Talk:Battle of Wilson's Creek

First Battle of Springfield???

According to this very informative page, the first battle of Springfield happened after Wilson's Creek, on Oct. 25 1861. Source. --brian0918™ 04:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep. That's the correct chronology. I think the reason for the seeming problem is due to the fact that at the time of the Battle of Wilson's Creek, the area of the battlefield was outside of Springfield. Springfield has since grown, and the area of Wilson's Creek has been incorporated later into the greater Springfield area, though it is technically in Republic, I think, which is something of a suburb of Springfield. --Steelviper 18:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Missourians, not Confederates

This article incorrectly refers to the Missourians as Confederates. Jackson's government did not secede from the Union until months after this battle, and did not join the Confederacy until 28 November 1861.--Plainsong 14:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, they were not all Missourians, so that's not accurate either. Check out: http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/books/battles/vol1/pageview.cfm?page=298. It was definitely a Southern force. Pearce even referred to that army, in Battles and Leaders, as a Confederate army. I think it should "Missourians" needs to go, in most instances. Gibblet 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The fact is that Missouri and Kentucky were pretty much divided down the middle. Both states had representatives in the United States Congress and the Confederate Congress. Some Missourian were Confederates and some Missourians were Union. In the Battle of Wilson's Creek, the truth is that the Missouri Guard was a Confederate unit. I am reseach to see if there were any Missouri units in Lyon's Army, but have found nothing concrete yet. --(Steve 20:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

I learned in history class that The Battle of Wilson's Creek was the crucial battle that would determine whether Missouri was a Confederate or a Union State. My history teacher, as well as the historians at the battlefield, have stated that Missouri became a Union State after the Battle. Whoever wrote in the main article that Missouri was a Confederate State needs Gen. Lyon to tech him/her a thing or two.--SladeMcGowan 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

President Bush

This was because they feared that President Bush would cut funding for the war. Is this supposed to be Bush? I could understand Lincoln or Jackson, but Bush seems weird. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buffalodan (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Trans-Mississippi Theater

Being in Missouri, wasn't this battle in the Trans-Mississippi Theater, not the Western Theater? KevinLuna83 (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"3rd Iowa" a longstanding error in article

There has been a recent set of reverts on this. This is a somewhat unusual example of anonymous IP editors identifying a longstanding error missed by experienced editors (myself included.) The corrections have been made from IP's in the Czech Republic. Thanks, for the catch, I'll tip a Czechvar (my favorite pilsner) in recognition. The unit should be the 1st Iowa, the 3rd Iowa was not present. Somehow, a surprisingly blatant error was introduced way back on March 5, 2011 by User: Wild Wolf and not noticed until the past few hours.

The 3rd Iowa also had gray uniforms at the Battle ofLiberty/Blue Mills Landing]] in its first combat in Sept. of 1861. This might have been the source of confusion. Red Harvest (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Wilson's Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias ^talk 11:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• "Reynolds, Thomas C; Schultz, Robert G editor (2009)" is listed in the references but not used. Either use it, or move it to Further reading.
  • Actually, it's ref 6. I fixed the formatting to be consistent with the others (sfn template).
• Ref #6 needs a full-stop.
  • Done
• "Garrison-Finderup, Ivandelle Dalton (1997). Roots & Branches of Our Garrison Family Tree. Garrison Library." This sounds suspiciously self-published. What makes it a reliable source? Also, Google suggest it might have 232 pages, in which case a page number would be required.
  • Will replace
    • Reference replaced with Catton, I had to drop the detail about the major's name, as I was having trouble verifying it. Possibly a Garrison family tale.
• Ref #19 needs an endash in the year range, and could do with an OCLC number.
  • Dash corrected there an in a similar issue in the Centennial Book PDF, too. OCLC added, too.
• Ref #27 needs a title, and formatting consistently with ref #26.
  • Gave Ref 27 and replaced ref 26 with a ref that was easier to read. I've also gone through and reworked/replaced the NPS references, as the website reorganized. Hog Farm (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Full review to follow. Harrias ^talk 20:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have access to some sources now that I didn't when the article was nominated, so that'll be a help. Hog Farm (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Images

• File:Wilsons-cropped-better.jpg needs details of when it was painted, to confirm the PD tag is appropriate.
• File:Nathaniel lyon small.jpg needs a US PD tag.
• File:Samuel D. Sturgis - Brady-Handy.jpg needs a US PD tag.
• File:Sterling Price-1.jpg needs a US PD tag.
• File:Nicholas Bartlett Pearce.jpg needs a US PD tag. Harrias ^talk 10:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • US-PD tags added for the latter four. The first one appears to have been painted in 1920 (public domain in US) by N. C. Wyeth. I removed the tag for "author deceased for 100 years) (N. C. Wyeth appears to have died in 1945), but added the US-PD tag, since it is public domain in the US by courtesy of being published before January 1, 1925. Information on the first image came from [1]. Hog Farm (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Background

• "On April 20, 1861, a secessionist mob seized the Liberty Arsenal, increasing Union concerns in the state." I think it would be good to clarify where the Liberty Arsenal was; I had to follow the link to find out whether it was in the state or nearby.
  • Done
• "..defend the state from attacks from perceived enemies from either side of the war." Can this be rephrased to avoid three instances of "from" in quick succession?
  • Changed to "defend the state from attacks by perceived enemies on either side of the war"
• "..and command by a brigadier general." Should be commanded.
  • Done
• "Because much of the organization's recruiting areas.." "much" and "areas were" jars: Use either "many" and "areas were", or "much" and "area was".
  • Changed to "many" and "areas were"
• "..the 1st Kansas and 2nd Kansas infantry.." Why not trim to "the 1st and 2nd Kansas infantry" as done for Missouri?
  • Done
• "cancelled" or "canceled" in AmEng?
  • I've always used cancelled, but a Google search suggests canceled for AE, so I changed it to that.

Battle

• Wikilink rout.
  • Done
• Link counterattack on the first use, rather than the third.
  • Done

Aftermath

• "After falling back to Springfield, Sturgis handed command of the army over to Sigel. At a council of war that evening, it was agreed that the Union army.." Move "Union" to the first mention of army here, just to reinforce as early as possible which side we are talking about.
  • Done

Lead and infobox

• The location in the infobox is given as "Greene and Christian counties", but this isn't mentioned at all in the body. I would suggest switching it to "Wilson's Creek, near Springfield, Missouri". But if you prefer what is there, then add that detail to the body.
  • Changed per your suggestion, the creek was more relevant to the context of the battle location than the counties
• Consider using {{circa}} instead of ~. (Eg. {{circa|5,430}} to produce c. 5,430.
  • Done
• Speaking of which, the 5,430 isn't given in the article body, which just states "approximately 6,000 men". I know it is referenced, but really this information should match. Similar with the 12,120 figure, and the casualties and losses; if the information is worth giving in the infobox, it is worth reproducing in the body.
  • Using the figures from the infobox, I'm still going to qualify with "about" or "estimated", the figures appear to be rounded to the tens place, and casualty numbers, especially for the Confederates, were a bit shaky in this era.
• The lead says the battle was 12 miles southwest of Springfield, but the body has a figure of 10 miles?
  • I'm not sure, either. The National Park Service gives the distance as 10 miles [2], but the American Battlefield Trust gives the distance as 12 miles [3]. I'd consider both sources to be reliable. Bruce Catton, who is considered to be one of the premier scholars in this field, gives the distance as 10 miles, so I'll go with 10 and cite Catton's book. Not sure why there's a difference - Rounding? One end of the battlefield vs another? Urban sprawl?

Overall, a really nice piece of work that I found very interesting. Nicely done. Harrias ^talk 13:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: I believe I've answered all of your concerns, are they acceptable to you? Hog Farm (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, all good now, nice work. Harrias ^talk 12:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Opposing forces

I think the format I've deployed here is a little more easy to read than the old table format, plus the forces involved are so limited we can dispense with the separate OOB pages. Hungrydog55 (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree. For length issues, I don't think it's feasible to include the order of battles here. Those pages are usually split out for a reason. Also, the OOBs will need citations. Hog Farm (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I agree. Hungrydog55 has also changed the format of numerous orders of battles to a version that I find far less comprehensible. I've left a message at his talk page urging him to find consensus if he has not already done so before making any further changes. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)