Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

I raised concerns on the talk page on February 22 about the quality of one heavily-used source and about source-text integrity; these have not been addressed or responded to. Hog Farm _talk 02:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Official Record (p.806) uses the term "Engagement" instead of "Battle", same with Dyer (p.958). Can it still be called a battle?

• NPS calls it a battle in this article.

• It needs to be explained that Marion is near the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad, between some important salt mines and lead mines. The salt mine, located on a spur of the V&T RR in Saltville, provided an estimated two thirds of the salt used by the Confederacy. The lead mines, located south of Wytheville not far from the railroad, provided lead used by the Confederacy to produce bullets. (This is mentioned somewhat in the Aftermath section. Professor Robert C. Whisonant has written some articles and books about geology and southwestern Virginia.)
• The "Troops" section needs to be redone and labeled "Opposing Forces".

I changed the section header to "Opposing forces". Changed images, moved to right, resized. Text still needs work. TwoScars (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Battlefield Protection map tells me nothing. It should be removed. The LOC map of the V&T RR, cropped to show only the eastern section of Washington County plus Smyth County + Wythe County, would explain things somewhat.TwoScars (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped Protection map. Inserted V&T RR map next to "Advance" section. It might be to big, but it always helps me to see a map of what is going on while reading the text. Moved "Stoneman's advance" map to the Background section. TwoScars (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephen Z. Starr's cavalry book Volume II barely mentions Stoneman. Stoneman's December 1864 raid gets one paragraph on page 775 in Eicher's "The Longest Night", and Marion is not specified.TwoScars (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source other than Starr I have a copy of that I thought might include something (Welcher's two-volume "The Union Army: Organization and Operations"). The raid by Stoneman that gets a page and a half in volume I is his 1865 raid, and the Saltville activities that get several pages in Volume II are related to Burbridge's incursion earlier in 1864. Hog Farm _talk 04:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Z. Starr's cavalry book Volume III devotes page 559 to the "battle". If one wants to use ancient sources: Ann S. Stephens has a book called Pictorial History of the War for the Union.... that devotes about six pages to Stoneman's Raid into Western Virginia (Dec 12-20, 1864). She calls it "Fight at Staley's Creek" instead of the Battle of Marion. The 2001 Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide a couple pages on the battle. TwoScars (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer to have no citations in the Intro and InfoBox, with any facts in those two covered in the main text.
• There does not appear to be any mention of the Union soldiers being armed with Spencer repeating rifles.
• Was Marion really and objective? I would think that the railroad and Saltville were the important things.TwoScars (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It has been difficult to find good sources for this battle. Perhaps a biography of Stoneman or Breckinridge? TwoScars (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you head over to the talk page I just posted an extract to a biography of Stoneman that could be cited;

  it provides information - mentioning that the union forces were armed with spencer repeating carbines and this was an important factor in the outcome of the battle

  it also discusses salt and the effect of the outcome of the battle on Lee's access to preserved meat

  --

  The article says;

  > As Union forces advanced south, the infrastructure near the town of Marion—located in Southwest Virginia on the Middle Fork of the Holston River,

  Perhaps it could be made clearer that the infrastructure that prompted the battle was fought over was the salt works and the railway. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TwoScars LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not impressed with the OR citations. In the OR corrections version, Stoneman's reports start on page 806. If somebody does not fix this, I will eventually get to it. The citation and reference should use the officer making a report as the author, with editors on the front page (Ainsworth, Kirkley, etc.) listed as editors. A direct link to the beginning of the officer's reports should be made. Burbridge, Breckinridge, and others gave reports. If their reports are used in the citations, let's use them in the citations and references instead of simply Official Records. If someone needs an example of what I am talking about, check out Action at Nineveh.
• Under Union Forces and Confederate Forces, we should have a list of who was fighting and their leaders, how they were equipped (if known), and their experience. Some of the text (such as "On the night of December 18, Breckinridge and his troops moved out of Saltville, Virginia, in an effort to stem Stoneman's advance." for example) belongs elsewhere. TwoScars (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I am having a bad day. The Official Records titled "December 10-29, 1864.—Expedition from East Tennessee into Southwestern Virginia" Summary of the Principal Events starts on page 806. The reports of Stoneman are on pages 807-815. Burbridge's reports are on pages 815-818. Breckinridge has a report on pages 824-827. What am I missing? Why do the current citations say "p.437", "p.442", and "p.439"? Page 439 is part of a report by BG John McArthur for a battle in front of Nashville, Tennessee. Are we not talking about Vol. XLV (Pt. I) like it says in the References section? TwoScars (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not surprised that the page numbers are off. Like I noted on the article's talk page, I found that most of what is cited to McKnight is not actually found in McKnight on those pages. Hog Farm _talk 03:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't trust any of the citations. This is not an easy fix. I will need to read up on this fight and redo the whole thing unless someone else is more interested. The changes would probably be a) fix the Opposing forces, with portions of the current text moved to Background. This will take time because there is no order of battle, or casualty summary, in the OR.; b) check the First day and Second day section's text -- might be OK.; c) Redo all citations: sources will probably be the OR and some of the more recent books that only have a page or two about the fight including a Breckinridge biography. Could also use a cite or two from one of the very old regimental histories, but they cannot totally be depended upon because of exaggerations and faulty remembering. Could also check newspapers. Will also compare Ann Stephens' 1867 book with the recent books. TwoScars (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the article in one of my sandboxes. Have a long way to go. TwoScars (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]