Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Poison Spring/archive1

Battle of Poison Spring

Featured article candidates/Battle of Poison Spring/archive1

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells the story of what one academic has described as the "worst war crime ever committed on Arkansas soil". On April 18, a Union wagon train was ambushed by Confederate cavalry. Despite the sounds of the battle being audible at the main Union camp, no assistance was sent. The battle then devolves into racially motivated butchery. While not as well-known as the Fort Pillow Massacre or the Lawrence Massacre, this is still one of the most infamous war crimes of the American Civil War. Hog Farm _Talk 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 03:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elli

Will review shortly. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Given that the Red River campaign and the Camden Expedition are linked prominently in prose, hatnote probably isn't necessary.
- Removed
Would it be possible to include a map showing the military situation? Fine if not ofc.
- Closest thing that exists on Commons that I'm aware of is File:Red River Campaign map.jpg while is unusable because it shows Steele coming down out of what is now Oklahoma for some reason rather than through Arkansas Hog Farm _Talk 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"began a joint operation up the Red River" wouldn't "along" make more sense? "up" implies going upstream, but the forces in Arkansas would be heading downstream towards Louisiana. Looking at the article on the campaign it seems like forces headed in from both directions, so "along" would contextually make more sense here.
- Rephrased both here and in the lead
A map showing the details of the campaign would also be useful (such as the movements from Little Rock to Arkadelphia and the meeting in Prairie D'Ane with troops from Fort Smith).
- Unfortunately, we lack one and it's beyond my ability to create anything like that. This exists and is public domain but is somewhat illegible and I can't imagine that it would be overly useful to a reader even if clearer due to the surrounding area being blank, leaving no context. Hog Farm _Talk 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude

"All but one of the steam-powered gristmills in the area had been destroyed; Stelle sent part of the 36th Iowa Infantry Regiment to operate it on April 17." would probably read clearer as "Only one of the steam-powered gristmills in the area remained usable; Stelle sent part of the 36th Iowa Infantry Regiment to operate it on April 17."
- Done
"quartermaster, Captain Charles A. Henry with" should have either a comma after "Henry", or not one after "quartermaster"
- Added one after Henry
link no quarter in the quote?
- Done
The first mention of White Oak Creek implies we should already know what it is. Was that their destination? Should probably mention the name earlier if so.
- I've added a reference earlier - Thayer told Williams that there was probably a lot of forage around White Oak Creek

Battle

Fixed a few typos here.
- Thank you!
"Steele did not attempt to aid the foraging party" do we know why? (fine if not ofc)
- Nobody really seems to know; I've added a statement to this effect sourced to DeBlack 2003b

Massacre

Do any scans of this Washington Telegraph "reporting" exist?
- Eakin's later racist screed had been clipped on newspapers.com. Ditto with "Choctaw Humor". I'd rather not include an image of the editorial as it doesn't directly refer to Poison Spring and is incredibly inflammatory and I don't think the short "Choctaw Humor" piece really warrants an image. Hog Farm _Talk 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay after reading, not wanting to include those is totally understandable. Maybe including links to these as additional citations or footnotes would make sense? Ultimately your editorial call but I was interested to read the full writings after reading that paragraph and I don't think I would be the only one. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've included the longer piece as an external link

Aftermath and preservation

Given that this appears to have received recent scholarship, is it worth discussing analysis of this battle/massacre explicitly? I know this is discussed some in the Massacre section but wondering if more could be added here.
- I don't know that there's much basis for a discussion like this. The scholarship doesn't really interact with each other at all, and all of the modern sources tend to agree pretty well on what happened. Hog Farm _Talk 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Maybe worth mentioning that this was part of the Camden Expedition in the infobox as well?
- Done
Would suggest a mention of this being considered a particularly notable massacre.
- Done

Didn't conduct a source review here so my comments are just based on the prose. Nice work! This was an interesting though rather sad read. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: - Thanks for the review! I've replied above. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any free to use good maps for the Camden Expedition. Hog Farm _Talk 00:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look good so happy to support. And yeah, unfortunately making such maps is outside of my expertise as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

"fought in Ouachita County, Arkansas on", "had moved from Little Rock, Arkansas towards": per MOS:GEOCOMMA there should be a comma after Arkansas.
"By early 1864, the Confederacy's likelihood of winning the American Civil War against the Union was slimming. The Confederate situation in Arkansas was particularly bad." I think these two sentences should be merged, perhaps "By early 1864, the Confederacy's likelihood of winning the American Civil War against the Union was slimming and the Confederate situation in Arkansas was particularly bad."
The "Battle" section is quite long, with large paragraphs and lots of text. I suggest dividing up the larger paragraphs and splitting this with level 3 headings. This will make it easier and more inviting for the reader.
The second paragraph of the battle section uses phrasing like "the operation would depend on Maxey's men", "and would provide cover to Confederate troops" I would prefer more definitive statements here (removing a lot of "would") and instead talk about what actually happened. Is this planning language used to try to describe why certain troops made the decisions that they did?
"Williams's soldiers were running out of ammunition for both their small arms and artillery." Is there an indication when in the battle this was noted? If so, it should be included in the article.
"and focus of saving his remaining men." and focus on?
"The 1st Kansas Colored alone lost 182 men. Of those 182 losses, 117 were killed and 65 wounded; it was unusual during the war for units to have more men killed than wounded." -> "The 1st Kansas Colored lost 182 men, of which 117 were killed and 65 wounded; it was unusual during the war for units to have more men killed than wounded."
"the historian Mark K. Christ" remove the as is it not necessary here. There's a couple other places where "the historian" is used and "the" can be removed, so if this is removed the rest of the article should also be checked.
"The historian Gregory J. W. Urwin describes" Is this Gregory J. W. Urwin? If so, wikilink
"with the only reference to the massacre being publishing the story about using dead" -> with only one reference to the massacre in a story about...

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]