# Talk:3rd Missouri Light Battery

This review is transcluded from Talk:3rd Missouri Light Battery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Intend to review shortly Eddie891  Talk Work  13:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

" The battery originated with a Missouri State Guard " would this make more sense as "originated as a Missouri State Guard"?
Done
" and officially transferred" perhaps "and was officially transferred"?
Done
"In early 1864, the battery received replacement cannons "  so it was an artillery battery without artillery for a whole year? ... Oh, I guess this makes sense given that it was captured and exchanged
"the men of the battery were paroled on May 10." maybe a concluding sentence clarifying that they didn't fight again would be useful
Done
"Starting on October 6, 1861" I'd suggest "Beginning on" or just "on Oct..."
Went with beginning.  On October ... would give the impression recruitment lasted only one day, which isn't accurate
Not sure about necessity, but you don't cite or mention "MacDonald's Missouri Battery" and "Dawson's Missouri Battery" in the article
I'm not sure if this needs added or not, but Confederate artillery batteries were often known by the name of their commanders, so source refer to the unit as "MacDonald's Missouri Battery" and "Dawson's Missouri Battery" sometimes.  I'll add this as a paranthetical statement in the lead and cite it there.  If you think it's necessary, I can add it to the body, too.  I'm not going to do that for Lowe's Missouri Battery, as Lowe only commanded the unit briefly, and another unit was known as Lowe's Missouri Battery
" officially joined the Confederate States Army" was that the plan? or was it transferred? as it reads, I get the impression that it was formed with the intent of joining the CSA but got the impression from the lede that it was intended to be part of the MSG before transferring to the CSA
Not sure the best way to handle this.  Basically, the Missouri State Guard was a unit that fought with Confederate units, and was actually sometimes under the command of Confederate generals (Battle of Wilson's Creek and Battle of Pea Ridge) in particular, but was technically a militia unit, not a regular Confederate unit.  I'll see what I can do to clarify this.
"and miscellaneous units " personally prefer "and several units" -> one would assume they were 'misc.'
Changed.  I would name them, but secondary sources indicate that the breakdown is unknown, and Missouri State Guard primary sources frequently don't exist.
"On March 7, the battery, along with" not immediately clear to me that this is still part of pea ridge
Changed
" and a battery commanded by Lieutenant Charles W. Higgins, " something here strikes me as odd. Why refer just to him by name?
The battery was officially "Bledsoe's Missouri Battery", but the source doesn't make it clear if it's Hiram Bledsoe's Missouri Battery or Joseph Bledsoe's Missouri Battery.  Apparently whichever Bledsoe was in command wasn't at Pea Ridge, and Higgins took over.  Since it wasn't really known as Higgins' Missouri Battery and the sources are ambiguous, I personally think this is the best way to handle it.
"Captain MacDonald" I think I read something in the MOS that people should only have their rank listed on the first mention and after just be referred to by last name, but am not positive
Removed, this appears multiple times, I'll try to catch the usages I notice
"with the rest of the Confederate Army of the West" it's a bit odd to me that you haven't linked and mentioned the Army of the West until here
Added a mention at the beginning of the Pea Ridge section
"fired seven hundred rounds of ammunition." nit-picky, but I'd expect 'around seven hundred'
Done
"After Pea Ridge, the battery was assigned another cannon," reminded me that the reader probably has no idea what scale this is. For all they know, a battery could have 100,000 cannon (in which case one addition wouldn't matter) or two (in which case one cannon would be very significant). Perhaps add the size of a battery in the CSA somewhere. Obviously the battery might not always have been up to scale, but it would still be useful to know. Were I the writer of many CSA articles, I might consider writing a paragraph or two on the organisation of the CSA and putting it in all similar articles to give readers some nice background about it. Perhaps I'm overthinking though, I don't know how well known the organisation of armies is.
The size of batteries varied greatly.  Some "artillery batteries" had no cannons (like Harris' Missouri Battery (1862), others could have up to six.  In this case, it's already stated in the organization section that this battery had three cannons before the addition.  @Eddie891: - Do you think it's necessary to explicitly state that it was #4, or does the statement that it had three in the organization section convey that information well enough? Hog Farm (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's probably fine as is. Looking back, I think we've had this discussion before... Eddie891  Talk Work  14:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that for a lot of these Trans-Mississippi units, that background would be very helpful.  For the Union army, and some parts of the Confederacy, like Virginia, things were done very standardly.  However, most of these Missouri units were formed haphazardly, so I'm not sure how to deal with this.  Even the numbering was done haphazardly.  Regiments 1-12 all existed, as did 16, but there is only scant evidence that 13 existed, and strong evidence it didn't, and no evidence whatsoever to support the existance of the 14 and 15.  I can put in a query at WT:MILHIST to see how best to handle any background. Hog Farm (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hog Farm, My recommendation would be to have some context at List of Missouri Confederate Civil War units, because I would agree that it wouldn't be that helpful in individual articles. By all means ask at MILHIST, there will likely be an option that I haven't considered. Eddie891  Talk Work  17:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: - I've added a paragraph to the list article's lead explaining the Missouri State Guard to Confederate Army transition.  That list article's a mess in so many ways, I've removed a couple units that didn't actually really exist/duplicate units from the list.  Does the transition paragraph there help with background? Hog Farm (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
"6-pounder captured " can you add {{convert}} somehow here? We'd expect a conversion to kilograms
I'm not sure if that's the best idea, since "6-pounder cannon" is the technical name of the cannon, and I don't think the convert template will let me use "pounder" since it's a technical term and not really a word
is there a way to link to' brigade'?
Done
"an election held by the battery elevated" was it standard practice to elect commanders
Not sure.  I'm not sure if that'd be relevant or not, though.  If you think it should be added, I can dig around some and try and find out
"o Hébert's brigade of Brigadier General Lewis Henry Little's division of Major General Sterling Price's Army of the West" I feel as though this is a pretty convoluted way of phrasing (but am at a loss for a better way) would it be possible to rephrase?
Is to Hébert's brigade of Brigadier General Lewis Henry Little's division, which was part of Major General Sterling Price's Army of the West an improvement?
"15th Arkansas Infantry Regiment, 19th Arkansas Infantry Regiment, 20th Arkansas Infantry Regiment, 21st Arkansas Infantry, 12th Arkansas Sharpshooter Battalion, 1st Arkansas Cavalry Battalion, 1st Missouri Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Missouri Cavalry Regiment, and the Jackson Missouri Battery." maybe it's just me, but is it necessary to list every single one of these? Perhaps you could say "several regiments" and move the list to a note? IMO that would make it read far smoother.
I'm just gonna nuke both lists, they're basically history cruft, and not really relevant to this battery.  Unfortunately, the sources I've found so far just don't give me any additional information about Champion Hill.  I'd like to add the battery's actions at Champion Hill.  Maybe the Official Records will have something.  I basically added these lists because I really wanted to add more detail, but the secondary sources just don't go into as much detail as I'd like, and adding off-topic lists made me feel like more was there.
"The battery was present during the Siege of Vicksburg as was captured " as was?
oops.  Fixed
"assigned Brigadier General John C. Moore's brigade" perhaps "assigned to"
Fixed
"The combined battery was generally treated as a extension of the history " perhaps "generally treated as a continuation of" or something along those lines
Changed
Pretty minor prose comments; standard rules apply (feel free to discuss any/all, they aren't necessarily the best comments, bear with me other checks are coming soon). Eddie891  Talk Work  13:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Referencing comments:

Darkest Days of War is available for free registration here, suggest linking.
Linked
Sources checked: #1 a-g, #7, #8, or 20% of the sourcing and I see no major problems.

It's not mentioned in 7 and 8 the dates of the battle, and I don't see that Little was killed in the sourcing
For Little, in my edition, there's a (k) next to his name in the Iuka OOB indicating he was killed.  For clarity, I'll go ahead and add the page number where it specifically mentions his death, too.
I've added citations for the battle dates
That should be about it Eddie891  Talk Work  17:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: - Thanks for starting the review on this one.  My goal is to get a good topic out of the Mo. Confederate infantry regiments (that's why I'm like half of the warfare GA noms right now).  I still have three more articles to create in that series (infantry regiments, I'll see how many artillery batteries I can get through after that before I burn out), and any feedback helps me write those articles better. Hog Farm (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, This article now meets the GA criteria as it is well written, well referenced, neutral, has no copyvio, and otherwise meets the GA criteria. Passing. Eddie891  Talk Work  19:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)