Talk:5th Massachusetts Militia Regiment

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:5th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Will read through and review properly over the weekend. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• The section headings are a little hard to follow at the moment. "90 day term of service", for example, doesn't tell the average reader very much - could you perhaps add in the dates so that they'd communicate when the events happened?
• Should "90 day term" (and similar) be "90-day term"?
• "In the years immediately preceding the war and during its first enlistment" - reads oddly at this point in the lead. Could be "and during its first term of service"?
• "The unit barracked in Faneuil Hall and departed for Virginia on April 21, 1861." - you haven't said what date the unit was actually called up yet.
• "The regiment was not, however, one of those immediately sent to the front. Four days later, when rioters in Baltimore attacked the 6th Massachusetts, the 5th Massachusetts was summoned to Boston." - this probably needs a few extra words to explain the link between riots in Baltimore and being sent to Boston.
• "at the double-quick in full gear." - might need clarifying for non-military readers
• "Col. Lawrence" - you don't need the abbreviations for these ranks (similarly elsewhere)
• "The attack failed, however the fact that Confederate troops advanced to the outskirts of Washington D.C. caused widespread panic and prompted Lincoln to issue a call for 500,000 troops to serve a brief term of 100 days to bolster defenses around the capital." - a long sentence. Would advise breaking after "panic".

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

There are some bits where the cited pages don't seem to quite match up with the article text (NB: I'm not saying the article is wrong, just that the cites aren't matching up), e.g.

• "In the fall of 1862, New Bern suffered from an outbreak of yellow fever which severely affected the soldiers encamped around the city" - Roe, p.161, doesn't seem to say anything about it severely affecting the soldiers, just that it kills the colonel and his wife.
• "Assigned to the First Brigade (Franklin’s), Third Division (Heintzelman’s) of the Army of Northeastern Virginia, the 5th Massachusetts was among those units sent to probe the Confederate right flank on July 18 resulting in the Battle of Blackburn's Ford. When this maneuver failed, McDowell opted to send a large portion of his forces on a wide flanking maneuver across Sudley Springs Ford, hoping to get around the Confederate left flank. On July 21, precisely three months after they departed Boston, the 5th Massachusetts crossed Sudley Springs Ford and participated in the heaviest of the day’s combat on Henry House Hill" Roe, p.69 - only covers a bit of this, and I can't find Roe stating that they participated in the heaviest of the day's fighting.
• "The regimental historian noted that, due to the emergency nature of the call, a large number of young men under the minimum recruiting age of 18 falsely reported their age and signed up for service", Roe p.272. I can't see where the emergency nature of the call is linked to the age bit in the original text. Roe also doesn't seem to say that a large number falsely reported their age; he says that * "many were below the draft age", and that some "may have given their ages as 18" - but that isn't quite what the article is then saying.
• "During the presidential election in October 1864, detachments of the 5th Massachusetts guarded the election polls in various location in and around Baltimore. The strong presence of federal troops at the polls caused frustration among the local population.", Roe. p.308. Roe only talks about one location there, where voters had to walk past two lines of soldiers, whereas the article implies frustration amongst the wider population. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Checked. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Colonel George H. Peirson commanded the 5th Massachusetts during its second and third terms of service" - needs a full-stop at the end, as it is a complete sentence.

Response, Thanks very much, Hchc2009, for your review and comments. I've made changes in the places you suggested above. I appreciate your thoroughness in checking citations and pointing out inconsistencies. With regard to the section headers, I've changed as you suggested--clearer that way, I agree. I won't detail each of the changes I made with regard to statements that aren't precisely supported by the citation (every now and then a bit of information creeps in from something I've read elsewhere but can't recall the source). You'll see in the edit history that I've removed the problematic phrases, such as the yellow fever outbreak having a "severe" effect on the unit (it's evident there were casualties but "severe" is not supported, you're right), being in the "heaviest" of the fighting at Henry House Hill (although I think it was, but you're right, the source doesn't exactly say that), etc., etc. I hope these changes address your concerns. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Update, I've made corrections per your recent comments. I believe I've covered all of them, but let me know if I missed something. Many thanks! Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)