Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Y. Slack/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 7 January 2024 [1].

William Y. Slack[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A small-town lawyer from Chillicothe, Missouri, Slack served briefly in the Missouri House of Representatives and in the US Army in the Mexican War in the 1840s. With the outbreak of civil war in 1861, Slack sided with the pro-Confederate state militia and was appointed a general officer in the militia. He fought at Carthage in July 1861, took a bullet to the hip at Wilson's Creek in the next month, and transferred to formal Confederate service in the winter of 1861/1862. While leading a brigade at Pea Ridge in March 1862, he took another wound close to the site of the old Wilson's Creek one. This injury proved fatal and he died two weeks later. The Confederate government later promoted Slack to the rank of brigadier general in the Confederate service; they may not have known he was dead. Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Good stuff. I'll take a look at this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • just to improve the flow, I would go with "Mary J. Caldwell Slack.[1] In 1819,[2] the family moved to Columbia in the Missouri Territory to pursue agricultural opportunities there.[1]"
    • Done
  • what rank was Sterling Price when he commanded the 2nd Missouri Mounted Volunteers in the M-A war?
    • Added
  • "and they had two more children" he did, but did she already have kids? Otherwise drop the "more".
    • Dropped
  • is there a see also target about Missouri in the ACW that could be put at the top of the ACW section?
    • Added
  • suggest "which was commanded by Price, now a major general."
    • Done
  • I think you need to add something about the divisions being divisions in name only, and probably rendering them in the first instance as "divisions".
    • I've added a bit on this.
  • what rank was McCulloch
    • Added
  • suggest "Slack's infantry was positioned in the middle of the Confederate line"
    • Done
  • suggest The two forces combined in late July" to avoid repeating unite/united
    • Done
  • so, McCulloch was in overall command once they combined?
    • Yes, although McCulloch and Price fought each other like cats and dogs
  • suggest "On January 23, 1862,[29] after the Confederate Army of the West was formed, Slack was given command of the 2nd Missouri Brigade, a roughly 1,100-man organization that included both Confederate and MSG troops.[28]"
    • Done
  • suggest "but the Federal commander was able to redeploy his forces to meet the attack"
    • Done

That's all I could spot. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • American Civil War is linked twice in the lead
  • As is Confederate States
  • As is Confederate Army
  • "McCulloch's post-battle report praised Slack, although he suffered a bad hip wound while leading an assault" - who did? McCulloch or Slack?
  • That's it, I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "After serving in the Missouri General Assembly from 1842 to 1843, he served as a captain". "serving ... served"
    • Rephrased
  • "who had supported slavery before the war, supported the Confederate cause." "supported ... supported".
    • Rephrased
  • "to oppose the Federals". Who or what are "the Federals"? (Sounds Mexican to me. Or is that "Pancho and Leftie"?)
  • "a surprise Federal Army". Similarly. The army of the Federated States of America I assume.
  • "his mother's name was Mary J. Caldwell Slack" → 'his mother was Mary J. Caldwell Slack'.
    • Done
  • "to pursue agricultural opportunities there." Delete "there".
    • Done
  • "Slack was voted captain of Company L." Might that read better as 'Slack was elected captain of Company L'?
    • Done
  • "The MSG was composed of nine divisions based on regions of the state, with each division commanded by a brigadier general." Is it known what the complement of an MSG division was?
    • I've added some more information about this - these aren't divisions in the standard sense. Range in strength was from ~400 to over 2,000; certainly not a division as would traditionally be thought of.
I suspected as much, all the more reason to explain a little what they were. Which is now fine. Apart from "The Ninth Division was never truly formed". "truly"? Are we referring to some Platonic essence of a perfect division?
Is "never effectively formed" any better?
Works for me.
  • "nine divisions based on regions of the state". Maybe 'nine divisions, each based on a region of the state'?
    • Done
  • "Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and it included Chillicothe." I think you are confusing different things here. The division did not include Chillicothe. Maybe 'Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and its recruitment area included Chillicothe' or similar?
    • The new information I've added on this should make this make a bit more sense now. The divisions of the MSG were purely geographic, so it is accurate to say that the division contained Chillicothe
Nope. A division comprises men and equipment. So " Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and it included Chillicothe" doesn't work. Maybe 'Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and its recruitment area included Chillicothe'?
Done
  • "who was now a major general." Link "major general"?
    • added link
  • And "Colonel"?
    • Is linked earlier in the article now as a result of a query from PM
  • "who died in the battle". Perhaps 'who died as a result of the battle'?
    • Done
  • Does Bearss have a place of publication?
    • The bibliographic information the Bearss work provides in the copyright and title information is The Battle of Wilsons Creek by Edwin C. Bearss with battle maps by David Whitman published by George Washington Carver Birthplace District Association 1975 ARTCRAFT PRINTERS [logo identifying printer as a union shop] BOZEMAN, MONTANA. Bozeman is halfway across the country from the Carver Birthplace District of the Diamond, Missouri area so I suspect that is related to the printer's HQ, not the actual publisher's location
Bleh! Ok.

Just those quibbles. Good to see you back with another fine submission. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild and Peacemaker67: - so we have two cans of worms here now. The first is that some digging in another source revealed a somewhat awkward discrepancy regarding a unit from the 5th Congressional District early in Slack's MSG career. I've thrown the RS I can find that speak on this into a footnote in the article for now. If this is problematic, I can try to get over to Missouri State University in Springfield or the Wilson's Creek library in Republic and access Sterling Price's Lieutenants from their special collections, which is primarily a list of names, appointments, and dates of rank, sometime although it might well be next week before I can get over there. {{pb]} As to the other - The use of "Union" has seen some controversy lately. Both "Union" and "Federal" see use in the academic literature. I went with "Federal" here as I figured it was probably somewhat safer to use but I'd be fine with using either term. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Federals: I wasn't aware that Wikipedia took any notice of controversies. Has the consensus of modern HQ scholarly opinion changed since your last FAC nom then? If so, you are going to need to introduce the term properly at first mention in both the lead and the article as it will be very confusing for non-aficionados. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - no, I haven't seen a strong move one way to the other. "Federal" and "Union" have both been used in HQ scholarly sources for decades, with a bit of a preponderance for Union - the terminology tends to be used interchangably. The preponderance is still towards Union from what I can tell, so I've switched back over to Union. Replies to the other two concerns involving the division terminology are above as well. Hog Farm Talk 22:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong here, but doesn't using "Federal" and "Confederate" sort of equate the two, when the term "Union" stands for the faction that fought for American unity? It seems a bit weasely to me to use "Federal". Not sure if that is borne out in the literature or not, not being an ACW buff, but maybe something to consider. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 - the idea is actually more that "Federal" approaches it as a rebellion against the central US government with the Federals upholding the power of the central US government, which I guess does have appeal to both sides. Both Federal and Union have seen traction in the sources since the war, even during contemporary 1860s reporting. Ed Bearss, who was a leading respectable scholar, used Federal pretty much exclusively, as have several others. Often both are used interchangably. Many sources primarily stick with Union as well. From what I've seen, the pro-Confederate and neo-Confederate sources tend to use terms like "Yankees" and such. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/ pass[edit]

In progress... ——Serial 17:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference formatting: no issues.
  • Source formatting: Choose between "Boston & New York" and "Boston/New York". Bearrs needs a location (the aptly-named Bozeman, Montana). Welsh/Hatcher's ISBN is inconsistent. Not unconnectedly, are you using Kennedy's book other than Hatcher's chapter? If not, the plain book ref is superfluous. Or is it the Intro? In which case, cite as a chapter.
    • I've gone with Boston/New York; this is how it is shown in the printed copy. As to Kennedy, there are three spots being cited from this book. One is a chapter by Hatcher, and another I found upon a second check to actually be a chapter by James M. McPherson, so I've updated that reference. The other is material written directly by Kennedy. Essentially, this book is a giant undertaking that details 384 Civil War battles, with the vast majority described in short capsules written by Kennedy, with "guest" writers contributing longer sections on the more important battles; typically the guest writers are subject matter experts on the battles, such as Hatcher for Wilson's Creek. As to Bearss - is the publishing location suppose to indicate where the publisher is located (in which case that's Diamond, Missouri, where the George Washington Carver Birthplace Association is) or is it to be where the book was printed (which, for reasons I cannot fathom, is apparently Bozeman). I don't think I understand what you are referring to with the Welch and Hatcher ISBNs. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Material: Is there anything in Safakis to be used? Just wondering, I'm sure if there was, you would have!
    • I've added two brief tidbits from this source, one just another view to the long footnote. I found a copy on Internet Archive; this source uses very brief capsule biographies and generally doesn't have much to say about the figures Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality: I've taken a random selection of books from Archive.org, JSTOR and GBooks and found nothing that wasn't used here already. The sources used are from reputable publishers, academic presses and field experts. It's a sufficiently niche topic that I'm comfortable assuming there's nothing in the scholarship that is not, but should be, utilised (there a couple of articles). Still, they are pretty niche and might be considered over-detail.
    • I don't think there's anything really worthwhile to add there. The 9 sources in the JSTOR query are Bridges 1951 (which is used as a source), five sources briefly referencing the Bridges article or using it as a source, and three brief mentions that don't contain anything of significance not already in the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source review is almost passed. Cheers! And happy hols to Hog Farm  :) ——Serial 17:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: - I've got replies and a couple queries above. I can provide short quotes from the print sources if you want to do any spot-checks. Bridges is on JSTOR, Sifakis on Internet Archive, and Prushankin on Wikipedia Library Project MUSE, and Burchett is from the local public library and needs to be returned soon. The rest I have print copies of. Hog Farm Talk 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if I was unclear: I meant I couldn't find any unused sources, not that you had to (twice!) justify the ones you do use  :) I've made a couple of tweaks, if that's OK, per the complete and utter minutiae (no point in getting bogged down in it) re. ISBNs etc. Your reasoning is sound re. Kennedy. Happy to pass the source review. Don't be late with that library book! Cheers, ——Serial 18:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • I checked the lede and infobox to ensure that all information was cited in the article, and found no concerns
  • "This deployment bought Price time to deploy" -> "This deployment gave Price time to deploy" Bought might be misinterpreted to concern money, gave might be a better descriptor.
    • Changed here and in two other spots in the article
  • "able to redeploy his forces to meet the attack; bringing on the Battle of Pea Ridge on March 7." I think the semi-colon should be a comma, because the section after the semi-colon is not a separate clause.
    • Done; I am so bad with comma usage that I admittedly just guess a lot whether a comma is correct or not.

Concerns are minor, so I am happy to support. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_Y._Slack/archive1&oldid=1194241191"