Talk:Battle of St. Michaels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Date Discrepency[edit]

I found the following from the Harper's Encyclopedia of the United States History 458 A.D. to 1906[1]

Between midnight and dawn on Aug. 11 the invaders proceeded to the attack in eleven barges, each armed with a 6-pounder fieldpiece.

This wiki article states the date of the battle as August 10. Is Harper's wrong? Craigelliott 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 10, 1813 is the correct date. Harper's is wrong on the year, and wrong by calling Brigadier General Perry Benson "Derry Benson". TwoScars (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two battles?[edit]

I just found http://www.visit1812.com/history/ which lists two battles in St. Michaels -- one in 1813 and one in 1814 -- both on the same day, August 10? Is this a coincidence or an error? --Craigelliott 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michaels was defended again on August 26, 1813—this time from the other side of town. TwoScars (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How they "fooled the British"[edit]

As I grew up in nearby Wittman, Maryland, I was always told that the lanterns in the trees fooled foot patrols by making them think the town was more heavily guarded than it actually was. --Joe Sewell (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That clever myth is covered in the new November 2021 version of the article. TwoScars (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of St. Michaels/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 10:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Starting review and criteria[edit]

  1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
  2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
  3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
  4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
  5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
  6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – N/A.
  7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – N/A.
  8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
  9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
  10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
  11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  12. No original research.
  13. No copyright violations or plagiarism. - current copyvio: 13.8%.
  14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
  15. Neutral.
  16. Stable.
  17. Illustrated, if possible.
  18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Hi, I will be taking this review. Will start commenting shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts, TwoScars: nice! A few comments though.

  • References look good on first glance. Don't have current access to Morriss and Sheads; will try to check them at a library soon.
I was not happy that Sheads used Osprey Publishing, but he has a reasonable background according to the American Battlefield Trust here. TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include an alt for infobox picture.
Added an alt that recites the words on the sign.
  • First paragraph of lead is slightly awkward.
  • 'small battle' seems unsure. Perhaps engagement?
  • Sentence structure is a bit cumbersome. I think it's the repetition of 'fought' and 'town'? I prefer something like The Battle of St. Michaels was an engagement contested on August 10, 1813, during the War of 1812. British soldiers attacked the American militia at St. Michaels, Maryland, which is located on Maryland's Eastern Shore with access to Chesapeake Bay. At the time, this small town was on the main shipping route to important cities such as Baltimore and Washington, D.C. What do you think?
That is fine, replaced original intro that that. TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A town legend says that..." maybe "according to local legend"?
Changed sentence to say: According to local legend, the citizens of St. Michaels hung lanterns in trees to fool the British artillerists, causing them to overshoot most of the town's buildings. TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who were more conservative and wealthier than the average citizen" cite a source more recent than early 20th century. Also slightly awkward, rephrase.
Changed to "Many members of the Federalist political party, a coalition of bankers and businessmen, were against the war." Two citations: Ohio History Central discusses bankers and businessmen, and the National Park Service discusses that the Federalists were against the war. Also Wikilinked "against the war" to Opposition to the War of 1812 in the United States. TwoScars (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning in spring, Cockburn began" - beginning is superfluous
Changed to "Beginning in spring, Cockburn conducted raids on towns along the Chesapeake."
  • "capture her and parade her" -> "capture and parade her"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Royal marines were sent to the Chesapeake Bay—and Norfolk, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. were immediate targets." Slightly too cliffhangery. Rephrase.
Changed to "Royal marines were sent to the Chesapeake Bay because of its naval stores, ships, dockyards, and foundries. Norfolk, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. were among the immediate targets." TwoScars (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The forces on the ground" as opposed to the forces in the air? ;) Make meaning clearer.
Actually, as opposed to forces on the water. Changed to "The forces that came ashore were under the command of Lieutenant James Polkinghorne of the Royal Navy." TwoScars (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link barges.
Wikilinked "barges" in the fourth line to "Row galley". The Wikipedia definition of a barge is not appropriate in this instance. TwoScars (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "Disposition of forces and movement to battle" as a section heading, perhaps "Prelude" instead? More concise, yet encompasses more.
Made change. As info, some reviewers prefer longer titles (I'm neutral) TwoScars (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Watching the British" is also somewhat imprecise, considering most of the subsection is devoted to artillery positioning.
Changed to "Preparing for the British" TwoScars (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the inhabitants fled when they learned the British were coming. The British landed about 3,000 men on the island." Repetition of 'the British' is awkward. Rephrase.
Changed to "The British landed about 3,000 men on the island, but faced no resistance because most of the inhabitants fled when they learned of the invasion." TwoScars (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "other sources have said from nine to 18." Choose words or numerals in a phrase. I suggest words, and perhaps for the previous '11' as well.
Changed to words, including eleven. As info, some reviewers insist that ten and under get spelled, while 11 and higher are numerals. TwoScars (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Choose one spelling of vidette and vedette.
Eliminated "vedette" TwoScars (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A separate section for "fighting ends" unneccessary. Delete section header, keep casualties subsection.
Deleted section header and moved image up one paragraph. TwoScars (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section generally good.
  • "hit the roofs of some houses or hit higher gables" -> "hit the roofs or higher gables of some houses".
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preservation section could use some trimming, seems a bit promotional. Perhaps:

The St. Michaels Historic District has over 300 structures.[54] William Merchant's home, now known as the Cannonball House, in addition to being part of the historic district, has been part of the National Register of Historic Places since 1983.[53][54] The battle, also commemorated by the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail, is discussed by two local museums: the St. Michaels Museum at St. Mary's Square, and the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum.[55][56]

Made change. TwoScars (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images, although nice captures of yours, aren't all necessary. Would suggest removing the sign one (adds little to understanding) and moving the Parrots Point view into the Aftermath section.
The sign image was removed. Lost track of what image was where. The Parrots Point image is in the battle section, and the Two Cannons image is in the aftermath. TwoScars (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for a first run-through. Will run through again after you respond. Looking good so far. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I think I am caught up. TwoScars (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TwoScars, thanks for the quick response and your notes. Further points:

  • 3rd paragraph, lead section. 'retreated to their post' - post not really the word. Maybe base?
Changed to base. TwoScars (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marines" can be uncapitalised, but I believe that the phrase "Royal Marines" usually has both words capitalised.
Made change. All "Royal Marines" have "Marines" capitalized, and all plain "marines" are not capitalized. TwoScars (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to get from the ship to the ground" -> "to reach the shore"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, I prefer the number guidelines at MOS:NUMERAL - on the previous issue, the most relevant guideline was the fifth note (beginning "Comparable values") at MOS:NUMNOTES. Similar needed for note 12: "two officers and 26 marines".
Spelled out numbers in all places in the Casualties section, including the Note. TwoScars (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the images has Parrot's Point/Parrot Point spelt Parrots Point.
Parrott's Point is what it was called in 1813, and Parrott Point is what it is called now (such as by Google Maps). Fixed the text for "View from Parrott Point..." image. TwoScars (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page number needed for Star-Spangled Trail PDF.
Added page number (I did not know the cite web template allowed for a page number). TwoScars (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have spot-checked several of the references I can access - all are completely fine. Thus I will WP:GF and trust that the Morriss and Sheads sourcing is accurate.

Just these few final things and I think it's ready to go up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC) @AirshipJungleman29: I think I have fixed everything. TwoScars (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars:, seems good to me. Well done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_St._Michaels&oldid=1199645775"