Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Landis' Missouri Battery

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Landis' Missouri Battery[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Landis' Missouri Battery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After a good GA review by User:Harrias, a moderate expansion, and a page move, I believe this one is ready. An artillery battery of the American Civil War, it's history was cut short halfway through the war by a consolidation with two other batteries. It's a bit of a short article, but there's not much to say about this topic. I think it's close to the A-Class requirements, I hope I'm not proved wrong. Hog Farm (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • All images are free. buidhe 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass
  • I think most of the sources are OK, but I'm not sure about White Mane publishing from what I read here: [1][2] According to a review of one of their books, "They don’t edit, they don’t proofread, and there is almost no quality control." and even publish plagiarism. buidhe 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with White Mane in particular. Tucker's a decent author for stuff about the Trans-Mississippi Theater of this war, and the copy I have has a forward by Albert E. Castel, who's a respected author, praising the book's scholarship. I'm not familiar enough with White Mane to tell if this is a widespread issue or if they just pissed Eric J. Wittenberg, the author of that blog post, off sometime. Witteberg also rants in his post about the Stephen W. Sears, who is reasonably well respected, at least from what I've heard. I just don't know. Tucker's work was reviewed by the Journal of Military History, but unfortunately I can only access the first few lines. [3]. @Buidhe: - Since White Mane seems to focus the most on the ACW, is it okay if I ping a couple of active ACW editors to see what there opinion of the publisher is? I just don't know on this one. I can probably replace most of it with "In Deadly Earnest: The History of the First Missouri Brigade, CSA" by Gottschalk. That's one's published by a very obscure author, but it won the Douglass Southall Freeman Award, which is one of the bigger awards for ACW scholarship. Hog Farm (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can read the review, which is mixed but more favorable on Gottschalk's book. I would be willing to accept the Tucker book based on the review, but it is usually best to cite multiple sources if possible. Please feel free to ping anyone who might have input. buidhe 02:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Eddie891, Kges1901, and GELongstreet: - Sorry to bother, but all three of y'all have edited recently and expressed an interest in the ACW. I wondering if any of y'all have any knowledge about the reliability of White Mane as a publisher or Philip Thomas Tucker as an author, both specialize in the ACW. Thanks. Hog Farm (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • - I've supported/replaced Tucker wherever I can. Tucker and McGhee are probably the most detailed on Landis's Battery, and both come from different angles, so there's some details in Tucker not in the others. I'm down to just 2.5 paragraphs citing Tucker alone, and anyway, he seems to be decent enough. Is the sourcing more acceptable now? Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tucker seems reliable for these details on the battery. Naturally having Gottschalk as well can't hurt. Kges1901 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looking at more reviews The North Carolina Historical Review concludes that "The South's Finest is an informative and highly readable history of an exceptional brigade" (though it does criticize Tuckers high degree of praise as creating a "polemical tone reminiscent of postwar volumes written by veterans to promote the reputation of their units"), Civil War History has a review with In Deadly Earnest and writes that "Both the volumes under review [...] do a good job in assessing the turbulent political and social conditions in 1861 Missouri that split the state and led to the creation of the Confederate Missouri brigade. Both books are generally well written and thoroughly researched in primary and secondary sources. Thomas does demonstrate more familiarity with recent scholarship". Thomas here is presumably Philip Thomas Tucker. It goes on to say "The major problem with Thomas's book is his overuse of superlatives. No battle unit could possibly be as perfect as the author pictures the Missourians, both the rank and file and the officers" and concludes "though both these unit histories benefit the historiography of the war in the West, neither quite measures up to the accomplishments of their subject." In The Journal of Southern History there's a rather winding review that thinks "the title of this work unfortunately does not convey the full significance of its scholarship" and mentions that "the value of this work lies in its exploration of the consistencies and disjunctures of the concept of 'elite' in the military context..." Sorry for the extensive quotations, and hopefully I commented on the right book . I'd summarize the general consensus of what I read as the book well researched and seemingly reliable, just be careful to account for his heavy promotion of the battery. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. Unfortunately, I have to go away with work tomorrow for a little bit, so am about to log off and go to bed. As such, I only took a quick look and did a little copy editing (please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit). I have a couple of minor suggestions at this stage: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • men to bring the regiment --> battery?
Oops. Fixed.
  • in the 1863 section, there is a jump in the narrative between January and May -- do we know what the battery did in the intervening period?
Gottschalk does not say. McGhee does not say. Tucker quotes a passage from a soldier's diary about boredom while stationed at Grand Gulf, but doesn't state an exact time frame. I can't find any evidence directly stating what it did- probably at Grand Gulf in reserve, but haven't found anything that states that directly
  • was the battery combined into a regiment with that of Guibor and Wade? Or were Landis' men simply transferred to the other batteries as reinforcements?
clarified
@AustralianRupert: I've got a nonfunctional computer at the moment, so I'll only be able to make minor prose edits. Hog Farm (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I've replied to the three starter comments. I'm hoping to push this one to FAC once it gets past ACR, so anything you can find, no matter how nitpicky, is welcome. Hog Farm Bacon 02:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Done
  • I'd like to see more info in the lead about the unit. Now it looks just a quick recap, especially about the battles.
I've rewritten the lead. Is the new version better?
  • Looks better, could you also split the paragraph; it now looks like one paragraph is almost equally to a half of a section in the body which is a little bit too much especially this isn't that long.
Split at the 1862/1863 boundary
  • Landis' Missouri Battery, also known as Landis' Company, Missouri Light Artillery --> "The Landis' Missouri Battery, also known as the Landis' Company, Missouri Light Artillery"
The sources never use "the" before the battery's name
  • Done. It feels awkward to me, but I'll do it per boldlead
  • Yeah sometimes it does feel awkward and there's always been a debate whether we should follow the guidelines or the sources and sometimes both have a good argument. Cheers.
  • the unit traveled to Des Arc, Arkansas in January 1862 to be equipped with cannons This sentence says it was formed in January 1862 while the infobox says early 1862?
  • This comment of mine isn't addressed?
  • Done. Went with January per McGhee
  • Brigadier General Henry Little's division Shouldn't it be "Lewis Little's"?
Fixed
  • Could you please tell my why is the article's name being "Landis' Missouri Battery" while the body nor infobox use "Landis's Missouri Battery" with an extra s?
Corrected. Originally at the title of Landis's

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, are you feeling able to pass judgement on this one yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Not yet – there are some little issues and one comment isn't even addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Not much to nitpick about here in what is a brief article. A few comments:

Lead
  • suggest "during the early years of the American Civil War"
Done
  • suggest "The battery saw action at the Battle of Iuka, Second Battle of Corinth, the Battles of Port Gibson, Champion Hill and Big Black River Bridge, and the Siege of Vicksburg, as well as several smaller battles." with piped links, to avoid the repetition of "Battle of"
Lead rewritten
  • The regimentbattery was captured when the Confederate garrison of Vicksburg surrendered on July 4, 1863.
Done
  • suggest "instead, its men and guns were absorbed, along with those of another depleted battery, by Guibor's Missouri Battery." as that seems to reflect what the sources say?
Done
Body
  • what was the name of the command of Brigadier General Daniel M. Frost? Xth Brigade etc?
Done. An artillery brigade
  • space in "batteries.Artillery fire"
Fixed
  • Landis' Battery lost 10 men at Corinth - killed or total casualties?
Clarified
  • suggest "Landis' Battery was again part of the rear guard.
Done
  • When the attack was forced backwards
Done
  • At Champion Hill, Landis' Battery lost nine men - killed or total casualties?
Clarified
  • A portion of the battery was assigned to the Confederate front line. The remaining portion consisting of the two howitzers?
  • "that portion of the battery lost its cannons" and "The battery's remaining two cannons" doesn't add up, the Napoleon's were knocked out the previous day, so they only had two howitzers, and if it "lost its cannons" what did it have left?
@Peacemaker67: I have no idea how to address this. McGhee states that "the remaining cannons" were at BBRB, but Tucker directly states that the battery had multiple pieces on each side of the river. Gottschalk and the NPS are silent on the issue. Once I get my computer back I can check the Official Records and see if that sheds any light. Hog Farm Bacon 02:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "where it suffered between 10 and 13 casualties" and cite the NPS as well as McGhee
Done
  • suggest "During the siege, Lieutenant John M. Langan also commanded the battery"
Done
  • "On October 1, the members of the battery were consolidated with Guibor's Battery and Wade's Missouri Battery; Landis' Battery ceased to exist as an independent unit. The combined unit carried on the history of Guibor's Battery." it seems to me better to describe this as Guibor's Battery absorbing the other two batteries, as they ceased to exist and the battery continued to carry Guibor's name
Done

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: My computer's in the shop yet, at least for several more days. I'll work on what I can address with my mobile editing system's reduced capabilities, but some of it I can't work on for awhile. Hog Farm Bacon 14:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No rush mate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, supporting. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Should there not be something on the size of the battery, in terms of both men and guns, in the lead?
Added
  • In the lead, why are we told the name of the battery's commander during the Siege of Vicksburg, but not at any other time?
Added
  • "in an artillery duel with the 8th Michigan Light Artillery. The battery suffered three casualties at Port Gibson". Optional: 'in an artillery duel with the 8th Michigan Light Artillery; the battery suffered three casualties.
Done
  • "Landis ordered the men to fire a shell behind a retreating Confederate". Behind, to me, means more towards the enemy. Perhaps 'in the path of a retreating Confederate'? Assuming that that is in fact what you mean.
Done
  • You state that Landis raised the battery. I assume that he then commanded it up to Vicksburg, but this is not stated.
I'm being picky on this, but I would feel happier if the article explicitly stated somewhere that Landis commanded it from its formation to Vicksburg. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for an exact date. The image of the NPS marker states May 13 for the change in command, but the print sources don't state beyond Tucker implying that it was before Champion Hill. I think Coleman might have said something, but it won't load on my phone (my computer's been not working for a week, and I have four GA nom reviews and a bunch of ACR comments I have to put on hold as a result). Personally, I don't trust the marker's date without secondary confirmation, as old markers are often inaccurate. So I guess this is something else to put on hold until I get my computer back (fingers crossed this week) and I can check Coleman and some primary sources. This and PM's concern about contradictory sources above are gonna take some heavy research. Hog Farm Bacon 02:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with something like 'Landis commanded the battery until some point during the Vicksburg Campaign', but I am supporting anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "were paroled, exchanged" I am a little confused. If they were exchanged, why did they need to be paroled? If they were paroled for the duration, how come the battery was amalgamated?
Under the parole terms of the ACW, they were not held in a POW camp but couldn't fight until officially exchanged. Too many surrendered at Vicksburg to keep in a camp given that the Union only held a thin strip. Do I need to add a note explaining this?
I think that the three separate activities just need specifying a little more. Something like 'The 37 men left in the battery were released on parole until they were exchanged; they were then ordered to Demopolis, Alabama.' perhaps?
Went with also ordered to Demopolis instead of then, as the parole holding actually occurred at Demopolis. Hog Farm Bacon 22:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice indeed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Landis%27_Missouri_Battery&oldid=966591297"