Talk:Wilson's Creek National Battlefield

Wilson's Creek National Battlefield has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 26, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Missouri High‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Memorials / North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military memorials and cemeteries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Confederate Failure

There's something of a disconnect between this article and the Battle of Wilson's Creek. The battle page declares a Missouri/Confederate victory, while this page declares it a "Confederate failure". Well, which is it? I think the reality is close to the disconnect, in that the battle was a tactical Confederate victory that the Confederates failed to capitalize into a greater strategic success. Something like the linked article says: "Although a Southern victory, the Southerners failed to capitalize on their success." --Steelviper 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to comment on this very thing. The Battle itself was indeed won by the Confederate army. They just failed to properly hold the region because they evacuated the city after they captured it. I vote we change the wording to make this clear. Theroguex (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO

Apparently almost the entire section about the battlefield today was copied almost word-for-word from the various sources. I've tried to rewrite to eliminate the COPYVIO, but if I missed something, please either fix the issue yourself or ping me. Thanks. Hog Farm (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 16:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"resulted in Missouri remaining in the Union." Optional: for none Americans, who, if they have heard of it all, may relate "Missouri" to the river, perhaps 'resulted in the state of Missouri remaining in the Union'?
- Done
Link "automobile" - I had to really think about that!
- Done
"It has been a unit of the National Park Service since 1960" Maybe "unit" to 'pat'?
- Actually, unit is the term used to refer to parks within the NPS system. See [1] (PDF) for an example.
"The official area of the park was expanded by 615 acres" From what, and to what?
- The source actually doesn't indicate that, and trying to extrapolate out would be very WP:OR. I'm having difficulty finding RS that give this information. Part of me is starting to get the impression that the government might not always keep track of exactly what they had at all times. The ending amount wouldn't be the 1,750, as 60 acres were added in 2018 (added to the article with a source) and a number of very small tracts have been added off and on as people holding battlefield land wanted to sell. (Not added, as relatively minor and WP:UNDUE to list them all.
"There shouldn't be information in the infobox not repeated in the main article.
- I think I've either added into the main article or removed from the infobox everything now. I didn't give the infobox and lead enough attention, when I looked at this, so nonsense like a parameter stating that the site was built in 1861 remained.

Hee hee! I naughtily didn't mention that to see if you would pick it up! (I'm in lockdown, I have to make my own entertainment.)

"Likewise the lead, eg "The Confederates' failure to exploit their victory here resulted in" which I don't see in the article.
- I've changed the wording to be more accurate and added some context to the battle section. Does this help.
"with the approval of Public Law 108-394" Laws don't usually approve things; do you mean 'under'. or 'in accordance wit'?
- Fixed. Thanks for catching that.
"highlighting historically important facets of the battlefield" Should "battlefield" be 'battle'? (Open question, I don't know what the source says.)
- I believe battlefield is the better word here, as the park also interpret's elements of the land's history outside of the immediate context of the battle.
The final sentence is missing a 'which'. Actually, it needs more than that. Could you relook at it?
- I've added the which and changed around the entire second half of the sentence. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that.
The section about the battle could do with a little work. Two things which jump out are an important point about the Confederates being mentioned in brackets in the middle of a sentence about the Union commander's plans; and the way it goes directly from discussing these plans to "After Sigel's force was driven from the field". What ? How did that happen? Has the battle started?
- I've expanded the battle section by two paragraphs and given some background information. Does this help?
"File:Battle of Wilsons Creek.png" needs a US PD tag.
Done
Why are there two separate USA location maps in the infobox?
- The full country map is to provide context on where this took place relative to the entire country, and the Missouri map is for greater preciseness. I can change the way this is set up if desired (Replace the top image with the painting of the battle present and then replace where the painting of the battle already is with another public domain image such as File:Wilsons-cropped-better.jpg being one idea)

Below the header image in the infobox is a push pin location map of the USA. Towards the bottom is a pair of toggle maps, the second "Show map of the United States" seems, to me, to essentially duplicate the other USA map.

Okay, I see what you're referring to now. Only the Missouri map displays now.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:. I believe I've addressed everything so far. Unfortunately, I probably have to admit that the reviewed version of the article wasn't my top work. Hog Farm (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good tidying up though. I think that is everything bar the maps query. I'll have another browse in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Promoting.

I have my own checklist - User:Gog the Mild/Misc#GAN checklist - which I run all GANs through immediately pre-nomination. It's not foolproof and this one is obviously customised for me, but you may find something similar useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed