Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Glasgow, Missouri/archive1

Battle of Glasgow, Missouri

 * Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

A cousin to Featured article candidates/Capture of Sedalia/archive1. The Confederates need weapons, so they raid a town on the Missouri River, getting weapons and supplies and burning a steamboat. Hog Farm Talk 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Having just looked at this for ACR I may as well recuse and rereview it.


 * "gave Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States presidential election over George B. McClellan, who favored ending the war." This doesn't come across as relevant to the rest of the article. Suggest either deleting or expanding a little. Preferably the latter.
 * I've added a sentence about Southern hopes for McClellan
 * "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand". Any ideas on the split of infantry and cavalry and if there were any artillery?
 * I believe it was nominally split between infantry and cavalry, but I'm not finding good breakdowns between the two or much comment on artillery, with the sole exception breakdowns of Ewing's scratch force at Pilot Knob. Collins just gives the overall total; Suderow (a newly-added source) just gives muster totals from August; Sinisi talks about reduced strength due to a botched vaccination but not a force breakdown, and I can't find anything super useful in Lause, Kennedy, or Nichols.
 * Optional (just a thought): Consider adding something like 'The breakdown of this force is unclear.' 'It is not known how much, if any, artillery was available to Rosecrans.
 * Unfortunately, the sources don't even say that. They're just silent on the issue.


 * "who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand"; "whose garrison was increased from 1,000 men to 7,000". Was that 7,000 of the 10,000? Or had additional Union troops entered the state? If so, from where?
 * I've clarified that Rosecrans received reinforcements at St. Louis, and that the increase to 7,000 was from bringing troops in from elsewhere in the state and from calling up more militia
 * " Attacks against the post on September 27 failed ... and decided to divert the aim of his advance from St. Louis westwards to Jefferson City." Yet the map shows him continuing towards St Louis until 1 October and only turning west at Franklin.
 * I've added some detail about what was going on here from a book specifically about the Pilot Knob fiasco
 * Ah. That's better.


 * "Price determined that Jefferson City was too strong to attack, and began moving westwards along the course of the Missouri River." I don't understand - the map shows the Confederates turning west and following the Missouri a week before they reached Jefferson City.
 * Rephrased
 * "On the 11th, Sanborn moved north and skirmished with the Confederates, who abandoned the town". Which town?
 * Clarified (Boonville)
 * "and then crossed the Missouri at Arrow Rock". Is it known how they crossed?
 * Added (ferry)
 * "to effectively fire across it". Do you mean 'to fire across it effectively'?
 * Done
 * "The Union had no artillery available." Perhaps 'The Union force had no artillery available.'?
 * Done
 * "The line was anchored by". What line?
 * Clarified
 * "drove away some Confederates from the riverbank". Maybe 'drove some Confederates away from the riverbank'?
 * Done
 * "Clark's force, delayed an hour while trying to cross the river". Which river?
 * The Missouri. Clarified
 * "on both sides of their line." I think you mean 'on both ends of their line.'.
 * Corrected
 * "give a maximum number of thirty-two wounded and eight to eleven killed". Why the switch to giving figures in words?
 * This was a response to a comment of yours in the ACR - ""32 wounded and eight to eleven killed". Could we have these numbers either all spelt out or all as numerals?" I can switch to numerals if preferred, although I find using the numerals for the small numbers a bit jarring
 * I find the switch jarring! The MoS leans towards standardisation but I am happy to leave it as a personal preference issue.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "An engine removed from the riverbed at Glasgow during World War II". Is it significent that it was removed during WWII? If not, suggest just stating the year. (Or 'during the early 1940s'.)
 * Source doesn't give a year. I've specified that it occurred during a WWII scrap drive to indicate the significance (surprisingly, I'm having trouble finding a particularly good place to link the WWII scrap drive concept)
 * - Replied above - one not done (for now), and I'm having trouble finding something for the breakdown of Rosecrans's 10,000. I've also added two new sources used briefly for background information.  The Suderow book published by SEMO should be fine for reliability, and Battle Cry of Freedom is basically above reproach there.  My formatting might need checked though. Hog Farm Talk 05:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. One very optional suggestion above, but I am supporting and unwatching. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass
When I did the source review for this article's ACR nomination five days ago I did so to FAC standard, so I shall merely repeat my conclusions:


 * The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. 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. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 18:57, March 4, 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass
Per ACR (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on 1a, 2, 3, and 4 per my review at the ACR. I have no additional comments at this time. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia
Support on all criteria (except images, reviewed by Buidhe). My review is on talk; nitpicks addressed. A U. S. Supreme Court case resulted from the fire started by Harding, related to an insurance company claim. The findings left insurance company practices intact, so the case has no lasting significance, is of no significance to the Battle article, and amounts to "just another lawsuit", ho-hum. It needs not be mentioned to meet comprehensiveness. If Insurance Co. v. Boon were of any significance, it should have an article, but I can find no reason for that to be the case, as it changed nothing about insurance claims during war. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised that none of the print sources I consulted mentioned it. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it's inconsequential; I only found it because it is mentioned on article talk (I always, and believe reviewers always should) review the article talk page, and its archives, in search of POV swept under the rug or comprehensiveness issues :0  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest linking Abraham Lincoln, 1864 United States presidential election, George B. McClellan, militiamen.
 * Done
 * I assume, since you mention how many of Rosecrans' men were militiamen, that this implies they are weaker troops than the regular army. If so, could we add an adjective or two to make that clearer?  Perhaps "poorly trained", or "less experienced", or "untested", or whatever applies.
 * I've clarified with "without experience in major battles"
 * "and militia, including by calling up some of the Enrolled Missouri Militia": "including by calling up" is a bit ugly. Could we do something like "and militia, including some of the Enrolled Missouri Militia, who were called up after the Battle of Pilot Knob" or "who were called up at short notice", or whatever the sources will support?
 * Went with the short notice one
 * You mention Bloody Bill Anderson joining the Confederates, and the dates given make it appear that it was on or after October 9. Our article on Anderson (which is featured, as it happens) says he met Price in Boonville on October 6.  Is one of the two articles incorrect, or is the sequence more complicated than it appears?
 * Collins implies that it was on the 10th. Nichols says directly in two places that it occurred on the 11th.  Sinisi also places it at the 11th, discussing the event in some detail (Price was giving a speech, Anderson's boys rode up, Price made them get rid of the scalps, Anderson gave Price a brace of pistols, Price sent Anderson away with orders he didn't follow).  I'm not sure if Wood in the Anderson article is wrong, or if October 6 is the day Anderson began riding towards Price
 * User:Mark Arsten hasn't edited since 2020, and in fact lost his admin bits, so perhaps HF you will just make adjustments needed to William T. Anderson so we don't have to see it at FAR :) :) (Nice review, Mike Christie! Now we have an example of what I do not mean when I use the term prose nitpicks, as these are all issues of substance.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Brownlee's Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy discusses Anderson in-depth, and places the meeting on October 11, as well. Brownlee also doesn't mention the bit with the trained horse as well (see below). Hog Farm Talk 20:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning that up. And thanks for the compliment, Sandy! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again referring to the article on Anderson, a footnote saying that Anderson ignored Price's instructions might be worthwhile.
 * Footnote added
 * The description of the Union defences is not very clear to me (I have read very little military history so have no instincts about what to expect). I would expect the defensive line of a location to encircle that location, is the line described specifically a defensive line set up in expectation of the Confederate attack?
 * - I've added a sentence describing the shape of the interior line - it ran east from the river before curving north. Does this help it make a little more sense? Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a big help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The attempt by Clark to surrender a battle which was shortly won seems unusual enough to mention in the lead.
 * Added. It's not the most unusual I'm aware of - I'm currently reading a book about the Second Battle of Springfield, and it mentions the Confederate commander there send a surrender offer to a Union force after he had spent an entire day unsuccessfully trying to capture the place.
 * Another question about Anderson: this article says he fatally beat someone on the night of October 21-22; the article on Anderson talks about a wealthy Union supporter whom Anderson himself beat, partly because he had freed his slaves. Are these the same incident?  They don't match up but even Anderson probably didn't beat multiple residents to death in just a few days.
 * Per Lause, this is apparently the same incident, although none of Sinisi, Nichols, Lause, Collins, or Monnett (the most relevant sources I have handy) attribute his motivation to freeing his slaves. I've added a mention of the rape from Lause.  Likewise, the claim of trampling him to death with a horse does not appear in any of the sources I have, and frankly Wood in the Anderson article isn't a strong enough source for more extraordinary claims like a specially trained horse stomping people to death (full disclosure: I've used a different book by Wood as a source for two FAs, but not for any extraordinary claims like that)  Nichols and Lause imply the primary interest was monetary.
 * There's no location given for Suderow & House.
 * Added
 * How are you sorting "An Industrial History of Missouri"? If it's by title, I'd expect it to precede Kennedy; if by "Missouri Bureau of Labor Statistics", which could be regarded as the author, I would expect it to precede Monnett.
 * I'm not sure how I was trying to sort it; I've moved it above Kennedy.

Re the Anderson article - I've been able to adjust the wording of the date of meeting Price (confirmed in Wood that it was the date he left), and the bit about the trained horse is supported by the reliable Castel (confirmed via google books), so the Anderson article looks fine now. I also spot-checked a few other things in a copy of Wood from a local library. Hog Farm Talk 23:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I always think it's a pleasant surprise when an article you link to from an article you take to FAC turns out to be featured as well; it gives me the feeling that we're making progress. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Very clear and readable, and a pleasure to review. My only suggestion, which doesn't affect my support, would be to add a map showing the defensive lines and positions, if the sources are definite enough to make that possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

- May I have a dispensation for a second nomination since this one seems to maturing nicely? Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720
Non-expert prose review.


 * " including the disastrous Battle of Mine Creek, where many men were captured." Remove comma. If "including the disastrous Battle of Mine Creek" was removed, the sentence would not make sense so these two sections should not be separated by a punctuation mark.
 * Removed the comma. I'm never very sure if a comma belongs in a spot or not.
 * "Price's Missouri Expedition" is mentioned in the lede and the infobox, but this phrase/title is not used in the article's body. Considering that this has their own Wikipedia article, can a sentence or phrase be added somewhere (with a citation) that specifies that this battle is part of an event known as Price's Missouri Expedition?
 * Mentioned directly now, in a spot that doesn't require a separate citation because the source was already covering that.
 * I checked the rest of the lede and infobox and everything is in the article.

Those are my thoughts. A well-written article. Z1720 (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the review! Both points should be taken care of. Hog Farm Talk 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. My comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)