# Talk:First Battle of Springfield

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First Battle of Springfield. 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/20121108182845/http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/CWSII/MissouriBattlefieldProfiles/Newtonia%20I%20to%20Wilsons%20Creek.pdf to http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/CWSII/MissouriBattlefieldProfiles/Newtonia%20I%20to%20Wilsons%20Creek.pdf
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) 10:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:First Battle of Springfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 09:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


### Prelim
No duplicated links
No edit wars
File:Hungarians in the American civil war (1913) (14762685895).jpg could probably do with another, more standard, us pd
Added
Earwig reports copyvio unlikely


### Lede and infobox
"on a scout towards Springfield" "scouting mission"?
Rephased
"north at around dark" > "north when darkness fell"?
Have rephrased this. "At around dark" seems the most natural to me, but some searches on google for that exact string suggests that this is primarily a regional or colloquial use.
Why does the lede exclusively use "Federal" instead of "Union", as the infobox does?
So I've introduced this in the article as Federal (Union) now. Union is the traditional term, but Federal is starting to come into vogue now.
Worth mentioning in the Lede the connection between the MSG and CSA
done
"Frémont’s Body-Guard" this spelling of bodyguard is only used in the infobox
Based on the sources "Body Guard" without the hyphen is the historically accurate spelling, so I've switched over to that in the article
Don't need ranks in the infobox
Removed, although they'll be invariably added back by somebody reading the article in the future, as pretty much always happens when I remove them from infoboxen
Infobox reads as if the Prairie Scouts were a part of the bodyguard which I don't think was the case?
Should be a bit clearer now
"Praire Scouts" sp
Oops
You might want to fix the Operations to Control Missouri navbox; this battle isn't currently bolded out because it's a redirect
Fixed


### Prelude
Give Zagonyi his rank
Done
Link Missouri River
Done


### Battle
"Late on October 24, Zagonyi and the bodyguard" try not to begin sections with dates
Added another sentence in here to lead off
"the Federal ran into a small party" something missing here
Fixed
"swung his troops to a detour to approach Springfield from the west"
removed
Lede says Zagonyi's report was "at the expense of the Prairie Scouts" but main text only says "at the expense of other Federal soldiers"
Have made this a bit more consistent now
"has two companies charging with Zagonyi charging through a gap"
Done


### Aftermath
Could give Johnston his rank, but it's post-war so not necessary
I don't think it's necessary, given that this is long postwar
Would it be appropriate to add some of these casualty figures to the infobox?
I don't know how helpful it would be, given the divergency among the sources. Anything from Zagonyi's report is suspect, and I personally doubt that Johnston would have any particular way of knowing much about this battle


### References
References look good. AGF for print sources.
This provides some information about modern memorialisation of the battle
Have added a sentence about this
@Hog Farm: Hi, that's all I have for now. Will await your responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Thanks for the review! I've responded above. Hog Farm  Talk 02:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. My apologies for taking so long to get back to this! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)