Talk:Battle of St. Charles/GA1

GA Review
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

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


 * GA class. Nice work!