Talk:Battle of Clark's Mill/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 19:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. Hog Farm, would you prefer a straight GAN review, or a free pre-FAC check as well?

@Gog the Mild: - this would be a straight GAN review. I don't think there's enough meat here for a successful FAC. It's too poorly documented to really answer all of the questions. There's a meatier book on this subject but it's self-published and isn't useable, aside from the extreme obscurity of that book. I think this is OK with the lower GA standards, though. Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• "File:Clark's Mill Battlefield Missouri.jpg". Could we have a bit more information on the source? How would I go about verifying the information in it? I mean, "National Park Service" would probably take me a long time to go through looking for this image.
  • This is from an old American Battlefield Protection Program study that's no longer up on the NPS website but is at least partially preserved by the Internet Archive. I've added a link that includes this map and at least partially demonstrates that process that went into its creation. Hog Farm _Talk 02:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies in the War of the Rebellion Series I Volume XIII, I think the ISBN is 9780918678072 and the OCLC 1154937583.
  • I've added an OCLC for what I believe is the original version. The ISBN is to a modern reprint; I don't know if there's any content or pagination changes so I would prefer to leave the ISBN off. Hog Farm _Talk 02:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• The infobox indicates that the battle was fought between Union and Confederacy [shouldn't that be 'Confederate' for consistancy?] forces while the lead talks of Federal and Confederacy troops. This is very confusing.
  • Standardized. Both terms are used interchangably in the source literature. There was a bit of a movement a few years ago for the historiography to switch from Union to Federal for various reasons, but that has somewhat petered out. I've standardized to Union. 02:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• "was a contested battleground." As opposed to an uncontested one?
  • I've gone with "hotly contested" instead. It was really a battlefield for the whole war, but post mid-1862 stuff was almost entirely guerrilla actions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• "those loyal to United States federal forces". Were they not loyal to the United States rather than to its armed forces?
  • Have gone with "government" rather than "forces". Is this better? Hog Farm _Talk 02:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• Why do we have a "Federal Captain" and a "Federal counterstroke" but a "Union government"?
  • This has been standardized. Hog Farm _Talk 02:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

A solid little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Checks

• Passes Earwig.
• All sources are reliable. Even the one from 1885 for what it is used for.
• Image is appropriately licensed and sourced.
• Spot checks are fine.