# Talk:Battle of Clark's Mill

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Clark's Mill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924080159/http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/mo017.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/mo017.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

"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.