Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second Battle of Independence/archive1

Second Battle of Independence

 * Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This is presumably around the time that Sterling Price realized his 1864 Missouri Raid was in big trouble, as the Union managed to get sizable bodies of troops to the east and west of the Confederates, with a river to the north. Second Independence represents the Confederates' attempt to hold a rear guard long enough for the main body of the army fought a way across Byram's Ford. This article was listed as a GA in April and passed an A-class review earlier this month. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review
 * Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Suggest scaling up the maps and providing a legend for Price's_Raid.png
 * Done in the same manner as for the 13th Mo. Cavalry FAC. Hog Farm Talk 04:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't duplicate caption in alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected (I think) Hog Farm Talk 04:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891
I think that's if from me Eddie891 Talk Work 15:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can comment, shortly Eddie891 Talk Work 17:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * " who supported ending the war" I mean, they both presumably wanted the war to end... I think you could be a little clearer that mcclellan wanted an immediate peace
 * Done
 * "was ordered to send his infantry across the river to more important areas of the war" by who?
 * Braxton Bragg, Jeff Davis's military advisor at the time. Added
 * With the situation east of the Mississippi River collapsing" I think you could give a little more context, though this is background.
 * Added a little bit - is this better?
 * "This movement proved to be impossible, as a large-scale crossing of the Mississippi was prevented by Union Navy control of the river." might be more concisely expressed along the lines of "Union Navy control of the river made this movement impossible"?
 * Done
 * "political forces in Kansas prevented the militiamen" could you expand on this a bit?
 * I've added a single sentence. This is a bit too complex of a situation to get into here, but I think it suffices to say that there was a gubernatorial election going on in Kansas, a lot of the militia officers were politicians on competing sides, and there were many accusations of conspiracy. Hog Farm Talk 06:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * only a single regiment suggest" contextualizing the size of a regiment
 * I've added the strength of the rear guard force
 * Who are the people referenced in "The Unionists also charged "-- you only mention 'unionist' once before in the context of a citizen
 * Rephrased. Not sure why that word was used there
 * Suggest a date for "File:HedrickiteTempleLotWithCofChristBuildingsNearby" rather than 'modern', because it could go out of date at any moment.
 * Done. Thank goodness it was in the file description page
 * "modern historian" is an interesting title because it could suggest that he's a historian of modern times or a historian of the era in modern times; the same way contemporary could be read two ways, imo.
 * Removed. I think I had it in mind to contrast it with Paul Burrill Jenkins, who wrote a dated account of this part of Price's Raid before 1910, but since Jenkins isn't used or mentioned it isn't necessary
 * Any idea why Kennedy would attribute so many fewer losses to price than Price himself admitted?
 * Unfortunately, no.
 * "beyond hope of meaningful landscape preservation" Do both studies use that exact phrasing?
 * Rephrased, as the 1993 report does not use that exact phrasing
 * Not seeing "influencing the 1864 United States Presidential Election." Supported in the body
 * I think it's covered by the statements that McClellan and Lincoln were squaring off in the election and that it was thought that it might help McClelland (both mentioned in the second paragraph of the background section). Do I need to make the connection a bit clearer in the body?
 * - I've made a first pass at responding to these above. Are the changes satisfactory? Hog Farm Talk 06:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks good, happy to Support. I missed "improve McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln" in the body, which led to my last comment. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

2nd para of lead is hard to follow unless you already know where the rivers are
As a reader who does not know the geography of the area I found I could not understand the second para of the lead by just reading the lead. Perhaps a diagram of the battle showing the rivers more clearly would help.
 * Working on this. Hog Farm Talk 06:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - I don't think there's a freely licensed map of the battle beyond what already exists in the article, but I have tracked down some distances between Independence and the rivers and added them to the article body and the lead. Does this help with comprehensibility? Hog Farm Talk 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a little clearer but as it seems the rivers were important militarily I think the article would greatly benefit from a better plan of the battle. The guys at Graphics_Lab have done really great diagrams for me in the past. I am sure if you give them a rough sketch they will produce a plan worthy of a featured article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (Additional comment)

Support from Display name 99

 * Why is Pleasonton's command the only Union unit mentioned in the infobox, despite Curtis' Union Army troops and the Kansas militia both being spoken of in the lead? Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clarify in the lead that Curtis's troops fought in the Battle of Byram's Ford, which was concurrent with this one
 * The lead looks fine now. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * For the lead, I think "1864 United States Presidential Election" should be "United States presidential election." It's minor, but it's in line with how I've seen the names of elections written out, both on and off Wikipedia, including in the "Background" section of this article. It's better also not to have "Redirected from" when one clicks on a link. Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done
 * "By September 1864, the Confederacy had essentially no chance of a military victory..." A little too strong for my taste. True, Atlanta had just been captured, but Hood's army was not yet destroyed and the Siege of Petersburg was still in a stalemate. Only 1-2 months before in the East, the Confederacy had nearly captured Washington D.C. and had bloodily repulsed a Union infiltration attempt at the Battle of the Crater. I suggest changing "essentially no chance" to "little chance." Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Changed.
 * Are there any details about the general outline of the plan that you can add to the end of the "Background" section? Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added some direct quotes from Smith's orders. Price had a decent amount of leeway in what to do.
 * Is it possible to mention the unit(s) and commander of the infantrymen at Saint Louis? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Smith and the XVI Corps. Clarified.
 * Who were the troops who reinforced Jefferson City? Where did they come from? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Militia and a couple cavalry brigades. Added
 * Was the Army of the Border part of the Department of Missouri under Rosecrans? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've clarified that Curtis was the Department of Kansas
 * Where was Lexington in relation to Glasgow and Sedalia? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - I can cite this into a map in Collins - Lexington was west of Glasgow and northwest of Sedalia. I'm not sure where to put this though without it being awkward.  Glasgow and Sedalia are only mentioned once each, and not in the same context as Lexington. Where do you think this would work in the best? Hog Farm Talk 05:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it then. Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That takes us to the end of "Prelude." It's a solid article, but as you can see I think it would benefit from more detail in some areas. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review so far! I'll keep trying to address this in chunks. Hog Farm Talk 05:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sounds good. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That's it until Aftermath. This is a great explanation of the battle. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Continuing... That should be all. , your changes look good so far. Just address the last couple and I'll be happy to support. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * " Knowing that Price would eventually have to turn south to return to Confederate territory..." Would he if he was successful? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This should be better clarified in the background now. Smith had tasked Price with trying to take St. Louis and to retreat through Kansas and the Indian Territory if Missouri could not be held.  After Jefferson City, Price realized Missouri could not be held, so he started the movement towards KC. Hog Farm Talk 06:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "40 of Blunt's men who had been captured during the Battle of Little Blue River were rescued" Can you say exactly where and when this happened? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The source I used for this (Monnett) was borrowed from a relative who lives a couple hours away and has since been returned. While I have library cards for three county libraries (despite technically only meeting eligibility for one), two of them don't have the book, and the third lists it as "unavailable".  I'll have to hunt to see if other sources mention further details about this. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be in Sinisi, Lause, or Collins, and I can't get a preview on Amazon or Google books. Will likely get a chance to consult this work when I visit family for Labor Day (if I don't forget). Hog Farm Talk 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "both McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades had become tired and disorganized" Can you say how exactly? Moving too slowly, units mixing together, etc? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * is "as both McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades had become disorganized through exhaustion and confusion" better? Sinisi isn't much more specific than basically saying they got tuckered out.
 * Is there any reliable estimate of overall Union casualties? Any idea why not? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't found anything. Best I've found is one source is 600 Union losses on October 22 but that includes the much heavier fighting on the first day of the Battle of Byram's Ford.  Sources indicate that losses at the Battle of Westport on October 22 and at the Battle of Little Blue River on October 21 are underreported, but don't say much specifically for Second Independence.  I did some digging in the Official Records and found reports on the campaign by Brown, Sanborn, and McNeil, but none break down casualties for this battle.  My guess is that there wasn't a good chance for reporting - Winslow fought well into the night, McNeil and Sanborn were both on the move early the next morning, and Brown was arrested on October 23. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is Frances Kennedy? Can you briefly introduce her and explain why she is notable? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was asked to attribute the figure to the author at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Second Battle of Independence, as it is an estimate. She's apparently led or directed two nonprofits that probably aren't notable and has written several books about battlefield preservation. I generally agree with the ACR that the estimate needs attributed.  As Kennedy is fairly nondescript, I have just introduced her as a "preservationist"
 * Which Confederate brigade commander? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Added, it was Clark. I had to dig this out of Collins's referencing
 * In the final sentence, can you restate the total number of men that Price had with him at the start of the campaign so that the reader can understand the scale of the losses without having to refer to earlier in the article? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Added
 * It was a long day at work so I couldn't get to this tonight, but hopefully I can finish off all except for the Monnett query, which hopefully can be done over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for this review! I've tried to reply as best as I can to the remaining points.  Unfortunately, it's looking like I won't be visiting home over Labor Day due to the sudden and unexpected need for COVID test results, so the Monnett item is still up in the air. Hog Farm Talk 02:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries. Get to that when you can. I'm pleased to support this article. However, please fix the error that you made when stating Price's losses in the penultimate paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have corrected the error. Hog Farm Talk 14:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Test came back negative, and I have been able to address the Monnett item. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I'll take a look at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Down to Battle. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC) That's all I could find. Nice job thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead and infobox
 * suggest stating the location in the first sentence
 * Done
 * suggest "Price's men made contact with Curtis's Union troops"
 * Done
 * "6 miles (9.7 km) from Independence" in what direction?
 * Added
 * a bit more context is needed for "while Pleasonton drove back Confederate defenders from the Little Blue." ie he was actually pursuing Price at the this stage, or at least closing up on his rear.
 * Added
 * suggest "The expansion of the town then city of Independence into areas that were rural at the time of the battle has resulted in urban development over much of the battlefield, and it has been concluded that it is beyond hope of meaningful preservation."
 * Done
 * where does the 7,000 Confederates infobox figure come from?
 * "Fagan's division with 4,500 men was left at Independence as a rear guard, and Marmaduke's division with 2,500 men was between Fagan and Shelby". Should this be made clearer?
 * Body
 * "but were confined to the southwestern Missouri"
 * Fixed
 * suggest "With the dire situation for the Confederacy east of the Mississippi River in the Atlanta campaign and Siege of Petersburg,"
 * Done
 * "threats to the Union flank" which one?
 * Added
 * "were already almost to Price's line" was this actually Fagan's line, as his division was the rearguard?
 * I've rephrased this to "the Confederate line"
 * "to allow Pleasonton to pursue Price directly" but wasn't he already doing this? Perhaps this could be tweaked to reflect that?
 * This is in reference to Rosecrans wanted Smith and Pleasonton to move south and cut off the path the Confederates would have to take in a retreat. two sentences earlier, where Pleasonton was briefly intended to swing to the south
 * "The 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment and 17th Illinois Cavalry Regiment of McNeil's brigade forced back Confederate pickets,[37][38] from Slemons's brigade and under the command of Colonel John C. Wright,[39] at the river crossing, but were delayed because of a burned bridge. " is unclear, perhaps it needs to be split up into two or more sentences with greater focus on the subjects of the sentences. For example, which force was commanded by Wright? Were the pickets at the river crossing?
 * I've split this into three sentences and have tried to clarify everything
 * "Clark's and Freeman's brigades" - isn't this just Marmaduke's division?
 * Pretty much, but the source specifically identifies the two brigades separately rather than just the division. I'm inclined to keep it this way, as Marmaduke also had a couple scouting companies and Harris's Missouri Battery (1864) that I haven't seen mentioned in sources about the battle
 * "After falling all the way back to Independence, Cabell was joined by Clark's and Freeman's brigades" and "Despite support from Hughey's battery which lasted until 15:00, Cabell's brigade was forced back to Independence itself. " seems duplicative
 * Good catch. It is duplicative - I've moved the first mention down towards the second one
 * "While coordination between the charging unit was intended" between 2nd Arkansas Cavalry and which other unit?
 * Will need to consult the local library's copy of Kirkman for this.
 * Rephrased - between Sanborn and McNeil
 * "the right wing of Sanborn's brigade instead moved in front of the rest of the Union line,[44] as part of the 2nd Arkansas Cavalry was already halfway to Independence when the rest of the units began advancing" isn't clear. Were only troops from Sanborn's brigade advancing? If so, perhaps reflect that and maybe be more specific about how far units had advanced.
 * As above, will need to hit the library for this.
 * I've tried to rephrase this to make it clearer. Sanborn and McNeil were both advancing, but part of Sanborn's brigade got in front of everyone else.  Source (Kirkman) doesn't say how far
 * Perhaps this would be better as "While coordination between McNeil and Sanborn was intended, the 2nd Arkansas Cavalry – on the right of Sanborn's brigade – had commenced their advance earlier than the rest of the attacking force, and were halfway to Independence when the rest began advancing towards the town."? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the suggestion! This is done now. Hog Farm Talk 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * suggest Union Arkansas regiment→2nd Arkansas Cavalry
 * Done
 * suggest "The attack drove the Confederates away to the west and southwest, but the Union forces did not pursue them due to fatigue."
 * Done
 * "McNeil's brigade was ordered to charge again" again? And towards whom, the Confederates to the west or southwest? Perhaps "continue the assault and charge the Confederates west (or southwest) of Independence."
 * This was very poorly worded. I've tried to rephrase this
 * can I suggest "1st, the 4th, and the 7th Missouri State Militia Cavalry Regiments"?
 * Done
 * also "3rd and 4th Iowa Cavalry Regiments, and the 4th and 10th Missouri Cavalry Regiments"
 * Done
 * - Sorry this took almost a week. I've made an initial reply to everything above. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, well done on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass
References Sources
 * #58 — Could be styled "pp. 91, 114 n.41", but that's up to you.
 * Done, as I was mainly just guessing on how it should be formatted with the other way
 * Collins 2016: Looks like the second comma in the name isn't needed.
 * Removed, it's pulling from Cite Collins 2016 so it might take awhile for the cache to purge and the change to show in the transclusion
 * Houghton Mifflin can take a link.
 * Linked. Likewise this is pulling from Cite Kennedy 1998 so it'll probably take a little while for the change to become visible with the cache.
 * Ditto The History Press.
 * Linked
 * Kansas State Historical Society, or Kansas Historical Society? The Kansas Historical Quarterly can take a link. Publisher location missing. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
 * I've removed the accessdate, and linked the journal. Worldcat suggests that KSHS is the proper publisher. I imagine the society probably changed the name at some point after the journal became defunct in the 70s.
 * University of Missouri Press can take a link (twice).
 * Done both times
 * University Press of Colorado also.
 * Linked
 * And Rowman & Littlefield.
 * Linked
 * American Battlefield Protection Program can as well. And as printed matter, the retrieval date isn't needed.
 * Removed |accessdate= and linked the publisher

looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the review! I've implemented all of the suggested changes. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, . Looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

- With this one looking in pretty good shape (3 supports, ir + sr), may I have a second one? Hog Farm Talk 20:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720
Reviewing this to clear the FAC backlog, non-expert prose review.


 * In the infobox, did "Pleasonton's division" have a name? Should it be wikilinked or redlinked?
 * It doesn't really have a widely used name other than "Pleasonton's division". Divisions in the American Civil War were generally pretty ad hoc formations like this one, and don't really have anything to base an article on.
 * "that it is beyond hope" I know beyond hope is reflects the language in the quote further down the article, but I think it's too much of an idiom to have in Wikivoice without quotations. Maybe rephrase to "that it would not be possible to preserve." or something similar?
 * How does "meaningful preservation is no longer possible" sound?
 * "by part of the XVI Corps," Wikilink XVI Corps?
 * It's already linked two paragraphs above in the Prelude section, so I'm not sure that that's necessary
 * "Independence to finish mopping things up." Mopping things up feels too much like an idiom. Perhaps be more specific on what they were doing during this "mopping up" time.
 * - Kinda stuck on this one for now. Monnett is the only source I can't easily access (borrowed it from a relative who lives two hours away when I wrote the article, and it's unavailable at the local library or either of the two university libraries I can access).  Collins, Lause, and Sinisi don't discuss what McNeil and Sanborn did during Winslow and Brown's attacks.  Will try and find a copy of Monnett somewhere. Hog Farm Talk 03:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have online access to the book, either. If you struggle to get a copy I might be able to get it from a local university library. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - I've placed a request at WP:RSX. Hog Farm Talk 17:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Winslow's men attacked, and quickly drove back Cabell's and Freeman's brigades." Recommend removing the comma for flow, although it's an oxford comma so I won't oppose if it's kept.
 * Removed
 * "Concerned about the safety of his wagon train, Price ordered it to move at daylight for Little Santa Fe, via Hickman Mills." Since there is no wikilink for Little Santa Fe, I recommend giving a short explainer about where Little Santa Fe is.
 * Glossed
 * "The Union troops broke through the line, and hit the flank of the Westport line." Also recommend removing this oxford comma for flow.
 * Removed

Those are my comments. Great job as always. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this delayed response. I was hoping there would be a response to HogFarm's RSX, but it doesn't look like there will be. Perhaps the following phrase can be removed to alleviate my idiom concerns: "to finish mopping things up. As part of this process," When the source is found, I think we can change "mopping up" to more precise words. thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - I have removed these phrases. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My concerns are addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * - RSX came through in the clutch. The source states Sanborn and McNeil were left to clean up the town, take care of the dead and wounded, and to bring up the Federal wagon train before describing the rescued men, and the hotel/bank as hospitals. "clean up the town" may well be an idiom itself, as I doubt Sanborn and McNeil's men were on janitorial duty. What would be your preferred phrasing here? Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, "Sanborn and McNeil were left to manage various tasks related to the town's post-battle condition: they..." and then describe the rescued men, conversion of buildings into hospitals, etc. I'm not thrilled with this sentence, so feel free to change it up. Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - How about Brown and Winslow were to move against the Confederates while McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades remained behind in Independence to manage post-battle cleanup tasks. A local bank and hotel were taken over by McNeil and Sanborn's men [...]? I'm not super thrilled with that suggestion, either.  It's kind hard to avoid being idiomatic when the source itself is idiomatic and there's not really a good clear English phrase to describe this. Hog Farm Talk 05:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this ping. This suggestion works for me. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)