Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment/archive1

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment

 * Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

While this one's on the shorter side, I believe everything is covered thoroughly - this isn't the most large-scale topic. Formed in mid-1864, the unit was generally unkind to railroad property on multiple occasions, saw some minor fighting, and played a significant role in the Battle of Little Blue River. At some point in 1865, the unit dissolved, although the details are really hazy. What is known is that most of the unit's men didn't care enough to get their official surrender paperwork. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass
File:Battle of the Blue by Benjamin D. Mileham.jpg is possibly PD but the licensing needs more documentation, we need to document Mileham's death date to apply the stated PD tag, and the creation of the painting is not equivalent to publication. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can the Price's Raid section be split into subsections for improved readability? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - Couldn't find dod for Mileham, so I replaced it with a different artwork of Price's raid by a person confirmed to have died in 1914. I've also added three subheads to the Price's Raid section. Hog Farm Talk 13:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
 * Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * FN14: website isn't needed here
 * Removed.
 * The "Official Records" source credits editors who should be included here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for making me do this. In the process of hunting down the editors, I discovered I had actually been using a 1902 reprint edition, instead of the 1893 original, and have changed the citation as well to reflect that. Hog Farm Talk 21:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments
 * the historian James McGhee believes that the unit did rejoin the Confederate army do you really need the first "the" here?
 * Not sure, so I've removed it both in the lead and in some similar phrasing in the body
 *  In July, anti-secession state legislators held a vote rejecting secession, while Jackson and the pro-secession legislators voted to secede in November, joining the Confederate States of America and functioning as a government-in-exile. If the anti-secession state legislators voted against rejecting secession, how did the state actually join the Confederate States of America? confusing.
 * Missouri had two competing governments; I've tried to clarify this
 * the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign can you link Atlanta campaign?
 * Linked
 * gave Lincoln an edge in the election over McClellan according to our article on 1864 United States presidential election, Lincoln won by more than an "edge". Therapyisgood (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Does "gave Lincoln an advantage in the election over McClellan" work better?

Are the changes made satisfactory for you, ? Hog Farm Talk 23:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear someone outside of MILHIST comment on WP:LENGTH as it applies to this article before I support (ie is the article or sections too long?). Therapyisgood (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * Don't think that the Boonville action is worth mentioning in the lede
 * Removed
 * Most of the first para of the Background section needs to be compressed. All the reader really needs to know is that there were two competing gov'ts in the state and that the Union had de facto control.
 * I've got this paragraph compressed down to five sentences.
 * Great, but there are still unimportant or irrelevant facts therein. How does the guerilla warfare and Price's previous command of the Missouri State Guard relate to the regiment's history?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of those are now gone. Anything else that needs trimmed? Hog Farm Talk 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That'll do, pig, that'll do. (See Babe if you can't place the phrase.)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ten companies of the regiment are known to have existed. One was designated with the letter G, and another with the letter H, while the designations of the other companies are unknown Suggest combining these along the lines of: "Ten companies are known to have existed, but the only confirmed designations are G and H companies" or somesuch
 * Done
 * capture of Jones's Hay Station Proximity alert for the name; suggest changing it to "the station" or similar
 * Done
 * link rear guard
 * Done
 * Price ordered Shelby to form part of the pursuit of the retreating Union soldiers.[18] Nichols's regiment participated in the pursuit, which was unsuccessful. Combine these with along the lines of "Prince ordered Shelby and his brigade to participate in the unsuccessful pursuit of the Union soldiers" or something similar
 * Done
 * hyphen for 300 men, rear guard action
 * I think I got these in the right place
 * Can you explain a little more how the regiment allowed the Union troops to escape at the 2nd Battle of Lexington?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarified - Also rephrased to make it clearer it was the whole brigade being out of position.
 * - I've replied to all comments so far. Hog Farm Talk 02:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, non-MILHIST review and prose check, see FAC talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

- Since this one seems to be coming along pretty smoothly and has passed image and source reviews, may I have a dispensation for a second nomination? Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I would normally want to see a third support and for it to be three weeks since it was nominated. But I am happy to follow Ian's lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you may unleash another. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Z1720
Please consider this a non-expert review.
 * Since the article is short on information, as stated by the nom above, I searched for additional sources on Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, a (Canadian) university library, ProQuest and archive.org. I could not find additional sources so I believe this article represents the available information for this topic.
 * "Jackman was elevated to brigade command, and Nichols took over leadership of the regiment." Remove the comma.
 * Done
 * "with a Union surrender before the time Nichols's men arrived." Remove the time
 * Done
 * In the References section, "Official Records 1902" points to The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, so the title is used to identify this source, not the editors. In "Kennedy 1998", the editor's name is used to point to The Civil War Battlefield Guide Either the editors should be used to identify the sources with an editor (recommended) or the title should be used. Please standardise (sorry if this is unclear)
 * Done

Those are all my comments. This article is well written and I struggled to find problems with it. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - All points have been addressed. Did I get everything done correctly? Hog Farm Talk 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, support based on a prose review. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
 * What is the difference between "was recruited in early 1864" and "officially formed on June 22"?
 * I've rephrased this. The former date is when recruiting started, and the later was when it joined CSA service
 * "Once under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Nichols". Was this still part of Price's raid?
 * Yes. Rephrased
 * "The men of Nichols's regiment were furloughed on October 30, with orders to return to the army in December; historian James McGhee believes that the unit did rejoin the Confederate army." I am not sure how the second clause of this sentence relates to the first; you seem to be discussing two separate issues.
 * I've removed the second clause. The connection is made clearer in the body, but there's not really room to go into that whole detail in the lead
 * "Jackman traveled to northeastern Arkansas". On his own or with the recruits mentioned in the previous sentence?
 * On his onw. Clarified
 * "Jackman and his men did not join..." Were these "men" all new recruits?
 * Source doesn't say that any weren't, so I've replaced men with recruits
 * "to join in an attack on a station". Delete "in".
 * Done, although the phrasing would be fine with AmEng
 * "Around 300 men were part of the regiment during the month of August." Do you mean something like 'The regiment consisted of around 300 men during the month of August'?
 * Yes, rephrased
 * "Meanwhile ... from March through May". I think "meanwhile" is not the best word here. And is there a reason why events are not recounted in chronological order?
 * This sentence represented what was probably-undue background detail to Price's Raid, so I've just removed it entirely
 * That's a big paragraph, maybe break at "Despite having limited resources"?
 * Done
 * "Nichols's regiment". Shouldn't that be an upper case R?
 * I think I was told somewhere that with stuff like this or Landis's battery and stuff like this to lowercase the second word, as it's not a proper name. I can change this, though, if desired.
 * "Nichols's regiment, as part of Jackman's brigade", but you then write as if it were part of Shelby's.
 * "Shelby's brigade" was an error for "Shelby's division", corrected
 * "The Confederate attacks suffered". "attacks" → 'attackers'?
 * Done
 * "Price ordered Shelby and his brigade, including Nichols's regiment, to participate in the unsuccessful pursuit of the Union soldiers". I bet he didn't! 1. "participate" indicates that there were other pursuers; is this so? 2. Is it known why and/or in what way the pursuit was unsuccessful?
 * I've rephrased most of this; does "Price ordered Shelby's division, including Nichols's regiment, to pursue the Union soldiers, who managed to escape" make more sense?
 * "Price's Raid began in October. Around 300 men were part of the regiment during the month of August." Why use a figure from August to indicate a strength in October? (October 12: "In this action, Nichols's unit, which was reportedly about 300-men strong".)
 * - These are actually from two different sources. The source for the August number specifically ties that number to August, while the source for this October action (Lause) states that there were around 300 men in the unit at the time of the fight.  Lause is quoting someone for the 300, but he uses a really obnoxious way of footnoting that makes it unclear who exactly he is quoting.
 * Just checking that Unionist is actually an ACW descriptor.
 * Yeah, it works for ACW. See, for instance,  or.
 * "failed to get into proper position to block the Union retreat". Optional: 'failed to get into an appropriate position to block the Union retreat'.
 * Done
 * "to successfully attack the Union center." Suggest "Union center" → 'it'.
 * Done
 * "but the third attack". "the" → 'a'.
 * Done
 * "and did not see close combat at Newtonia." Delete "at Newtonia".
 * Done
 * "The furlough terms set a date of mid-December to return to the army." → 'The furlough terms set a date of mid-December for the men to return to the army.' or similar.
 * Done
 * "the unit's return from furlough". The unit didn't return from furlough.
 * Done, which required some minor rephrasing later on
 * "The unit disbanded before the war ended in 1865". Do you mean 'The unit disbanded in 1865, before the war ended'?
 * Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replied to all points above, a couple with no action so far. Hog Farm Talk 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)