Talk:5th New York Cavalry Regiment/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 02:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. It'll probably be a few days before I can get it finished. Hog Farm (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this. TwoScars (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead - "excellent fighting reputation" - Tone is something that you need to watch with words such as "excellent". If this word isn't used in independent reliable sources, then it probably shouldn't be used.

Burns, on page 135, says "It does seem curious that in the records available to us there appears to be a conscious effort by those knowledgeable of the situation to ensure that the Fifth New York's hard-won reputation as a superior volunteer fighting command did not suffer as a result of whatever Johnstone and De Forest had Allegedly done." Footnote 8 discusses Burns' comments, although it is more geared toward the cover up of behavior problems. I changed a sentence in the footnote to say: The same author believes a "conscious effort by those knowledgeable of the situation" was made to keep some misbehavior by the regiment's leadership from tarnishing the regiment's "hard-won reputation as a superior volunteer fighting command". In the lead, I replaced "an excellent" with "a good". TwoScars (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Among generals the regiment served were George Meade (Army of the Potomac) and Philip Sheridan (Army of the Shenandoah)." - There's a word missing in this sentence somewhere. Also, I personally think it would be better to list armies rather than commanding generals - in a lot of actions, the regiment would have been at least under the brigade commander, and depending on which stage of the war, division/corps/army. For instance, at Gettysburg, the regiment would have been under Farnsworth, Kilpatrick, Pleasonton, and Meade. You'd have to pick and choose, even with army commanders (Banks!), so I'd recommend just listing the armies.

Changed to: The regiment was originally involved with the defense of Washington, and subsequently served in the Army of the Potomac and then the Army of the Shenandoah. [I liked having Meade's and Sheridan's names in there because it is more likely to get the reader's attention. People may have heard of Philip Sheridan but not the Army of the Shenandoah.] TwoScars (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NUMERALS states "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." - That's gonna need cleanup throughout the article.

The Peer Review said: should be spelled out unless in a list with other items that would normally take a numeral rather than being spelled out. Are you saying sentences like this one "During the three days from May 23 through May 25, the 5th New York Cavalry suffered 38 casualties at Front Royal, 6 at Middletown, 7 at Newtown-Crossroads, and 10 at Winchester." need to have the 6 as six and 7 as seven—aren't those in a list with other items that would normally take a numeral? Another example: "After a pursuit of 3 miles (4.8 km), Krom discovered Confederate camps." If "three" is used instead of "3", then the function that converts to km will not work—what should be done?. TwoScars (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars: In those cases, it would work. There's a list of exceptions at the MOS:NUMERALS page, and those would be acceptable. I'm more concerned with sentences like "the last of the 3 original battalion commanders to leave the regiment" - I don't see a reason why three wouldn't be spelled out here. It's a fine line, and both of the examples you gave I do not object to the numeral. Hog Farm (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that one. I'll search for others. TwoScars (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the sixth Medal of Honor recipient? I only counted five mentions in the article, although I might have missed one - Tribe, Burke, Packard, Scofield, and Walsh.

You are correct. Phisterer lists six on page 831. I will add a footnote for that. My problem is that Julius Rhodes received his for actions "After having had his horse shot under him in the fight at Thoroughfare Gap, Va., he voluntarily joined the 105th New York Volunteers...." That is why the lead sentence says "The Medal of Honor was awarded to six of the regiment's soldiers." instead of "The regiment had six Medal of Honor recipients." I will add a footnote at the End section that explains this. TwoScars (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the (new) last footnote for explanation. TwoScars (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox - You list the active start date as when it got it's name, but wouldn't it have not been an active unit until the first companies began mustering in? It wouldn't have officially been part of the US Army until the muster date I believe, just a state unit.

The NPS says "Regiment recruited at New York City as Ira Harris Cavalry. Designated Ira Harris Guard October 16, 1861, and 5th New York Cavalry November 14, 1861. Companies mustered in as follows: "A" August 15, "B" August 21, "C" September 3, "D" October 1, "E" October 7, "F" September 21, "G" October 9, "H" October 28, "I," "K," "L" and "M" October 31, 1861." Boudrye says that on October 1, the "field and staff were mustered into the service of the United States for three years...." The regiment departed NY on November 18. I'm doing more research on this. I have no problem using any of the dates. TwoScars (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You list Chantilly as one of its actions, but don't describe it in the article. As part of the retreat from Second Manassas, Chantilly should either be added to the article text or removed from the infobox.

Removed TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todd's Tavern is also only mentioned in the infobox, it should also either be added or removed.

Replaced with Spotsylvania Court House. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the rest of the review later. Hog Farm (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formation and organization - Would it be an improvement to add a see also link at the top of this section to an article about the Origins of the American Civil War or even to American Civil War? This would be helpful to users who aren't as familiar with the war.

Agree—added both to a See also. Before the Peer Review, I had this Note 5. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected spelling of Fort Sumter myself (was "Sumpter").

Thanks TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need a reference for the flag design, it's not covered by the next ref (NPS) and the external link in the note isn't sufficient.

Removed the note, quoted the museum (from text at the bottom of its page that shows the flags), and used the museum as the reference. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink battalion at the first instance, user's aren't necessarily going to know what the concept was originally.

Made Wikilink. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early action - " All horses were in great shape—the poorer quality horses had been removed" - Watch encyclopedic tone here, "great" generally isn't a word to use in an encyclopedia.

Fixed with Any poor–quality horses had been replaced, and saddles were McClellan saddles. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Saddles were McClellan saddles." - Is there a way to incorporate this into the previous statement about armanent/equipment.

Yes—see above. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The regiment was not equipped with seven-shot Spencer carbines until 1863.[16]" - Probably better to move this chronologically to where the regiment was equipped with these weapons.

Removed and put this sentence at the end of the first paragraph under Bristoe and Mine Run campaigns: Sometime in the latter half of the year the regiment became equipped with seven-shot Spencer carbines. [Unfortunately, we do not have an exact date. Burns says during 1863. No evidence of Spencers at Gettysburg. Boudrye mentions them in the Dahlgren raid.] TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"soundly" - Is this adjective necessary? Again, it's a little borderline on tone.

Replaced with The 5th New York charged with sabers drawn and drove off their enemy while inflicting 8 casualties and capturing 7. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is "done honor to their state" grammatical in the sense of the original quotation? If so, leave alone. If not, use the sic template [sic].

It is a quote, but I changed it to different quotes: This success helped to establish the good reputation of the regiment. The press said that the regiment "made a good report of themselves" and quoted a prisoner as saying the regiment "fought like devils". TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson's trap Again, see MOS:NUMERAL - Numbers between zero and nine should be spelled out.

Changed Colonel De Forest and 6 companies to Colonel De Forest and six companies. Also fixed the miles to include km: "a retreat of 84 miles (135 km)". In Back to Virginia, changed As Pope's escort, 7 companies to As Pope's escort, seven companies..... Fixed footnote about battalion commanders: 3 to three, 2 to two, left 5 as 5 since it was in a sentence with 37. TwoScars (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also fixed Casualties were low for the regiment—one killed and one captured. TwoScars (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is Belle Boyd really relevant to the topic here? The page is about the regiment, not the Valley Campaign itself. Hog Farm (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)~~ Actually, this provides some context, so keep it.[reply]

Back to Virginia How did Bohrer save De Forest? Is it possible to slightly elaborate here?

Not much information on that. Changed sentence to Colonel De Forest was harassed by a dozen Confederates, but was saved by bugler Conrad Bohrer of Company I who fell and died from a saber wound after his horse was shot. [The source does not say much: "Bugler Conrad Bohrer, August 2d, 1862, saved the life of Colonel DeForest, who was beset by a dozen Rebels. But Bohrer's horse being shot, he fell, and an enemy thrust him through the body with a sabre. The enemy, being finally beaten and driven, the body of this dauntless bugler was recovered and honored with a military burial, where he fell."]

Defense of Washington - Do you think it would be appropriate to specify that it was Percy Wyndham (soldier)'s (with a piped link to hide the disambiguator, of course) cavalry brigade?

Wikilinked Wyndham's Brigade and unlinked Percy Wyndham under Mosby section. TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do we know why De Forest was relived of command? If so, it would probably be appropriate to mention.~~ Nevermind, it's explained in the notes.

"Brigadier General Judson Kilpatrick was the new division's commander." - I changed it to " ... Kilpatrick was named the new ... ", is this acceptable to you? Revert if you don't like it.

No problems. TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hanover -"North Carolina's 2nd Cavalry" - Would 2nd North Carolina Cavalry be better here?

No problems, made change. TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always seen counterattack as one word, is it commonly spelled as two words, too?

Fixed to one word. [Not sure if this was an autocorrect. Wikipedia changed Krom to From numerous times, although it did not in this sentence.] TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gettysburg - "They chased Confederate cavalry" - Since it's referring to Farnsworth's Brigade, is "they" or "it" the better word?

Agree. Changed from "They chased Confederate cavalry and...." to "It chased enemy cavalry and...." Also replaced "Confederate" with "enemy". [During the Peer Review, someone changed every "rebel" to "Confederate". If that is the way it must be, then so be it—but "Confederate" is used over 50 times, which I think is too much.] TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bristoe and Mine Run campaigns - "a soldier from 3 Confederates" - Situations like this is what I was referring to with the MOSNUMERALS statement, sorry for the confusion. Stand-alone (not in lists or other circumstances) numerals should usually be spelled out.

Fixed 3 to three. TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article's looking really good so far and is a very interesting read. Sorry if I'm a bit nitpicky, I'm fairly familiar with this conflict. Hog Farm (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicky is good—better now than later. This is not my first military Wikipedia article. Sometimes I push back, but don't let that bother or deter you. TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlgren Raid - Is it worth mentioning the Dahlgren Papers?

Great idea. Added two sentences at the end with link to Meade's comments. TwoScars (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watch for spelling throughout the article - I've been trying to correct as I go along (Sumpter/Sumter, Mead/Meade, Stahal/Stahel), but could you please read over it again to see if I missed any?

Battle of the Wilderness - "The regiment was nearly out of ammunition and sent about 1 mile (1.6 km) to the rear." - I feel like there's a word missing here.

Changed to The exhausted 5th New York was nearly out of ammunition and sent about 1 mile (1.6 km) to the rear of the Union front line where it could recuperate and resupply. Also changed "5 hours" to "five hours". Also changed "Combined casualties total to" to "Combined casualties totaled to" TwoScars (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotsylvania - "this battle's combined casualties are the third highest in the American Civil War." Is the present tense correct here?

Changed "are" to "were".

Cold Harbor - "Casualties for the 5th New York at Ashland Station were: 2 officers wounded," I don't think the colon's necessary.

Change from "were: 2 officers wounded, 3 captured, and 13 enlisted men wounded and 17 captured." to "were 2 officers wounded and 3 captured, and 13 enlisted men wounded and 17 captured." TwoScars (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheridan - Wikilink Army of the Shenandoah here, as it hasn't been mentioned since the lead.

Wikilinked. Also changed 75 miles to 75 miles (121 km) so km would show. TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Although Major White was exchanged from Libby Prison on September 12 and promoted to lieutenant colonel on September 15, but he did not take command of the regiment until he rejoined it in Winchester on December 19" - Something's off here grammatically.

Changed "September 15, but he" to "September 15, he". TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link Fitzhugh Lee, and link Torbert, too.

Wikilinked. TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"McIntosh led one of the charges (a dismounted charge)" - This can probably be simplified to remove the parenthetical aside to "McIntosh led a dismounted charge"

Changed the 5 and 4 to five and four. Changed McIntosh sentence to "General McIntosh led a dismounted charge and was wounded—causing his left leg to be amputated below the knee."

Battle of Tom's Brook - "Torbert used Merrit's 1st Division" - Is this Wesley Merritt? If so, correct the spelling and wikilink the name. Generally, the commander's first and last name should be used when they're first mentioned.

Wiki linked General Wesley Merritt. TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cedar Creek - "Early's Confederate Army surprised Sheridan's Army" - Should army be lowercase here?

Changed Army to army for both. TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Custer's 3rd Division attached from Sheridan's right and preventing enemy cavalry from flanking the Union line." - Grammar

Changed to "Custer's 3rd Division attacked from Sheridan's right and prevented enemy cavalry from flanking the Union line." TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes - Read through these for copy edit, there's at least an error in note 6 - who's is "who is", I think "whose" would be better

Looks like you fix that. TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the text, only refs and images remain.

Not sure if the "Rantings of Civil War Historian" is an RS.

I have been told that it is OK to use a blog if the author has also written books on the topic. Eric J. Wittenberg has written about 20 books on the Civil War, including two that are used as sources in this article. If necessary, I can redo the note that uses him as a source with information from Burns—but that will have less information, nothing about what special order 131 said, and nothing about vindictive motives. Your thoughts? TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After further digging, this one looks fine. Wittenberg is a subject-matter expert, what through me off was that the post was by "The General", but The General is Wittenberg upon further digging, so it's fine.

Ref 146 "Cedar Creek - The Federal Counterattack" has "National Battlefield Trust" as the publisher, it should be "American Battlefield Trust".

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get John Hammond's rank in the caption of his picture?

@Hog Farm: Hammond was a captain in that section that has his picture, but eventually was a colonel and is probably wearing his colonel's uniform in the picture—Colonel John Hammond or Captain John Hammond for the caption?

Same with Abram Krom.

Same issue as Hammond's photo—Captain Krom or Major Krom?TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TwoScars, my instinct would be to use the highest rank held by the officer during the war. So Colonel Hammond and Major Krom, if you're okay with that. Hog Farm (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars: That's all my comments. If you have any disagreements or questions, ping me here. Hog Farm (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars: - Okay, so it looks like all that's unresolved is the date of service beginnning. Since there are several dates that could be considered acceptable for that date, I'll go ahead and pass it is a GA now. If you can find something more definitive, please update accordingly. Hog Farm (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - Thank you for reviewing this article. I know my Civil War articles can be very long and difficult. It takes a certain type of temperament to tolerate my Civil War work, and I am glad you have it. Your patience and perseverance are much appreciated. TwoScars (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]