yet it may not be the primary topic of "Battle of Glasgow". The current title should be of the disambiguation page. (Already done for Battle of Glasgow.) George Ho (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support only if a parenthetical disambiguation, such as (1864) or (Missouri) is used, per discussion below - For clarity, current title should be a disambiguation page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, since during this process, another editor has already moved the page from the generic Battle of Glasgow to Battle of Glasgow (1864), I've taken the liberty of converting the created redirect into a disambiguation page. I have not used any entry as a primary topic. BusterD (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which one: Missouri or 1864? --George Ho (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No preference at the moment.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Battle of Glasgow, Missouri. Gryffindor (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Battle of Glasgow, Missouri. I did expect the Scottish city when just clicking on the title and I assume most if not all non-US visitors have the same expectation. 83.163.231.32 (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Like User:Yaksar, I have no opinion about the requested move target, seeing both targets indifferently. I would support a move to any reasonably disambiguated page name. BusterD (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can't believe I didn't think of DAB'ing this when I did some work on it five years ago. Wholeheartedly support "Battle of Glasgow, Missouri." A "Battle of Glasgow (1864)," while better than what we have now, might still make folks think of the Scottish city. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Battle of Glasgow, Missouri per all above. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with the current title? Does anybody actually call this the "Battle of Glasgow, Missouri"? I've never seen this sort of construction for Civil War battles. —innotata 23:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As page history shows, this move was requested when the page was titled (the ambiguous) Battle of Glasgow. At some point, an experienced editor (who clearly didn't see this move discussion or apparently even look for it) boldly moved the page to its current title Battle of Glasgow (1864). The reasons why a move was desirable are stated in the move request above; the subsequent un-discussed move has made previously stated rationales less clear. This discussion continues, at this point largely not about whether to move, but instead where to move. Those so far expressing preference tend to prefer disambiguating by location instead of by date, for the reasons given in their assertions. BusterD (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and that didn't address my questions. Is there anything wrong with "(1864)"? And more importantly, should we use what seems like an invented name, "Battle of Glasgow, Missouri"? —innotata 03:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of "Glasgow"? Probably you should be familiar with Glasgow from oversea. However, almost no one may be familiar with the one city from Missouri whose name is based on the one overseas. Even the (temporarily) current/proposed year may still confuse you and mislead you into conclusions. --George Ho (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but Civil War battles tend not to be known by "Battle of Town, State", and there is no ambiguity, because the other Glasgow was quite peaceful in 1864. —innotata 05:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any guideline or policy discouraging the formulae of the primary proposed name? --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, just that the convention in general usage is simply "Battle of Town", even if the name of the town is ambiguous. Therefore, we should use parenthetical disambiguation. I guess you could say WP:NATURALDIS, because this is not a case of natural disambiguation. —innotata 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a resident of western Missouri who has visited Glasgow several times, I can certainly vouch for the fact that "Battle of Glasgow" is no "invented name." Might I make an alternate suggestion that might satisfy both sides, here? Use "Battle of Glasgow (Missouri)", with the state name in parentheses. My articles "Battle of Newton (Alabama)" and "Battle of Vernon (Florida)" did this; I think that's the best approach to use with these small-town, small-battle names. A potential compromise, here?? What do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other article named "Battle of Newton". I think I should add hatnote on "Battle of Newtown" and propose that the Alabama one be primary "Battle of Newton". Moreover, there is no other article named "Battle of Vernon". Therefore, they are bad examples. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was about adding "Missouri", with a comma, to get "Battle of Glasgow, Missouri", which sounds strange when talking about the Civil War. I guess using parentheses would make sense here, even if it doesn't at those articles, but I'd prefer disambiguation by year. There's no actual ambiguity caused by doing so. —innotata 18:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recently proposed page moves on Battle of Newton and Battle of Vernon. --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the parenthetical disambiguation, if it's not a year, then case-by-case basis would do, no matter what WP:NATURALDIS says. --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So do you agree that it'd be better to use parenthetical disambiguation, whether for the town or the year? Not sure what you're trying to say, but "Battle of Glasgow, Missouri" is not used often and is unnatural disambiguation, so to speak. —innotata 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I ever want to exactly type "Battle of Glasgow (Missouri)". AutoComplete would help those wanting to type "battle Glasgow" or "battle Glasgow Missouri". For me, I'm sure that "Battle of town, state" is not "town, state" formulae and that "Battle of town" is not a town name. No other reader would assume such. I'm pinging Yaksar, in ictu oculi, Ecjmartin, BusterD and Gryffindor for their comments. --George Ho (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it said it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, User:George Ho. I do understand User:Ecjmartin's point -- the common name of this is certainly Battle of Glasgow alone, and the ", Missouri" does it give it a name that no one actually calls it. Perhaps for this reason he or she is correct that a parenthetical disambiguation of some sort, either by state or year, is therefore preferable since it does not create or give the impression of the use of an invented name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the heads up, Battle of Vernon and Battle of Newton no longer uses parenthetical disambiguation, for there are no other battles of the same name, aside from hatnotes that were added. --George Ho (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Glasgow, Missouri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Glasgow,_Missouri&oldid=1199630976"