Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Second Battle of Newtonia

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Second Battle of Newtonia
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

After passing GAN in October, this article has since been expanded with two additional sources, and I now believe it's ACR-able. Another Price's Raid action, towards the end of the campaign. While this action was essentially just a series of attacks and counterattacks that fizzled out into a Union victory, it shares a couple characters with the First Battle of Newtonia, which went through ACR earlier this year - James G. Blunt and Jo Shelby. Hog Farm Bacon 04:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Image review pass, images appear to be freely licensed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments : G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * are there any iconic paintings of the battle that might be able to be used in the infobox? Currently, all we have are maps -- which is fine if that's all we can access within copyright restrictions -- but a painting or iconic photo would help improve the visual appeal of the article
 * Nothing free use of this battle, but there's one of Price's Raid in general I'll add.
 * should the first battle of Newtonia be mentioned in the Background?
 * Done, but only a brief mention, as the two fights don't have much relation to each other beyond Blunt, Shelby, and Newtonia
 * but was forced to fight three battles–Marais des Cygnes: spaced endash or unspaced emdash
 * I've actually rewritten this specific bit out of existence as part of the trimming suggested by Buidhe below
 * the Price and the MSG were --> remove "the" in front of Price
 * Done
 * An element of Fagan's division --> has Fagan been introduced at this point in the article?
 * Thought I had, apparently I didn't. Glossed and linked
 * two brigades, who --> "two brigades, which"?
 * Done
 * position with four guns: do we know what calibre these were?
 * Sinisi refers to McLain's Parrott rifles, but isn't any more specific. Added the Parrott rifles, will check Wood to see if he gives specific caliber tomorrow.
 * The two guns of Collins' Missouri Battery: same as the above?
 * Haven't been able to find anything yet. Wood does not specify caliber for the Union Parrotts or Rodmans. Hog Farm Bacon 21:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * parts of which routed --> "parts of which were routed" or "parts of which withdrew"?
 * Done
 * began making preparation to withdraw --> " began making preparations to withdraw" or "prepared to withdraw"?
 * Done
 * By now, it was approaching sundown, and Union reinforcements commanded by Brigadier General John B. Sanborn arrived on the field, having forced marched from Fort Scott, Kansas: how were these requested, do we know?
 * Added. Via Curtis earlier in the day
 * Two cannons of Battery H, 2nd Missouri Light Artillery Regiment: do we know what calibre these were?
 * Sinisi calls them Rodman guns. Added that, will check Wood tomorrow to see if he is more specific.
 * One modern historian places: suggest naming this person in text
 * Done
 * began completely falling apart --> "began falling completely apart"?
 * Done
 * Most of areas where fighting occurred --> "Most of the areas where fighting occurred"
 * Added
 * in the Sources, I suggest adding a page range for Castel's chapter in Kennedy's work
 * Added
 * I'll work on these once I get back to my laptop in a few days. Hog Farm Bacon 05:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Sources look OK. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Source checks, some of Collins 2016, verified the content. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Other comments
 * The "Background" material looks disproportionate; it makes up almost 1/3 of the total non-lead content. Is there anything here that is not absolutely essential for the reader to know? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - I've taken the pruning shears to it with some success, although I fear it may still be too long. I mainly removed a lot of the references to individual battles that didn't have great bearing on this scrap. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement. I would advise seeing if you could cut it down more, but I prefer short background sections more than many other MILHIST editors. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll see what other reviewers say and keep thinking of ways myself. I'm eyeing the 1861 stuff as probably the best place for some trimming. Hog Farm Bacon 04:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
Will do this later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC) That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Price had lost over two thirds of his army --> "Price had lost over two-thirds of his army"
 * Added hyphen
 * I see two "howevers" in the "Background" section maybe move one to another section?
 * Reworded to remove one outright
 * voted to reject secession, essentially giving the state two governments --> "voted to reject secession, essentially giving the state two disputed governments"?
 * Went with "competing", as the Union government was not disputed much due to Union control of the state
 * controlled the Mississippi River, preventing a large scale crossing --> "controlled the Mississippi River, preventing a large-scale crossing"
 * Added hyphen
 * I see this "Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment" and "Collins' Battery" maybe standardise them unless they both are proper nouns.
 * Standardized with Collins's
 * American Battlefield Trust estimated 400 and 250, respectively Switch numbers here.
 * Done, in both spots
 * total Union casualties at 26 and those for the Confederates at 24 Same as above.
 * Done, in both spots
 * During the night, most of Shelby's The night of 28/29 October right?
 * Clarified
 * pursuit ended on November 8 at the Arkansas This is the only date who doesn't have a comma all the rest do have one?
 * Added
 * had cost Price more than two thirds of the men --> "had cost Price more than two-thirds of the men"
 * Added hyphen
 * on an elevation behind his main line --> "on an elevation behind his mainline"
 * "mainline" wouldn't work here in American English
 * The "References" section uses DD/MM/YYYY while the "Sources" section uses MM/DD/YYYY maybe standardise the "References" section.
 * Done
 * I've replied to all comments above. Thanks for the review! Hog Farm Talk 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Support. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891
highly readable, seems well done to my eyes. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, guess I reviewed this at GAN. Will endeavor to have a read through this week. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Cavalry feels like an overlinked term, may not be though
 * Apparently Albert E. Castel was the only overlink
 * " essentially giving the state two competing governments" is there a reason not to drop "essentially"?
 * Removed
 * "to ferret out the Union defenders." could a more encyclopedic word than "ferret" be used? Not sure how commonly understood the phrase is...
 * Replaced
 * " All in all" perhaps "in total"?
 * Done
 * Any idea what time the battle ended at?
 * Looked at Castel, Collins, Sinisi, and a source that I got off of Amazon recently that I will add before a FAC, and none give an exact time, although I've added a couple comparative times from Sinisi. I don't have Wood with me, but I can get ahold of a copy at some point and check to see if he has a specific time
 * Any reason how you ordered the casualty estimates? I'd put the contemporary report or the battlefield trust first followed by the two historians.
 * Re-ordered
 * "The American Battlefield Trust has been part of the preservation" not really sure what this means
 * Rephrased, is this better?
 * - I've replied as best as I can at this moment. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice, as always. Happy to support Eddie891 Talk Work 00:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)