Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Saint Charles

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) 22:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Saint Charles[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Saint Charles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The deadliest single shot of the American Civil War. A Union army operating in Arkansas got stuck in the middle of nowhere with a bad supply situation and had to be resupplied by river. The river resupply fleet ran into a couple Confederate shore batteries near St. Charles, and a sharp little skirmish ensued. A stray Confederate cannon shot hit the boiler of the lead Union ship, and scalding steam killed or horribly wounded almost everyone on board. The resupply mission continued upriver, but was stopped by low water levels; the army that was the cause of the mission wound up extracting itself on its own anyway, in the first instance of the war of an army operating with no supply line. Hog Farm Talk 04:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 21:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in excellent shape, and is very interesting. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "killing or wounding almost all of its crew." - can you note how many casualties resulted?
    • Added
  • "Before daybreak, the Confederates made dispositions to receive the attack" - I'd suggest noting the date here, so it's clear
    • Added
  • Are the casualty figures for both sides reliable enough to include in the infobox, or are they too uncertain? Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added
  • @Nick-D: - Thanks for the review! Replies above. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries. Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox, suggest including elements of the 29th in the strength field
    • Added
  • "election on February 18" --> 1860 or 1861?
    • 1861. Added
  • suggest adding another third level subheader to the Background section to cover the first four paragraphs as visually having a single third level subheader in the middle of the section makes it look a little unbalanced
    • Added, suggestions on a better title are welcome
  • "held an statewide election" --> "held a statewide election"?
    • Corrected
  • "his others were not armed – [16] of": this looks a bit strange, I'd probably move the ref here
    • I've actually rejigged the sentences to make it smoother and moved the ref
  • is there an ISSN or OCLC for the Arkansas Historical Quarterly?
    • Added both
  • same as above for Naval History
    • Added both
  • citation 17 seems to be a different format to the other journal citations (compare with Bearss and Christ)
    • I treated Hubbs and Barnhart differently as magazines, while Bearss and Christ are proper journals; is this treatment problematic? I also accessed online versions of the two magazines that don't provide page numbers
      • No worries, it looks a bit inconsistent to me, but so long as you have a rationale for the difference it will probably be ok. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Aftermath, Mississippi River is overlinked
    • Unlinked
  • "Battlefield today" as this is a lone third level header below a large body of text, this looks a bit unbalanced. It would probably be better just to be its own second level header, IMO
    • Bumped up to level 2
  • date format inconsistency: "December 13, 2018" v. "10 October 2021" (for example)
    • Should be addressed
  • "Civil War Times" and "Encyclopedia of Arkansas" --> italics
    • Corrected
  • "No serious causulties": typo
    • Corrected
  • "the CSS Maurepas were": suggest dropping the definite article in front of ship names
    • Removed
  • "This shot had been described as the deadliest shot of the war": who described it thusly?
    • Appears to be a general term. Honnoll has This shot is called "the most deadly" shot of the war", Christ 2012 has what has been called the single deadliest shot of the Civil War was fired; Christ 1994 says the site of the Rebel batteries that fired "the deadliest shot of the Civil War" into the boiler of the Mound City is now covered by a large grain silo; Terrence Winschel's Triumph and Defeat about Vicksburg largely relegates St. Charles to a footnote that includes It was the single deadliest shot fired during the Civil War
  • link battery on first mention
    • Linked
  • is there an appropriate article to link to for the 32-pounder?
  • "Mound City opened fire at 07:36[a] and" --> suggest just working the footnote into the main text and contrasting the slightly different views in the body of the article
    • Done, as well as referencing Dunnington's report, which gave a time in the middle
  • "communication on Halleck" --> "communication from Halleck"?
    • Corrected
  • "loaded with two infantry regiments" --> do we know which ones?
    • Yes, named
  • "Curtis had a number of slaves emancipated" --> "Curtis emancipated a number of slaves"?
    • Done
  • "$1,500,000 of property damage": is this figure in today's terms, or is it the amount they were worth at the time of the incident?
    • @AustralianRupert: - Unclear in both Barnhart and Shea & Hess. Should I just remove this figure? Hog Farm Talk 05:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am happy for you to keep it in, but potentially it might get questioned later if you take the article to FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "march to the Mississippi River town to Helena": this seems a bit awkwardly worded
    • Corrected, the second "to" should have been an "of"
  • "a significant operating hub in the Vicksburg campaign" --> "a significant operating hub for the Union army in the Vicksburg campaign"?

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

  • Saint Charles or St. Charles? This should be made consistent.
    • I've opened a RM to get this to St. Charles. Hog Farm Talk 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States in 1860, several southern states link southern to Southern United States.
    • Done
  • On May 19, a small Union force crossed the Arkansas to forage The linked article indicates the proper name is Little Red River, not the Arkansas. Is how it was referred to back then?
    • Good catch - link piping error. Corrected now
  • Fry ordered the remaining Union sailors aboard to surrender Perhaps "demanded that"; belligerents do not technically give military orders to their opponents.
    • Done

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Indy beetle: - All addressed, except for the Saint Charles/St. Charles, which I'm waiting on the RM for - Saint Charles is only now used in the infobox and title, will change the infobox once the title gets moved. Hog Farm Talk 04:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Battlefield today" I think the use of such temporal terms like "today" is discouraged , this could be changed to "Battlefield" or "Battlefield site" but I don't have a strong opinion about it.
    • Done
  • The article on Mound City indicates that it was repaired and returned to service, could that info be included here?
    • Added, citing Christ 2012

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now satisfied the article meets A-class standards. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • NRHP - should be in brackets after first metion.
    • Added
  • On what basis are you including details of a source in "Refereneces" or in "Sources"?
    • Books and journal articles are going in sources, magazines (Barnhart & Hubbs) and web sources (Honnell & Kirk) are in references. Mainly because the format I accessed Barnhart and Hubbs in did not give me page numbers.
  • Shea - any chance of the page range of the chapter? Ditto for Shea & Hess (1998).
    • Done for both. The book the Shea chapter is in is back to the library, so I hope the Amazon preview of the table of contents is for the same edition.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Gog the Mild: - Thanks for the source review! Replies above - I'm willing to rework the source division, if that would be best. Hog Farm Talk 21:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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/Battle_of_Saint_Charles&oldid=1055442789"