Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate)

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Originally consisting of men drawn from a headquarters guard, the 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment was originally armed with experimental cannons before becoming a more traditional cavalry regiment. Often associated with Sterling Price, it served under him in the Camden expedition and Price's Raid. Over the course of its life, the unit played an undistinguished role in a number of battles and burned a depot, a bridge, and an entire train. Hog Farm Talk 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SR and IR
 * Image licensing is good. I hope you like the pushpin map, the other one you had is not very legible. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I like it; it's something I'm considering using in other articles as well. I added a couple more places described in the section; I hope that's fine.
 * Yep it's useful to be able to add as many places as you like. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please break up Price's Raid section into subsections, it is longer than it should be for optimum readability. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Broken into three subsections.
 * I don't see any issues with sourcing, and checking several of Bearss 1964 cites I did not see issues with text-source integrity. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on A1 and A5, will support on A3 as well if you fix #2 above . (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for reviewing, see above. Hog Farm Talk 06:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
Looks good to me with exception of the comments above. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Missouri State Guard had left to join Confederate States Army units Shouldn't be there an article before "Confederate"?
 * Rephrased
 * after reaching a brickyard 0.5 miles (0.80 km) from the town Is it possible to remove the third nought? It looks unnecessary.
 * Suppressed the trailing zero
 * found that it consisted of 400 men in eight companies Shouldn't it be "found that it consisted of 400 men in 8 companies"?
 * Probably. Done.
 * On April 15, Steele took the town of Camden, but had trouble securing Maybe add the state here to clarify where this happened?
 * Done
 * who launched several futile attacks on April 30 in the Battle of Jenkins' Ferry --> "who launched several futile attacks on April 30, in the Battle of Jenkins' Ferry"
 * Done
 * It then spent the summer of 1864 defending an outpost at Princeton, Arkansas Per MOS:SEASON try to avoid or clarify seasons for our readers in the southern hemisphere or those who live around the equator who doesn't have the normal four seasons.
 * Done
 * Red River campaign is overlinked.
 * Removed, as well as another duplink for Shreveport, Louisiana
 * No link for Jefferson City?
 * Linked
 * bypassed Jefferson City and reached Marshall via California Maybe add the state here because there are multiple cities or towns who bear the same name in the US.
 * I've added the state for California because that's a plausible mixup, but I think between placing the start of the paragraph at Cuba, Missouri and the end at California, Missouri, it should be reasonably clear which state its in
 * Blunt's men fell back to Independence Same as above.
 * Done
 * Simultaneously with the October 23 fighting at Byram's Ford --> "Simultaneously with the October 23, fighting at Byram's Ford"
 * Rephrased
 * 50 of the prisoners were from Wood's battalion Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should avoid opening a sentence with a number's symbol.
 * Spelled out fifty
 * Note b: Do we know what kind of cancer Claiborne Fox Jackson had?
 * Added
 * Can you standardise the dates in the "References"? It's just weird to see the section uses DD/MMM/YYYY instead of the rest of the article's MM/DD/YYYY.
 * Done
 * Can you give dates in the "Map of Price's Raid" and "Sterling Price"?
 * Added in the caption for the map, it's unclear when the picture of Price was taken. Based on the uniform, I'd guess prior to 1861, but that's just original research
 * Thanks for the review! I've tried to address everything. Hog Farm Talk 01:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from Harrias
Let's see if I can remember what to do around here. That's it from me on a first read. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Three sentences in a row start "After.." in the lead ("After spending the summer of 1864 at Princeton, .." then "After entering the state in September, .." and then "After participating in some further fighting and operations against railroads, ..") The repetition also means all three follow the same format, which increases the repetition. (Ie. "After this thing, the unit did another thing.")
 * Rearranged and reworded so that now only one of the three starts with after
 * "..the unit suffered 72 casualties, 50 of them in prisoners of war." For me, "as" would be preferable to "in", but maybe that is just personal preference or a Br/Am thing.
 * Changed. I'm not sure if it's proper in AmEng, either
 * "Another Confederate attack and subsequent fighting through the streets followed, .." and "A lull in the fighting followed," is a tad repetitive.
 * Rephrased
 * "Opposing Steele was 7,500 Confederate commanded by Price.." In BrEng this should be "Opposing Steele were 7,500 Confederates commanded by Price.." Is this a EngVar thing? Even so, it is very tough reading for any Brits reading it, so rephrasing might be worthwhile even if it makes sense in AmEng.
 * Pretty sure it should be "were" in AmEng too.
 * "..enough food to feed his army." food and feed aren't both needed: trim to "..enough food for his army."
 * Fixed
 * "..were harried by pursuing Confederate during the retreat." This feels like it should either be "Confederates", plural, or be something like "Confederate forces" or "Confederate soldiers".
 * Grammar error. Corrected.
 * "The ten companies were designated with the letters AK and I.." This doesn't make any sense, "I" comes before "K". Should it be "AI and K"?
 * That's a bizarre error. Surprised it wasn't caught before
 * - Do the corrections for the first round of replies look satisfactory? Hog Farm Talk 13:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All looks good to me now. Sorry for the delay - still not back in the habit of being around here. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 20:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert
Support: G'day I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * in the Sources section, suggest adding the relevant page range for Bearss' article in the Arkansas Historical Quarterly
 * Added
 * "New York, New York" --> I think by tradition we drop the second "New York" here, as it isn't necessary
 * Removed
 * "and was under the command of Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke" --> directly commanded, or assigned to Marmaduke's formation with Wood as their direct commander?
 * Assigned to Marmaduke's formation. Does replacing "command" with "authority" help here?
 * "was too poorly disciplined to be an effective combat unit": do we know what was done to rectify this situation?
 * Source doesn't say. If I had to guess; probably not much.
 * "Steele was sent from Little Rock with 8,500 to thrust" --> "8,500 men"?
 * Done
 * "Opposing Steele were 7,500 Confederate commanded" --> "7,500 Confederates"
 * Done
 * "One such party was sent out on April 17, with the purpose of gathering supplies" --> "One such party was sent out on April 17 to gather supplies"?
 * Done
 * "the Confederates moved to attack it, bringing on" --> "the Confederates moved to attack the Union party, resulting in"?
 * Done
 * "but was soon disengaged to get captured wagons into movable condition" --> "but was soon disengaged and tasked with moving the captured wagons"?
 * I've rephrased this. The source specifically states that they were tasked to prepare the wagons for moving, not moving the wagons.
 * "After the fighting ended, some captured African American soldiers were massacred; postmortem mutilations were also inflicted on some of the Union dead" --> was this by members of this unit (14th Missouri Cavalry Battalion)? I think you probably need to be clear here if it was
 * None of the sources I've seen implicate this specific unit. From what I've seen, there's no real consensus on who exactly did what, but some Texans and the Confederate Choctaw units seem to get blamed the most.
 * "enabling the Confederate to focus on Steele" --> "enabling the Confederates to focus on Steele"
 * Done
 * "Price expected that the offensive would create a popular uprising against Union control of Missouri, divert Union troops away from principal theaters of combat (many of the Union troops defending Missouri had been transferred out of the state, leaving the Missouri State Militia as the state's primary defensive force), and aid McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln;[26] on September 19, Price's column entered the state". This is a very complex sentence -- suggest splitting it
 * I've split the final clause off and turned the paranthetical into a footnote, so this should be a much simpler sentence now.
 * "While four companies of recruits were added to Wood's battalion while" --> reword to avoid saying "while" twice
 * Done
 * "continued the fighting with night combat": was this rare for the time?
 * It was unusual. Added.
 * "which was known as the Battle of Mine Creek" --> "which became known as the Battle of Mine Creek"?
 * Done

- Thanks for the review; I've tried to reply to all points. Hog Farm Talk 05:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks, I have added my support above. Sorry for the delayed return; got caught up in an area without secure internet due to work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)