Talk:Battle of St. Charles

Untitled

The Mound City was indeed repaired and active for the remainder of the war. Red Harvest (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Saint Charles. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/md-cty-k.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519040346/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/hps/ABPP/battles/ar002.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/ar002.htm

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) 20:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Battle of Saint Charles featured what is known as the deadliest shot of the American Civil War? Source: [1]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Steel River (Ontario)

5x expanded by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 16:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Expansion from 2961 B on October 7 to 17k B on October 10. Article is well-referenced and neutral. Earwig does not detect copyvio. Suggest clarification in hook that the "deadliest shot" was against an ironclad. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• • @GeneralPoxter: - How about
    • ALT1 ... that a shot that struck an ironclad during the Battle of Saint Charles is known as the deadliest shot of the American Civil War?

Hog Farm _Talk 17:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P4

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Saint Charles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 21:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Initial review comments

I plan to GA review this article. I could not help but notice that the Battle of Cotton Plant (which I brought to B class status) was not mentioned. Please look it up and I think you will agree that it deserves at least a mention in this article. Thanks. I'll start my review later. Djmaschek (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this should be added, which I've done now. I think I missed it because Shea & Hess refer to it as the Battle of Cache River, a name for that action I'm not familiar with. Hog Farm _Talk 05:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Review 1

Here is my first stab at the review. As always, make the correction or argue your case for not doing so. Some of these must be fixed, some should be fixed, and others are optional. Djmaschek (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Introduction. Typo: "the position was overtake." > "the position was taken." (?)
  • Corrected. I blame my poor copy editing on the Missouri Public School System
• Introduction. "Curtis's men cut loose from their supply line..." Curtis's men did not make the decision to cut loose, Curtis did. Also, I would try to tie it to the previous sentence (supply mission failed). I would write something like this: "Therefore, Curtis's army cut loose..." or "Having missed its rendezvous with the flotilla, Curtis's army cut loose..."
  • Done
• Background. "swung political favor to secession" Do you mean "swung political fervor to secession"? If it were me, I'd write "swung political opinion toward secession".
  • Done
• Background. "Curtis had originally fallen back into Missouri after the battle, but moved back into Arkansas after learning of Van Dorn's movement east." Actually, Curtis marched directly east to West Plains, Missouri, before turning south to Batesville. (Shea & Hess, Pea Ridge, pp 292-293) Details!
  • Added, with more detail
• Background. You might mention the Battle of Whitney's Lane.
  • Added mention
• Kilty moves up the White. Awkward: "on June 14. On June 16" Try to avoid this because it just looks bad. Move June 14 to the beginning of its sentence or move June 16 to the end.
  • Rephrased
• Kilty moves up the White. Missing word: "that the Union had reached" > "that the Union vessels had reached" or "that the Union force had reached"
  • Corrected
• Battle. Typo: "The infantryment were sent" > "The infantrymen were sent"
  • Fixed
• Battle. Clarify: "but were unable to damage the Union vessel" Since the fatal shot comes immediately after this sentence, I would write: "but at first were unable to damage the Union vessel"
  • Done
• Battle. Clarify: "Union men were sent into St. Charles" This sounds like Unionist civilians occupied the town. Do you mean, "Union soldiers were sent into St. Charles"?
  • Yes, changed
• Aftermath. Unclear: "Fitch sent his men ashore and advanced 5 miles" > "Fitch sent his men ashore and they advanced 5 miles" (Fitch didn't go) or? "Fitch took his men ashore and advanced 5 miles" (Fitch went)
  • Changed to took, which is the correct one
• Aftermath. Typo: "Union forced in Memphis" > "Union forces in Memphis"
  • Corrected
• Aftermath. Typo: " In one county along" > " In one county alone"
  • Fixed
• Aftermath. "Having missed his supply opportunity" This is OK, but how about "Having missed his supply rendezvous" or "Having missed his opportunity to resupply"?
  • Went to the former
• Aftermath. Typo: "which was reach on July 12" > "which was reached on July 12"
  • Corrected
• Last small paragraph should be put under the heading "Battlefield today" or something like that.
  • Done
• Map. In your location map, Little Rock overlapped Clarendon. I fixed this for you. Please see how it was done. (position=right, left, top, bottom)
  • Thanks!
• Sources. I'm curious as to why the Encyclopedia of Arkansas refs are not in your list of sources. There is nothing wrong with they way you did this, but it just seems odd to me.
  • Most of the time, I put stuff that I've citing individual pages on in the list of sources, while using general web sources where I'm not citing specific pages in the other way

@Djmaschek: - I think I've got this first batch responded to. Hog Farm _Talk 01:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: GA class. Nice work!

Requested move 12 November 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Battle of Saint Charles → Battle of St. Charles – In all of the sources I looked into getting this to GA and bringing this to ACR, the spelling "Saint Charles" is basically never used. Sources consistently refer to it by the spelling "St. Charles". Presumably if the hyphen in Battle of Saint-Charles is enough dabbing now, it'll still be fine with a move of this to St. Charles. Hog Farm _Talk 19:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Hog Farm.-Indy beetle (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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.