Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Capture of Sedalia

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) 10:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Capture of Sedalia[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Capture of Sedalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A minor ACW cavalry action. Confederate cavalry commanded by an officer who technically wasn't in Confederate service swooped in, routed the militia defending the town and captured a large number of cattle and mules. Some degree of looting seems to have occurred, but the extent is debated. Hog Farm Talk 01:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
Source review—pass
  • Collins 2016, p. 186.—in the PDF this page is taken up by a map and I don't see it mentioning Newtonia
    • Collins 2016 p.186 is only to cover "towards the end of the month", there's a mid-sentence ref to Kennedy 1998 that supports Newtonia and the other stuff.
  • Thompson then moved north to rejoin Price's main body and rejoined it at the Salt Fork River—Salt Fork River not mentioned in the source on the cited page
    • Oops. I meant to cite Sinisi 2020 pp. 137-138.
  • Is there a pagination issue with this source?
  • Jenkins 1906, p. 52.—These three refs look good (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checked a few other refs and didn't find any other issues (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Link "brigade".
    • Done in both the lead and body
  • "Lyon was defeated and killed at the Battle of Wilson's Creek in August by the Missouri State Guard and Confederate States Army forces". Seems a bit distant from the topic to me.
    • Trimmed out of the article
  • "leaving the Missouri State Militia to be the state's primary defensive force". Optional: "to be" → 'as'.
    • Done
  • "had had their morale dented". Optional: → 'their morale had been dented'.
    • Done; avoids having to "had"s in a row
  • Link Jefferson City.
    • It's previously linked in the background material; do you think I ought to intentionally duplink it (although if I do intentionally duplink, someone on an AWB browser run will probably remove the link without reading the context)
Ho hum. I would, but I leave it to your judgement.
  • "of Shelby's Iron Brigade of Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion" → 'of Shelby's Iron Brigade, made up of Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion'.
    • Done
  • "Thompson, who had established a chain of relay couriers along his path, sent a courier to Price to inform him of this development, and initially decided to call off the attack on Sedalia, before changing his mind in the belief that the Union infantry was not heading in his direction and that Sanborn was too far away to interfere." This seems an overlong sentence.
    • Split
  • "some rifle pits defended the town. The town was defended by". Any chance of substituting one of the defended's?
    • Done
  • "shooting the mule a soldier was writing". "writing"?
    • Fixed.
  • "the looting was primarily restricted to stores". "Stores" has two meanings. Possibly reword?
    • Clarified
  • Cite 30: "pp." → 'p.'.
    • Corrected

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Confederate government of Missouri is overlinked, as is Kansas City
    • Removed
  • given the shortness of the article, I would suggest ditching footnote "a" and just working that into the body of the article. For instance, "Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's brigade of Shelby's division to Sedalia"
    • I've worked it into the prose into the body and the lead, but I think it may be best to leave it in the infobox. There have been issues of people inserting the MSG into the infobox under the basis that Thompson was in the MSG, when it's misleading to add that as the MSG was not really a participant here. I feel like the footnote is a way to possibly prevent that
  • " Not wanting to leave a large Union force in behind his army": "in the rear of his army"?
    • Done
  • "Elliott's regiment": full name for Elliott on first mention?
    • Added (Benjamin F.)
  • "Thompson believed that the element of surprise gave him the greatest": suggest making this the start of a new paragraph
    • Done
  • "Thompson catpured almost 2,000 mules and cattle": typo
    • Correct
  • the battle section seems a bit light on details about the actual fighting, which seems to be covered by half of the second paragraph in the section -- is there any more detail that could be added to expand this a little?
    • Not in the secondary sources I've seen, which focus more on the aftermath. The only two primary sources for this are Queen and Thompson, whose accounts do not agree in some points. (And Queen's report is pretty short, while Thompson discusses the aftermath in more detail). There just doesn't seem to have been much written about the combat at the time, and there's just not much for the secondary sources to work with here. I think this subject is notable, but not FAC-able due to the nature of the subject matter. Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sources, is there an OCLC for the USWD source?
    • Added
  • "while the modern historian Paul Kirkman" v "The historian Paul B. Jenkins" -- technically both would be modern historians, surely given that the American Civil War is part of modern history? I would suggest dropping "modern" and just mentioning the year that they stated what they did. Same for Sinisi
    • Done. I assume I was thinking to contrast Kirkman in 2011 to Jenkins in 1906
  • "the Confederates left Sedalia within hours": do we know when Union forces re-occupied Sedalia?
    • Checked Kirkman, Lause, Sinisi, Collins, and Monnett and none of them seem to say anything. As a militia post that appears to have been locally manned, it doesn't seem to get much attention in sources after the Confederates left. It's even possible that some of the paroled militia may have just hung around.
  • "Shelby's division": has Shelby been formally introduced in the article?
    • Glossed
  • "including Marmaduke": has this person been formally introduced earlier in the article?
    • Removed entirely, Marmaduke is not significant to this action
  • infobox: suggest removing ranks as we do not usually display them per Template:Infobox military conflict/doc
    • Removed
  • is there a link that could be added for home guard?
    • Added
    • Hog Farm did you catch these comments? (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Buidhe - I somehow did not, will work on now. Hog Farm Talk 04:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @AustralianRupert: - I've tried to reply to all points, but I unfortunately couldn't come up with information for a couple. Hog Farm Talk 03:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries, added my support above -- sorry for the tardy reply. I am away for work so responses will not always be regular. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

I don't normally review articles on the American Civil War because it's well outside my area of expertise. I did take one unit of American history once as part of a plan to study in the US (which fell through) and this was a prerequisite. Unfortunately, the unit that I wanted to do, which covered from 1865 to 1925 was unavailable that year, so I was stuck with one that covered 1805 to 1865. Bob Carr used to be a genuine American Civil War buff, but used to cop it for researching an obscure conflict that few people know or care about. Which of course is our bread an butter here on Wikipedia. I'm reviewing this article in the interest of helping to clear the constipated A-class review queue. I'm unsure as to why you nominated it though.

  • As to why, I originally had delusions about trying to work this minor topic up to FAC, but quickly had the realization after nominating that there's probably just not enough about this for that. Hog Farm Talk 20:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My feeling is that this article is a fine GA, but the last section highlights a lot of holes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox

Can we have the form of the map that shows where in the US Missouri is?

  • Added
Lead
  • First of all, I don't like the term "Union" in the lead. It is one of those pro-Confederate terms generally deprecated. I would prefer "United States" in the first sentence instead.
    • Being raised in the States, "Union" is the term I've heard universally to refer to the North in the conflict. What was taught in school, etc. (although the public high school I went to was also an isolated rural one that had a Confederate flag in the school for awhile and didn't teach evolution because it was too controversial in the area, so maybe that's not the best comparison). @BusterD and Kges1901: may also have some thoughts on this. It's very widely used in ACW articles, as well. Hog Farm Talk 20:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      These items should be taken as suggestions only. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 1864, with the war having turned against the Confederacy," I would delete this phrase; the first part we already know from the previous sentence, and the second part isn't germane. I would however preface Sterling Price's name with "Confederate" as it's not so obvious which side someone is on in a civil war. (Same with Thompson)
    • Done with the removal and for Price, I've done something slightly different with Thompson as he technically hadn't joined the CSA
  • "Price soon needed supplies, weapons, and mounts for the men." I would say remounts instead of mounts.
    • Done in both lead and body
  • "In response," Suggest deleting this phrase too, as not responding to anything.
    • Done
  • "on October 15" Suggest deleting this too, as we already know this.
    • Done
  • " After paroling their prisoners" The article says he didn't parole them all.
    • Changed to "paroling or releasing their prisoners"
Prelude
  • "the southwestern portion of the state" Is this the Little Dixie referred to it the lead?
    • Clarified that Little Dixie was in central Missouri
  • "While the anti-secession legislators voted to remain in the United States" This is the sort of sentence EEng would appreciate. Like, why would they vote otherwise?
    • Rephrased this sentence to highlight that there were two governments of Missouri without having the "d'oh" sentence
  • "function as a government-in-exile" Which I take to mean that it was located outside Missouri.Any idea where it was located?
    • Various places and eventually Marshall, Texas. Added
  • "Union control of Missouri" I'm not sure what is meant by this.
    • Rephrased, is this better?
  • "At this point, the Confederacy had very little chance of winning the war." Probably true, but I'm not sure how relevant this is. The reader will wonder why the fighting was continuing if the Confederates had given up.
    • Removed
  • Doesn't Atlanta count as part of the Western Theater of the American Civil War?
    • Yes, although almost everyone would consider Georgia to be part of the eastern United States. Rephrased.
  • "Price expected that the offensive" Repetition of "the offensive"; consider re-ewording.
    • Rephrased
  • Any idea how many men Price had?
    • Added
  • "Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's, whose commission was in the Missouri State Guard,[1] brigade " Awkward with the phrase after the possessive; consider re-wording. Especially given that this fact is already in Note (a). (And it's just Thompson, not the brigade that are from the Missouri State Guard, correct?)
    • I've tried to rephrase this to be less confusing; is the new version better?
Battle
  • "before changing his mind in the belief that the Union infantry was not heading in his direction " What infantry? So far we've only been talking about cavalry.
    • Clarified - it was the Union force at California.
Aftermath
  • "Some eyewitnesses reported seeing Confederates plundering supplies of whiskey by riding barefoot and keeping the liquor in their boots." This makes no sense at all.
    • Is Some eyewitnesses reported seeing Confederates riding barefoot and carrying their boots filled with stolen whiskey an improvement? Essentially, eyewitnesses implied that alcohol was involved in the mess. Thompson claimed to have kept things under reasonably tight control, but there's a lot to suggest that that version isn't very accurate
      Even in the article! One has to be suspicious of a report where the best that can be said is that no one was raped or murdered. They leaves plenty of scope for mayhem. Back in the Middle Ages this was called a "sack". The term "private property" always raises alarm bells, because the Confederates saw themselves as fighting a war to protect private property (ie slavery). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving the first sentence of the second paragraph into the first paragraph.
    • Done
  • I'm really astonished that people can write whole books on the subject, when the details remain so sketchy.
    • More like chapters in longer books about Price's Raid, but the Confederate cavalry gets a lot of attention and Thompson was a bit of a colorful character, so stuff like this gets surprising coverage.

All in all, a sold piece of work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hawkeye7: - I've attempted to reply on all above, the Union in the lead is the only one not actioned. Probably not FACable, but hopefully it meets the A-class requirements now. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that you couldn't get it through FAC, but I'm always cautious about this, because the one-at-a-time rule means that you might lose three months that could have been devoted to another article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 14 July 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/Capture_of_Sedalia&oldid=1033545010"