Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Cane Hill/archive1

Battle of Cane Hill

 * Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This may seem familiar to those who reviewed Featured article candidates/Battle of Van Buren/archive1 in 2022. Essentially, Confederate forces under Thomas C. Hindman made an abortive push into SW Missouri (see Featured article candidates/First Battle of Newtonia/archive1) but fell back into Arkansas under Union pressure. Hindman tried again later than year in a campaign that had its first major action here at Cane Hill, met stalemate at the Battle of Prairie Grove, and then ended in the aforementioned Van Buren fiasco. Cane Hill itself was a running cavalry battle that stretched over miles of Arkansas forests and mountains. Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * The infobox image, why is it cited? (Usually such information goes on the details page in Commons.
 * The last image's caption: why is it "A 19th-century engraving" rather than 'An 1866 engraving'?
 * And yes, I am aware that I didn't mention these at ACR.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.


 * "The Battle of Cane Hill". That upper-case B, do the HQ sources consistently use it?
 * Not consistently, changed to "battle of Cane Hill" in the lead
 * The first paragraph of the lead: After the first sentence, events are not retold in chronological order are they? If that's so, it may be helpful if they were - I have just read it twice and am struggling to get a grip on what happened.
 * I've tried to rearrange this
 * That works.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Should there be a hyphen in "rear guard action"?
 * Not for sure; I've added one as a caution
 * - does the first paragraph of the lead look better now? Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "In December 1860, the state of South Carolina ... occurred to the north in Missouri during 1861." This seems both over-detailed, and not detailed enough. in that it skips Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina seceding.
 * So - would you recommend I cut down the detail or just bring in another source that mentions TN, VA, and NC? I think some form of context as to why Americans started shooting Americans is necessary here
 * They need an excuse? I thought it was the national sport. If t'were me, I would trim the detail. I agree, but something a bit more general should suffice. But it's your call. I shall support now anyway, and leave it to you to trim or expand. Ping me if you want me to look over whatever you decide on.
 * I've trimmed a bit for now but will think this over some more. Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "took most of the soldiers and military supplies in the state with him". Really? Or just those on the Confederate side?
 * I've added "Confederate" here, although it is largely true as well because Curtis's Yankees had fallen back to Missouri until late April, by which time Van Dorn had gotten his troops across the Mississippi
 * "advanced his forces back". Well, yes, he did, but it reads funny.
 * I've removed "back"
 * "in early November, Marmaduke's division moved north". Is it known, even approximately, how strong this force was? Did it contain any artillery? ("Hindman decided to push a cavalry force into the Cane Hill".)
 * I've clarified here - 2,000 men and six cannon. I don't think the presence of artillery detracts from this being a cavalry force. The artillery here is merely an adjunct to the main body here
 * Me neither. I just felt that if there was artillery - and it is clear later that there was - it should be mentioned up front.


 * "However, Blunt actually approached via the Ridge Road". I don't think "actually" is necessary.
 * Removed
 * "On the Federal side, six cannons from the 2nd Indiana Battery." There seems to be no verb in this "sentence". :-)
 * Fixed. As always, I blame the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
 * Come to think of it, there is nothing in the MoS requiring a verb in each sentence, so perhaps I should have labelled that as optional?


 * "the fighting was shifting to the south toward Newburg". Perhaps give an idea of how far away that is?
 * Added
 * "the fighting grew hand-to-hand". "grew"? Perhaps 'became'?
 * Done
 * "visibility became very poor due to smoke". From ...?
 * Clarified - a brush fire
 * Any idea what time the fighting on Reed's Mountain began/ended?
 * Marmaduke decided to stand around 2 pm per Shea; I don't have an explicit ending time but the article does indicate from Shea that this stage lasted about an hour and a half
 * "among participants of the battle". "of" → 'in'.
 * changed
 * "the Confederates did present a flag of truce at the end of the battle as a ruse to give the battered Confederate forces time to break contact and leave the area." Right, so that was the plan. What actually happened? Was contact broken? Did the Confederates leave the area? If so, where did they go and what were their opponents doing while this was happening?
 * I've clarified this a bit - contact was broken while aid was being provided to wounded men
 * "over 12 miles (19 km)[65] or 15 miles (24 km) of ground." 'over 12 or 15 miles (19 or 24 km) of ground' would read more naturally.
 * Done
 * "Shea and Scott and Burgess". Perhaps add a serial comma? And again later in the paragraph.
 * I don't know that that would be grammatical - it's only two objects - Shea and "Scott and Burgess" as a single work
 * Link "preservationist".
 * Linked
 * "with Montgomery stating" → 'and states'; he doesn't need naming twice in one sentence. And perhaps again with Oates?
 * Rephrased both
 * Consider "the reasons casualties were so low" → 'the reason for this'.
 * Done
 * "a decisive defensive battle that his command" → 'a decisive defensive battle then his command'. (Avoiding "that" twice.)
 * Done
 * "The fighting at Prairie Grove ensured that Missouri and northwestern Arkansas remained under Federal control.[/] A portion of the battlefield, about 5,750 acres (2,330 ha), was listed ..." Assuming that you mean Cane Hill was listed, perhaps specify?
 * Yes, clarified

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done


 * Encyclopedia of Arkansas is a work title and should be italicized
 * Have swapped over to use cite encyclopedia instead of cite web
 * Why is Further reading a subsection of References? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have moved the heading up a level

- thanks for the review! Comments have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Vami
Quid pro quo – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, got busy. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  02:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Is there an article that can be linked here?
 * There is not. Prairie Grove Campaign might be worth expanding from a redirect at some point, but that doesn't begin until after the Missouri campaign that ended at Newtonia. For campaignbox purposes, Wikipedia lumps Newtonia into Template:Campaignbox Operations North of Boston Mountains with several somewhat-unrelated actions; "Operations North of Boston Mountains" was created back in the '90s by a federal government battlefield protection commission as a sort of wastebasket taxon for various activities in mainly Missouri and the Indian Territory that didn't fit cleanly into anything else
 * First mention of this attack being launched from Arkansas; "back" undesired. Suggest "had made an abortive offensive into southwestern Missouri from Arkansas..."
 * Done
 * Why "separate" and not "separated"?
 * I'm not sure; changed
 * "on the offensive" redundant; cut.
 * Removed
 * Possessive here wrong; Federal here means only the U.S. government and its arms and is thus plural throughout. Suggest just "Federal".
 * Fixed
 * Without further context this feels like something that can be safely left out of the lead. As is, it's a unnecessary break in the action, almost a non sequitur.
 * Removed
 * Surely there is a possible link here?
 * There's not - these are Herron's Division, Army of the Frontier and Totten's Division, Army of the Frontier. Both were fairly ephemeral organizations; I don't think there's any basis for an article on these subunits and Army of the Frontier itself is already linked
 * I meant Springfield, not the army, sorry. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  23:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've linked Springfield - "Queen City of Ozarks"


 * Background
 * Too many "states".
 * I've piped the the link to "the Southern United States" to "the South", which should remediate part of this
 * "rebuilding" superfluous.
 * Removed
 * I feel this could be condensed with no loss in quality. Something like "Hindman was temporarily recalled by Holmes and the two commanders left in charge in his absence performed poorly."
 * Simplified
 * If I'm not mistaken, then, they retreated into Tennessee? When did the Confederates return to Arkansas?
 * I've clarified this a little bit - Van Dorn retreated in Tennessee and took everything with him, and Hindman had to rebuild an army


 * Prelude
 * This can be condensed.
 * Done
 * Federal should not be plural.
 * Done


 * Battle
 * Redundant. That a man on his own feet is slower than a man on a horse's feet goes without saying, unless the reader has no idea what a horse is.
 * Removed. I would hope this is obvious, but you never know these days
 * Recommend replacing ", and" with a semicolon.
 * Done
 * Feels wiggly. Maybe "During the Confederate retreat towards Reed's Mountain,"?
 * Done
 * The Federal commander decided to attack Is this Blunt or another commander? If it is Blunt, it seems to me that he decided to attack a long time ago.
 * I've rephrased this
 * What times?
 * Removed "the" - hopefully it reads better now
 * These two should be combined, I think, or the order swapped around. As presently arranged, the cart is before the horse.
 * I've re-arranged and rephrased this

This concludes my reading. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  07:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the review! Replies are above - I've tried to make all of the changes in a satisfactory manner. Hog Farm Talk 03:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All good now. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  07:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Source review
I guess that Encyclopedia of Arkansas isn't user-generated, as it mentions that it has editors, but who are they? arkansaspreservation.com is the name of the domain, but I'd say that the project name is better for this. Looks like all the sources are journal articles, books from prominent universities and well-cited other books. Formatting seems consistent too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - sorry for the delay; just now saw this. Editors for Encyclopedia of Arkansas are here. They include Mark K. Christ, Thomas DeBlack, Michael Dougan, and Carl Moneyhon, all of whom have published work on the Civil War era in Arkansas through respected universities so I think we're good with reliability on that source. I've revamped the formatting on the Arkansas Preservation source. Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

 * Am I imagining it, or is it more common for our Civil War articles to use "Union" rather than "Federal" to describe the North?
 * Both "Union" and "Federal" are widely used in the underlying scholarly literature. I can switch over to Union if there are no objections by or . I personally follow Ed Bearss and refer to the northern forces as the Federals. This had come up at Featured article candidates/William Y. Slack/archive1 which ended with a change from Federals to Union; I had simply forgotten about that when I sent this article to FAC Hog Farm Talk 19:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would object but not oppose the FAC on this account. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  20:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fine as is; just wanted to check that there was no MILHIST standard that should be applied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As at Slack, I would much prefer Union throughout. I think that "Federal" is doing the readers a disservice. It made me momentarily wonder if the Mexican police had intervened. I also thought that Peacemaker's point at Slack was right on the money. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who has expressed the opposite opinion; I'll go with whichever one we can get a consensus on. Hog Farm Talk 22:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings either way, but if pushed I would go for "Union" as that's more common in the (not very numerous) sources I've seen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of Slack. Let us cleave to "Union" then, per the consensus there and the old historiography. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've swapped the article over to use "Union". Hog Farm Talk 04:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That's everything from a read through. Looks in great shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "stationed in Benton County, Arkansas": suggest "Benton County, northwestern Arkansas", or perhaps even "Benton County, in the northwestern corner of Arkansas" if that's not too wordy. Though if the map you include were a bit more readable neither would be necessary.  If it's not possible to generate a map in a more modern font that includes the same places names, could we instead increase the  parameter to about 1.5 or 1.6 to make the map easier to read?
 * I've made a change to indicate where in Arkansas Benton county is. It's harder to find a decent period map showing Cane Hill than you would think. For now, I've bumped up the upright parameter to 1.5 until I can find an alternate map; the necessary locations are crammed too close together for a location pin map to be useful. Hog Farm Talk 19:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article never uses the name "Boonsboro"; it just mentions in a parenthesis, once in the lead and once in the body. There's a link to Canehill, Arkansas; do we need the alternative name at all?  If so perhaps it could be demoted to a note, since it's not necessary to understand the article text.
 * I've relegated this and the Newburg/Clyde explanation to footnotes
 * Could the caption for the battlefield area image say what the three red-outlined areas are? I would guess the northernmost one is the artillery duel between Shelby and Cloud, but can't be sure.  I don't know the criteria used for the red outline so if they don't correspond neatly to phases of the battle, this may not be worth it.
 * The documentation for the file says these are "Cane Hill", "Fly Creek Valley", and "Cove Creek" areas of the fighting. "Cove Creek" is the fighting south of the Morrow place. Neither Shea nor Scott & Burgess mention "Fly Creek" so I'm hesistant to try to assign any sort of description in a caption to this. I reckon it's probably referring to the fighting on the slopes of Reed's Mountain, but I don't know. The name of Reed's Mountain does not appear on USGS topographic maps of the area. Hog Farm Talk 19:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Combining Shea's references to Fly Creek in Prelude to Prairie Grove, I think it's clear that the creek was at the foot of Reed's Mountain, and it's definitely the case that that's where the Reed's Mountain fighting occurred -- the Union artillery were firing on Reed's Mountain from both sides of the creek. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I had only skimmed Shea's print work; either Fly Creek isn't in there or I missed it. I've elaborated a bit in the caption
 * "Not long after the artillery duel opened, the Confederate forces withdrew": the only northern fire mentioned at this point is the six Parrott rifles, so was this actually an artillery duel? It sounds like there was northern artillery involved based on Shea's and Hartsell's comments, but unless I'm missing it nothing is mentioned.
 * The lead states the flag of truce ruse as settled fact, but the body says it's debated.
 * The body notes that it's debated among participants - the two most thorough works (Shea and Scott/Burgess) both agree that it happened. For what it's worth, Edwards tends to be an unreliable witness - he's the guy behind the Jesse James myth and the "Quantrill as a good guy" stuff. I'll look over the sources on this a bit more, hopefully tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - thanks for your review! I've added a bit here about Edwards being an unreliable witness. I think it's okay to keep the lead as is because the major sources agree on that interpretation of events. The article should be ready for another look now. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "has Blunt's loss at eight men killed and thirty-two wounded and Confederate casualties similar": suggest "and similar Confederate casualties".
 * Done
 * It's a bit longwinded to say "work prepared by Shea and historians ..." but I can see why you phrased it that way. Could we finesse this by saying something like "In a 2006 Battlefield Guide, prepared by Shea " for the first mention, and then just say "the 2006 Battlefield Guide" for the second mention?
 * Done

Looks like you overlooked my question about starting "Not long"? And can you confirm that Scott & Burgess is a sufficiently authoritative source for us to describe Edwards' writing as "hyperbolic and careless with the truth"? Otherwise the changes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Other testimony on Edwards: referring to his writings on Missouri bushwhackers "the end result of Edwards's maneuvering and manipulating of memory was, and remains, inherently and deliberately misleading". (Hulbert, "The Ghosts of Guerrilla Memory: How Civil War Bushwhackers Became Gunslingers in the American West" p. 46). Referring to Edwards' writings on the bushwhackers again, "[Edwards'] book has been described by one historian as "extravagantly romantic in temperament, bitterly pro-Southern in outlook, and completely devoid of a sense of historical objectivity and integrity". (Schultz, "Quantrill's War" p. 130). And lastly, "Edwards' book on Shelby makes for exciting reading, but as a historical source must be used with utmost caution". (Castel, "General Sterling Price and the Civil War in the West", p. 161). Castel then goes on to criticize the O'Flaherty work listed in the further reading for uncritically using Edwards. I think the consensus on Edwards is strong enough to just go with that one source. Apologies for missing the "Not long" comments; I've rephrased this part of the article to hopefully resolve this. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. OK on Edwards and the last tweak; everything looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

FrB.TG (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)