Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate)/archive1

13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate)

 * Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Another Missouri cavalry unit. This one fought in Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas in 1863 and 1864, with its most significant action occurring at Pine Bluff (Arkansas, 1863), Fort Davidson (Missouri, 1864), Little Blue River (Missouri, 1864), and Mine Creek (Kansas, 1864). It was originally drawn from Sterling Price's headquarters guard and was armed with experimental rapid-fire cannons, although little seems to be known about that. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest scaling up the raid map slightly, providing a legend, and including a source to verify the map's contents on the image description page
 * - I have increased the raid map scaling from 1.2 to 1.4. I don't know how to create a legend, where should I look?  The map was created by a professional cartographer who specializes in the American Civil War who also happens to be a Wikipedian.  I don't know what source(s) Hal J. used for this.  The Sinisi source includes a pretty detailed route description that should cover the map details, but I don't know for a fact that that was the source used.  I've adjusted the alt text for the Byram's Ford image so it doesn't duplicate the caption, but I have no idea what to use for alt text for the map that isn't super similar to the caption. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * image key or a related template may work well for a legend. The Sinisi source is fine even if it wasn't the original source, as long as it matches up with what is presented. As far as the alt... it's tricky for such a complex map, but WP:ALT suggests focusing on summarizing what is being presented, and/or referring to adjacent text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed the alt text to state that's a map of Confederate movements, and to see the accompanying text for description. For the legend, since it's not standard symbols, I've added a prose description of what the things mean to the image caption.  I have added Sinisi as a source to the file description page. Hog Farm Talk 05:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt text should not duplicate captions. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
That's it for an initial run. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was a little surprised to read a biography of a cavalry unit and find nothing on the horses. Eg, what type, how many, remounts, where did they come from, how were they cared for. How did the unit fight; ie were they essentially mounted infantry? Horse holders? How many?
 * I've added a good bit about horse procurement, and some basics about fighting. Like with the one below, I can really only speak in general terms for this.
 * This is a military unit, what weapons did they use? There is one mention of a mounted attack, how did that work? Swords? You twice mention Union weapons and the cannon which the unit never used, but for all a reader can tell the unit being described was equipped with breastplates and matchlocks.
 * I don't have a source that directly states what this unit had besides the experimental cannons, but thankfully I recently purchased an older book about Confederate cavalry in this part of the war that goes into detail about how they were armed. I've added a bit, although I have to be pretty general.  Lots of shotguns, single-shot muskets, six-shooters, and large knives.  So stuff that's a pain to while riding a horse (aside from the revolvers)
 * "after participating in some further fighting". I don't think this really works tense wise.
 * I've rephrased this, is the new phrasing an improvement
 * "the unit spent the rest of the war serving outpost duty". "serving outpost duty"? Is that USEng?
 * Works in USEng. Anything you would recommend me rephrasing this too?
 * "This directive was remanded". "directive"? Do you mean the order? "remanded"? See wikt:remand. I grow more puzzled by this when I find the unit fighting under Marmaduke later in the paragraph.
 * Is "rescinded" a better word? Switched to order, as well.  The source is just really vague here - ordered to join Marmaduke, then that was not done, and then later they were under Marmaduke.  Not very clear, and I'm not aware of another source that contains a detailed formation history of this unit.
 * "was too poorly disciplined to be an effective combat unit." Perhaps add a 'considered'? And do we know by whom? Possibly the person who "remanded" the directive?
 * Done. And it was considered so by Wood himself.
 * "When Marmaduke drew up his plan of attack against the post, Wood's battalion was assigned to a force which was ordered to split from the main Confederate force, which was advancing from the east, and take side roads to attack the Union garrison from the southeast." Suggest this goes in the previous paragraph, so as to split the plans and their execution.
 * Done
 * "split from the main ... split from the main". Vary the language? In fact, consider tweaking this bit, it reads a bit "flat".
 * Done
 * "The battalion was reported to have a strength of 219 men and 222 horses". When?
 * October 1863. Added (I don't know why I didn't include the date in the first place)
 * "The unit issued a strength report on November 10, which found that". "found" → 'stated' or 'claimed' or similar.
 * Done
 * "The report did not mention any artillery component of the unit". Delete "of the unit".
 * Removed
 * "associated with Price's headquarters. In March 1864, Steele was sent". Perhaps a paragraph break here?
 * Split
 * "Meanwhile, the Red River campaign had been repulsed". "Meanwhile"? During the Battle of Poison Spring?
 * Rephrased
 * "by pursuing Confederates during the retreat". "the" → 'their'.
 * Done
 * "while Marmaduke's and Major General James F. Fagan's division moved against Fort Davidson." division or divisions?
 * Yes, this should be the plural. Fixed
 * "unable to carry the fort via assault". "via" → 'by'.
 * Done
 * "The Confederates were unable to carry the fort via assault, and its Union defenders abandoned it that night. Wood's battalion had suffered about 30 casualties during the fighting at Pilot Knob and helped pursue the Union soldiers who had abandoned the fort." The chronology seems to jump around. Why not 1. attack faile 2. casualties during this failure 3. fort abandoned 4. pursuit. And delete "who had abandoned the fort", I think it's clear.
 * Done
 * Could "depot" be linked to Supply depot?
 * Actually it was a railroad depot, so I've linked to that
 * "Four companies of recruits were added to Wood's battalion while the unit was at Marshall, although these men were detached from Wood's battalion during the campaign." I kinda know what you mean, but it reads oddly.
 * Does "Four companies of recruits were assigned to Wood's battalion while the unit was at Marshall, although they served separately during the campaign." work better?
 * "Wood's horse was shot during the fighting". Killed.
 * done, after checking the source (for a horse that was shot but not killed, see Old Baldy (horse), who suffered at least 5 wounds during the war)
 * "Pleasonton continued the fighting with night combat". This seems a little stilted. Maybe 'Pleasonton continued fighting into night'?
 * Done
 * "most of whom had retreated before". Delete "had".
 * Removed
 * "Price's column became stuck at the crossing of Mine Creek". Stuck in what way? (Did the wagons stick in the ford?)
 * Rephrased
 * "While the crossing was occurring" "occurring" → 'taking place'.
 * Done
 * "the better-armed Union soldiers". I refer to my earlier comment; better than what?
 * Clarified. The Confederates mostly had single-shot weapons, while the Union troopers had repeating rifles at Mine Creek
 * "Fifty of the prisoners were from Wood's battalion". Exactly fifty?
 * I guess so. McGhee p. 105 says It [Wood's battalion] suffered casualties in that debacle [Mine Creek] of 5 killed, 17 wounded, and 50 taken prisoner
 * - Initial round of replies done. Would recommend checking the new background information to make sure it is acceptable. Hog Farm Talk 18:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Second run

 * Perhaps add a brief description of the Williams guns? They seem a little unconventional.
 * Added a brief description
 * "having fought in some further fighting". Umm.
 * Rephrased
 * "and operations against railroads." Perhaps insert a verb? Unless you meant to say that it "fought ... operations against railroads."
 * Switched to past tense, to make is consistent with the rephrasing I've done for the earlier part in the sentence
 * Lead " it was enlarged to regimental strength"; body " four companies that had been attached to the battalion during the campaign and the eight existing companies were consolidated down into ten companies, forming a regiment." So was it "enlarged" or "consolidated down"?
 * It was enlarged. The number of troops increased, but the number of companies decreased.  Is there a specific way I can rephrase this to make it clearer?
 * Should "13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment" be in bold in the lead at first mention?
 * It's bolded in the very first sentence, so I thought another bolding might be excessive. It was bolded again, but Shooterwalker below requested that the second bolding be removed. Hog Farm Talk 05:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like 'At an unknown date, probably while the unit was in Texas or Arkansas, the four companies that had been attached to the battalion during the campaign and the eight existing companies were consolidated down into ten companies. Although the number of companies was reduced, there was an increase in manpower and it was designated a regiment, the 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment.'?


 * Done (in the body). Thanks for the wording suggestion!
 * "The shotguns in particular were inferior to the use of carbines." Maybe 'The shotguns in particular were inferior to carbines.'?
 * Done
 * Perhaps mention that all of these weapons, bar the pistols, were single shot, unlike many of the Union firearms. (I assume none were muzzle loading?) I realise that you already say this later in hte text.
 * - Well, based on background knowledge, they would have been single-shot, and the muskets would have been generally muzzle loading. However, the source (Oates) does not state this.  General works on Confederate cavalry focus on the more important theaters, where the weapons situation was much better (so not really comparable).  Not quite sure what to do here. Hog Farm Talk 04:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is simply not covered anywhere, even on a theatre wide basis, then fine, just leave it.
 * I was excited when a 600-page one volume work on the Trans-Mississippi Theater came out earlier this month, but the reviews are pretty bad, so will not be reading that one. This is just a horribly understudied part of the war. Hog Farm Talk 05:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the new background.
 * Thanks!
 * Is it worth mentioning that Price's force consisted entirely of cavalry?
 * Probably. Added.
 * After the attack fizzled out, the men of Clark's brigade fell back to the creek bed, although Cabell's men made another unsuccessful attack. The Confederates were unable to carry the fort by assault". After the first sentence, the start of the second seems redundant.
 * Removed. I almost removed this when I reworked this spot in the first round
 * "they began to meet Union resistance." Optional: Insert 'more' or stronger'.
 * Went with "more"
 * "drove the Confederates backwards". "backwards" → 'back'?
 * Done
 * Link single-shot.
 * Linked
 * "over the course of the entire campaign". Delete "entire".
 * Removed
 * "The new unit was named". Why do you describe it as "new"?
 * I'm not sure, because it wasn't a new unit. I've removed the word
 * The weapons ones will require some research/source consulting, so I'll try to get to that tomorrow. I've got to travel early tomorrow morning for work, so stopping here for today. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking good. Just a couple of minor points left above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Support for prose by Shooterwalker
Going to give this a read and see if there are any issues. Aiming for readability and clarity, more than just grammatical correctness. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "and had 275 men by the end of September" -> "and grew to 275 men..."
 * Done
 * "after having fought in some further fighting and operations against railroads" -> faught in some further fighting feels redundant, and this can probably be said in fewer clearer words
 * This was rephrased in response to one of Gog's comments above. Is the new version better?
 * Maybe I'm confused, but the bolding of the rename "13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment" looks to be the same as the original title. Was the regiment called something else before, in which case should that be bolded? Or is this a new regiment being renamed to match the old one?
 * Removed the bolding, as its the same unit
 * On the whole the text is quite good.
 * Thanks!
 * Background and formation
 * "Overall, Confederate cavalry in the Trans-Mississippi was often armed with shotguns, muskets using the percussion cap system, hunting rifles, and Bowie knives." -> "Overall, Confederate cavalry in the Trans-Mississippi was typically armed with Bowie knives, shotguns, hunting rifles, and muskets using the percussion cap system." (flow)
 * Done
 * More generally strong prose!
 * Thanks! The prose is largely due to Gog's review above
 * Service history
 * "this success was followed up by the occupation" -> "followed" is fine, without "followed up"
 * Removed "up"
 * "When Marmaduke drew up his plan of attack against the post, Wood's battalion was assigned to a force which was ordered to split from the main Confederate force, which was advancing from the east, and take side roads to attack the Union garrison from the southeast" -> this sentence is quite complex and takes a few read-throughs to understand. It might be better phrased as two shorter, cleaner sentences.
 * I've split this into two sentences
 * "Another Confederate attack and subsequent fighting through the streets followed, " -> "This was followed by another Confederate assault through the streets,"
 * Done
 * "The battalion was reported in October to have a strength of 219 men and 222 horses" -> "By October 1863, the battalion was reported to have a strength of 219 men and 222 horses" (helps really clarify the timeline, and improve readability and flow)
 * I've rephrased this a bit. I'm not sure if I like "By October 1863 ..." here, as the unit's strength seems to have fluctuated off and on, and this figure really only represents a single figure in time.  Alternate phrasing suggestions welcome.
 * Price's raid
 * This section is excellently written. A pleasure to read.
 * Thanks!
 * Closing comments
 * As a reader who has only a basic understanding of the military side of the American civil war, I think it might be useful to pull the reader back into the broader context. Make it crystal clear the implications of their losses, and what was going on in the political side when the regiment was consolidated and disbanded. In other words, Wikipedia encourages us to state the WP:OBVIOUS. Otherwise this is an excellent article, and very close to being featured article quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the review! I'm a little confused as to what you would like added with the last point.  As to the political side, the sole source that discusses the consolidation (McGhee) just says that the consolidation occurred to make it a full regiment.  As to "The National Park Service states that the unit may have been disbanded in May 1865", I don't have anything more specific than this to work with, so I can't add anything further than a statement in the final paragraph that the CSA no longer existed after the surrenders.  I'm mainly confused on what you mean about "the implications of their losses", which was mainly just that people got shot. Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the ultimate question I'm left with, as a reader, is whether they played a major role in deciding the war or the wider political dispute that was at stake. Did they play a major role? A minor role? No role at all, as they were sidelined? It's just helpful when an article about something specific can also place it in the wider context. I won't push it too hard, since there are other articles that dive into the civil war in other respects. Happy to support the prose as is, and excellent job, again. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how to approach this. The unit was so insignificant that it's only mentioned in rather specialized sources (so basically, I'm partly responsible for the common complaint that FACs are rarely any topics of significance). Hog Farm Talk 05:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider it a suggestion rather than a requirement. If something does occur to you or pop up in the sources, by all means, add it. Good work! Shooterwalker (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.


 * Lede
 * cavalry regiment - I'm really not a fan of links like this, makes me think we are going to have an article on cavalry regiments. Could we reword to avoid? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Rephrased to make it cavalry unit in the first sentence, and moved the regiment link to the next mention in the lead
 * Major General Sterling Price - same... do we need a link for Major General? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've had links for ranks requested in a lot of other FACs/ACRs/GANs
 * grew 275 men - grew to, or grew by? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected
 * Laynesport seems like an odd redlink... Would Foreman, Arkansas be a suitable redirect target? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, since Foreman was definitely a different place than Laynesport. From some brief searching, it looks like Laynesport is very likely notable, so I'll try to get a short article there sometime when I'm not busy. Don't get me started on how USA places were mass-created.  Notable stuff like Laynesport are redlinks, while junk like Articles for deletion/Big Right Hand, West Virginia get articles
 * 72 casualties, 50 of them as prisoners of war. - can we define casualties? To my ears, that means deaths. PoWs aren't dead (unless they are in this case)? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've specified that this is a total of killed/wounded/captured
 * and the men of the 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment were paroled six days later - does parole have a different meaning in the army? I didn't realise they were in jail. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - in military usage of this time, it actually means you didn't go to prison. Not sure how to explain this beyond the link without going down too much of a rabbit hole.


 * Prose
 * state militia - pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Linked directly to the article title (the article linked was titled at the redirect when this article was created, which is why it was done that way), although frankly I don't think piped linking to a redirect is an issue of any sort.
 * Is there a circa for the caption in the image. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. All I can say is that since its a photograph, it would be before Price died in 1867.  My OR guess is that it's an older Price and the uniform may have been from when he was in the US Army, but I have nothing to back that up.
 * government-in-exile - are the hyphens necessary? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * probably not, dropped the hyphens.
 * A number of weapons used by Confederate cavalrymen in the Trans-Mississippi were privately produced in Texas.[8] A number of weapons - two sentences start with the same phrase. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Rephrased the beginning of the second sentence
 * Is Robert C. Wood not notable? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Very likely no, although my attempts at searching were clouded out by a somewhat more significant CSA colonel from Mississippi and Robert C. Wood, a 20th-century governmental official
 * In general the captions are a bit poor - "map of Arkansas" doesn't really state much. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the captions for Price, the Arkansas map, and Byram's Ford. Are the new captions better?
 * 219 men and 222 horses - more horses than men, is that normal? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Oates reproduces a form of the strength report in a table, which shows that the larger division this unit was in had about 8,000 horses and 5,000 men, with Wood's battalion having one of the lowest horse:human ratios.  But Oates also refers to it as a "surprising surplus", so I don't really know. Hog Farm Talk 07:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - First round of replies is done. How do things look now? Hog Farm Talk 07:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Minor comments from Chidgk1
Some of these comments about the lead may be due to me being a Brit and US English being different - if so please ignore as it is understandable

"The unit originated in early April 1863, when ..." sounds a bit strange as if it more or less formed itself. Maybe people were so keen to fight that is correct. If not how about "The unit was formed in early April 1863, when ..." or "The unit was created in early April 1863, when ..." or just "In early April 1863 ..." "The next month, the unit participated in the Battle of Pine Bluff, where it drove back ..." could be "The next month, the unit fought in the Battle of Pine Bluff, driving back ..." I presume we don't know why they no longer had guns. "After spending the summer of 1864 at Princeton, Arkansas, Wood's battalion was part of a force Price took into the state of Missouri during Price's Raid. Price's force entered the state in September, and the unit made an unsuccessful assault during the Battle of Pilot Knob on September 27." could be
 * Went with the one starting "In early April 1863 ..."
 * Done
 * Nope. McGhee (and the body of the article) explicitly state that what happened to the cannons is unknown

"... before spending the summer of 1864 at Princeton, Arkansas. In September they joined Price's Raid into the state of Missouri, but were unable to take Fort Davidson during the Battle of Pilot Knob on the 27th."

or

"... before spending the summer of 1864 at Princeton, Arkansas. They joined Price's September raid into the state of Missouri, but the unit's assault during the Battle of Pilot Knob on September 27 failed."

or omit the exact date

"... before spending the summer of 1864 at Princeton, Arkansas. In September they joined Price's Raid into the state of Missouri, but their assault during the Battle of Pilot Knob failed to capture Fort Davidson." Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
 * Went with this phrasing
 * (Additional comment)
 * - All of your phrasing concerns have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason for the formatting difference between FNs 38 and 71?
 * Standardized (I think)
 * The Oates work should probably use cite thesis. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It originated as a thesis, but the Oates's preface of the version I'm using states This book is a revised form of my graduate thesis.  The reprint edition my copy is of seems to treat it as a book, and the author notes that the thesis was revised to produce this work.  This seems to be de facto a book, although I'm open to changing the citation template if  or others feel strongly about this. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Any idea how it was revised, or whether it went through the regular book publishing process? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't easily find anything detailing this, so I've switched it over to cite thesis. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Nominator comment
- As I seem to have addressed everything with the source review and image review, and there are three supports representing a mixture of MILHIST and non-MILHIST editors, may I have a dispensation for a second nomination? Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)