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

Comments from SandyGeorgia

 * The retreat eventually reached Texas, although the pursuit did not follow that far. --> ?? --> The retreating forces eventually reached Texas, although Union forces did not follow that far? ... but, I don't see the final clause mentioned in the article, would it be best just to either drop it, or specify how far they did follow?
 * It's in the article as " Union pursuit continued until the Arkansas River was reached on November 8" but I've gone ahead and dropped it from the lead as not really worth mentioning in the lead
 * The Glasgow victory boosted the morale of Price's army, which had been dented after Pilot Knob, and resulted in the capture of 1,200 weapons and 1,000 Union uniform overcoats;[27][24] 150 horses were taken as well. The Glasgow victory boosted the morale of Price's army, which had been dented after Pilot Knob. It resulted in the capture of 1,200 weapons, 1,000 Union uniform overcoats,[27][24] and 150 horses.[46]
 * Done
 * The lead paragraphing doesn't really make sense (ignore reviewers who misinterpret WP:LEAD as forcing small articles to a certain number of paras-- LEAD says no such thing). The first paragraph needs to give a better overview, maybe something like ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, finally found the diff of a lead that was damaged due to its FAC. This reduction based on size is arbitrary, not required, detrimental to the article, and goes against the main points of WP:LEAD, while applying a minor point as if it were law. The lead that came to FAC was much more conforming to the spirit of LEAD, and more helpful to our readers. We should not be arbitrarily forcing leads to two paragraphs just because an article is short.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The Battle of Glasgow was fought on October 15, 1864, in and near Glasgow, Missouri, as part of Price's Missouri Expedition during the American Civil War. (add here something about "The Glasgow victory boosted the morale of Price's army, which had been dented after previous battles" ... or something in first para that tells significance of the battle, and then cut to a new para for detail)

In late 1864, the Confederate leadership in the Trans-Mississippi Theater planned a campaign into the state of Missouri, in the hope of drawing Union troops from more important theaters east of the Mississippi River. Major General Sterling Price commanded the expedition, and initially hoped to capture St. Louis. An early defeat at the Battle of Pilot Knob led him to abandon this plan. After the strength of the Union garrison at Jefferson City convinced Price to cancel a planned attempt to capture the place, he led his army into the pro-Confederate region of Little Dixie, where recruiting efforts were successful. Many of these new recruits were unarmed.

After learning of a Union weapons cache at Glasgow, Price sent Brigadier General John B. Clark Jr. with two brigades on a side raid to capture it. The Union garrison of Glasgow was commanded by Colonel Chester Harding Jr., and was mostly composed of militia and men of the 43rd Missouri Infantry Regiment. At 05:00 on October 15, Confederate artillery opened fire on the Union position, although the main attack did not begin until about 08:00. Harding's men were driven back into the town itself, and surrendered at 13:30 after burning 50,000 rations to prevent them from falling into Confederate hands. Clark's men paroled the Union soldiers, captured 1,000 overcoats and 1,200 weapons, and burned a steamboat. The Confederate column rejoined Price's main army the next day. On October 23, the Confederates were decisively defeated at the Battle of Westport. Price's men retreated, but were harried for much of the way by Union pursuit. The retreat eventually reached Texas, although the pursuit did not follow that far.

Stopping there, will read more tomorrow, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made an attempt at this - does it look better now Sandy?
 * Yes, I like that; lays out clearly at the top why we should care about the battle and keep reading :). No need to shove that into two paras. I'll keep going through after Gog is done; ping me if I forget; I don't want to get crossways with his suggestions. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This sentence is long and can be cut in two at the semi-colon: Boonville was part of a pro-Confederate area known as Little Dixie, and many men, including Bloody Bill Anderson and his guerrillas, joined the Confederates; Price detached Anderson to operate north of the main body to harass the Northern Missouri Railroad[16] and William C. Quantrill's guerrillas to attack the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sentence split
 * This one, on the other hand, can be combined with a semi-colon to make it clear that the "bodies" are Union troops. (I think?) Union troops followed Price westwards. One body was to the east of Boonville at Rocheport, and another, under Brigadier General John B. Sanborn, was to the south at California. --> Union troops followed Price westwards; one body was to the east of Boonville at Rocheport, and another, under Brigadier General John B. Sanborn, was to the south at California. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done
 * Typo Late on the October 12, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed

SG continuing
Gog the Mild seems done now, so continuing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Some of this is for clarity/confusion, some a result of Sandbh at Socrates making me rethink paragraphing, but some may be stylistic, so reject whatever is unhelpful :) Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Should the article have a hatnote, ?
 * Done, although I'm not sure that it's super likely that someone lookin for either of the Scottish battles would wind up here with Missouri as the natural disambiguator
 * Registering my usual opposition of MILHIST breach of MOS:COLLAPSE (and in leads no less), recognizing that I am perennially overruled on this. In this case, could at least be uncollapsed by default, to conform with MOS, since its length does not interfere with the lead or images? (Noting that it is creating MOS:SANDWICH at Battle of Fort Davidson, but uncollapsing does not appear to cause issues at other articles.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've set the template to be uncollapsed; fingers crossed I don't get reverted. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In Sources, some publishers are wikilinked, others are not (pick one?).
 * Done for all except the Missouri Bureau of Labor Statistics, as I can't find anything to link that too. There isn't a link for Southeast Missouri State University Press, so I just piped linked it to our article on SEMO.  Collins is pulling from Cite Collins 2016, so it may take a bit for the change to populate over.
 * Two out of three consecutive sentences in the lead begin with after. Maybe recast the first one to eliminate the after by switching it to: The strength of the Union garrison at Jefferson City convinced Price to cancel a planned attempt to capture the place, and he instead led his army into the pro-Confederate region of Little Dixie, where recruiting efforts were successful.
 * I've actually recast the second one - I think it works just as well without the "after" and starting with Learning ...
 * This in the lead leaves me hanging and I have to skip down to the body of the article to figure out why they would do this: At 05:00 on October 15, Confederate artillery opened fire on the Union position, although the main attack did not begin until about 08:00. Maybe introduce here a clause or something about the delays that caused this to happen, as it doesn't seem like a very good military tactic!
 * I've added a clause to clarify (although it actually was common in some situations to fire with artillery before attacking to soften up, but that wasn't really the intention here)
 * Possibly break this up to make it easier to digest? Right now it has the reader going forward, then backwards again.
 * Harding's men were driven back into the town itself, and surrendered at 13:30 after burning 50,000 rations to prevent them from falling into Confederate hands. -- TO -->
 * Harding's men were driven back into the town itself and burned 50,000 rations to prevent them from falling into Confederate hands. They surrendered at 13:30.
 * Done
 * This is jargon; I'm unsure what it means or why it is relevant? Help me out here, lost in space ... captured 1,000 overcoats
 * Linked and specified that these were uniform parts
 * The acronym MSG is only used once; would it make easier reading to eliminate it and simply restate the Missouri State Guard on the second occurrence, so the brain doesn't have to keep track of a mostly unused acronym?
 * Done. The acronym had been used more in an older version of the article, IIRC
 * This sentence is pretty long:
 * By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, 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. How about -- >
 * By September 1864, the Confederates had been defeated in the Atlanta campaign. This, and other events in the eastern United States, 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. Or something to that effect ...
 * Done
 * Simplify ?? -->
 * When it entered the state from the south, Price's force was composed of about 13,000 cavalrymen. -->
 * When it entered the state from the south, there were about 13,000 cavalrymen in Price's force. (Unsure, not a good wordsmith myself, but less is more.)
 * Can't think of anything better myself; done.
 * Countering Price was the Union Department of Missouri, under the command of Major General William S. Rosecrans, who had fewer than 10,000 men on hand, ... and confusion since the who seems to refer back to a thing, the Union Department, and since Price refers to a person, consistency and more direct ... so maybe ... Opposing Price was Major General William S. Rosecrans, who commanded the Union Department of Missouri with fewer than 10,000 men ...
 * Done
 * near the town of Pilot Knob. Attacks against the post --> add "Confederate" or "Price's" or some word to break up the blue between Pilot Knob and Attacks against ...
 * Done
 * Paragraph break at "Price had abandoned intentions ... "??
 * Done
 * mixture of regular troops drawn from elsewhere in the state and militia, including through calling .... including "by" ?
 * Done
 * This sentence is oddly placed ... in the midst of troop movements. While the new recruits added to the numerical strength of Price's army, a large number of them were unarmed. As one reads, it becomes apparent that this is the reason for them heading on to Glasgow, so should not this sentence be the beginning of a new paragraph? (You might detect that I am still reeling from the effects of Sandbh's analysis of the paragraph issues at the Socrates article :) :)
 * I've moved the location of the sentence, and then broken the paragraph where it now appears
 * The column pushed north and then crossed the Missouri at Arrow Rock on the 14th using a ferry. --> The column pushed north and then crossed the Missouri by ferry at Arrow Rock on the 14th.
 * Done
 * Don't force the reader to click out to see what something is ... had a "tin-clad boat", ... add iron warship in parentheses there ?
 * Reading ahead, I am guessing this refers to the the West Wind, although that is never made clear? So maybe the fix here is to instead say, a "tin-clad boat", the iron warship West Wind? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've clarified (which should have been in there anyway) that the rumors were false and West Wind was not tin-clad nor armed. This source doesn't define tin-clad, so it feels a bit OR-y to insert a definition in (especially since "tin-clad boat" is in quotation marks in the source), and it would feel a bit SYNTH-y to add another source defining tinclads in general. (although it may be just as bit to link to ironclad here).  We don't have an article on Tinclad warship, although since we have ironclad warship, cottonclad warship, and timberclad warship, maybe we should.
 * to fire across it effectively --> to effectively fire across it ...?
 * Done
 * Long sentence, split after 40 men each ? ... The Union line was anchored by two unfinished fortifications which held about 40 men each, but the defenses between the fortifications were makeshift, although they had been extended to the east to a schoolhouse.
 * Split
 * New paragraph at ... Clarks' main body south of town ... ? That is, they pushed on after surrender wasn't ...
 * Para break added
 * Getting lost here ... several boats, and going backwards and forward ...
 * Shelby ordered men across the river in a small boat to West Wind,[45] which had been damaged by Confederate artillery fire,[46] hoping to use it as a ferry across the river. While the Confederates reached West Wind, the steamboat's engines had been rendered nonfunctional, and they had to return to Shelby. Maybe -->
 * The West Wind had been damaged by Confederate artillery fire. Shelby ordered men across the river in a small boat, hoping to take West Wind to use it as a ferry across the river. When the Confederates reached West Wind, they found the steamboat's engines had been rendered nonfunctional, and they had to return to Shelby.
 * Done (ship's aren't prefaced with "the" unless you're naming a ship class like "the steamer West Wind"
 * By this point, I've lost track of what line is being referred to ... Confederate troops closed in on the line. maybe add "of militiamen" to jog memory and relate back ? Same here ... does this refer to the east and west lines, with line of militiamen between ?  Clark described the distance between the lines as "short", ... if so, add distance between the east and west lines ?
 * Clarified that the first line is the one in Glasgow (the militia and forward line has been forced back into town in the preceeding paragraph). I've replaced the second instance with "the two sides".
 * Additional supplies were not burned because they were kept in positions near the river that were inaccessible. --> Additional supplies were not burned but were instead kept in positions near the river that were inaccessible.
 * I'm not sure that I agree with this one, as I think it changes the meaning a bit - the only reason the supplies weren't burned is because they were in spots near the river that the Union troops couldn't get to. I'm open to other phrasing suggestions, though
 * The "Aftermath" section does not use spelled out vs. digits on numbers consistently. And one sentence has mixed: although it is known that one regiment had seven men killed and 46 wounded. My suggestion is to convert everything in that para to digits.
 * Done, except for "four dozen", which would feel quite weird to me if converted to "4 dozen"
 * Simplify: Damage to the town of Glasgow consisted of the destruction of 15 homes and a church. --> In the town of Glasgow, 15 homes and a church were damaged.
 * Done
 * The second paragraph of Aftermath needs some division, as it is going forward in time then back to aftermath. Maybe solved by making "Clark rejoined the Confederate army on ... " the beginning of the next paragraph.
 * Done

Re-do ... one of my suggestions is awkward ... Instead of ... When it entered the state from the south, there were about 13,000 cavalrymen in Price's force. since it is the opening sentence of a new section, how about Price's force entered Missouri from the south with about 13,000 calvalrymen. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done