Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Front Royal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBattle of Front Royal has been listed as one of the Warfare 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2022Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 23, 2023.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TwoScars (talk · contribs) 15:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I will start reviewing this article later today. Do not hesitate to "push back" at my comments if you think appropriate—I certainly do when I'm being reviewed. So far, Word is OK with the grammar and spelling. There are no duplicate Wikilinks. TwoScars (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First look

[edit]
  •  Done - Hal's maps are the best in Wikipedia. However, how do we know they are accurate? Do they compare well with maps in some good sources? Perhaps something could be added to the map file's description that says it is similar to a map found on page X of the book "XX" by Mr. X. This would add confidence that those maps are accurate. (Probably not mandatory for GA, but good to have.)
    • Found a good comparison for the one in the aftermath in Cozzens, but none of Cozzens, Robertson, or Ecelbarger have something comparable for the theater-wide one
      • McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" (the paperback edition I have) has a map on page 459, called "Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign May-June 1862" that is somewhat similar to the theater-wide Hal map titled "Jackson's Valley Campaign" in the Background section. Nothing is needed for Parham's map.
        • I've added a note pointing to the McPherson map (it's on p. 459 of my copy of Battle Cry of Freedom as well, we may have the same edition). I also checked the relevant volumes of Foote and Lee's Lieutenants but neither of those showed Union movements.
  •  Done All images need an "alt="
    • Attempted to add, although it's a bit clunky for the maps
  •  Done Lately, people have been telling me that the images should use "upright=" instead of "px".
    • Yes, I was too lazy to check that
  •  Done I always thought that the big point in the aftermath of the battle was that Banks finally realized that Jackson was about to cut him off from Winchester and his supply lines—and the two forces raced to Winchester.
    • I've tried to clarify that the point was that Banks fell back to keep Jackson from cutting him off, but I don't know how much of a race it was - Jackson delayed to verify what Banks was doing, Maryland Steuart botched the chance to shatter the pursuing column, and the rearguard fight at Newton holding off the Confederates
  •  Done - Not Essential - On Hal's map, what do the dashed lines mean? One appears to go west of the pike. (That was a portion of the 5th NY Cavalry with wagons and supplies.) Not sure if that should be described.
    • With the exception of the movement from Martinsburg into Harper's Ferry, the dashed lines appear to represent retreats, but I can't confirm that. I don't know that the exact peripheral movements of the 5th NY Cav. particularly need to be described in detail
  •  Done Although Kenly was surprised, some of the surprise was Banks's fault. Kenly had no cavalry to help with the pickets. He requested cavalry, and Banks finally sent some late.
    • Noted now from Ecelbarger

More in a bit. TwoScars (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done - Not Essential - Wasn't this the only time in the war where regiments from the same state (Maryland), and with the same regimental designation (1st), faced each other in battle?
    • Maybe? It was in the article before I rewrote it, but none of the sources I used mention it unless it's buried in a footnote somewhere and I just missed it. And it may be a bit debatable as well - I think the 1st Maryland Eastern Shore Regiment fought the Confederate 1st Maryland Battalion at Gettysburg (although the Confederate unit was later re-designated the 2nd Regiment). The only potential RS I've turned up claiming this is a late 1860s work on Maryland units that only claims it obliquely and probably isn't a suitable source for an extraordinary claim. Hog Farm Talk 01:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The National Park Service discussion (Battle of Front Royal - May 23, 1862) of the battle says "This would be the only time...." However, I have found mistakes and omissions in their web pages in the past. TwoScars (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Not sure if necessary, but didn't someone get the Medal of Honor in this battle?
    • Added (although it was also partially for the fighting on the Weldon Railroad)
  •  Done For the InfoBox Casualties and losses, pick one number. In the Aftermath section, list your choice as the answer. Then, you can mention alternative numbers and sources. Too bad we can't easily get access to Ecelbarger's book, since it might support one of the two numbers. I usually pick the number supported by the most historians, unless a new source has done extensive research such as totaling individual casualties listed in various local newspapers.
    • I've removed the casualties from the infobox as there's just no consensus for CSA losses - Cozzens is on the low end with 36 and Tanner has over 100 on the high end, with there being no real consensus among the figures. The 900 Union figure is at least agreed to by Ecelbarger, Tanner, and the NPS, but Cozzens is recent, gives a different figure, and is a stronger source than NPS or Tanner.
      •  Done I'll leave it up to you on the casualties. I think they are important because they show how complete the Confederate victory was. If it were me, I would use the Cozzens figures in the InfoBox. Your Aftermath lists the alternatives, so someone cannot say you omitted differing numbers. TwoScars (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added Cozzens's numbers to the infobox

Lede/Lead

[edit]
  •  Done Perhaps the sentence "Confederate forces commanded by Major General Stonewall Jackson were trying to tie down Union forces in the Shenandoah Valley to prevent them from joining the Peninsula campaign." could be reworded. The "tie down" part is awkward, and might not translate well. Maybe "Confederate forces commanded by Major General Stonewall Jackson were trying to keep Union forces engaged in the Shenandoah Valley to prevent them from joining Union troops in the Peninsula campaign." or something similar.
    • Done
  •  Done In the second paragraph: "Kenly's men made a stand on Richardson's Hill and used artillery fire to hold off the Confederates, before his line of escape over the South Fork and North Fork of the Shenandoah River was threatened." The start of the sentence uses "Kenly's men", while the second part uses "his"—those don't agree grammar wise (although MS-Word was OK with it). Maybe use "their" instead of "his", or reword the whole thing.
    • Went with "their"
  •  Done The sentence "Many of the Union soldiers were captured." really ends the discussion of the Battle of Front Royal. The next sentence needs to make sure the reader knows we have moved on to another battle that was related. Perhaps, "Many of the Union soldiers were captured, but Banks was able to retreat to his supply line in Winchester before being cut off. Two days later, Jackson defeated Banks in the First Battle of Winchester, and caused Banks to retreat to the relative safety of Maryland. Jackson won two more victories in June, and his actions in the Shenandoah Valley prevented 60,000 Union troops from joining other Union forces in the Peninsula campaign."
    • Have done something similar

More tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
  •  Done "tie down" issue again, and we don't want exact–same wording in two different sections.
    • Change wording
  •  Done Under Jackson's approach: "At the time of the Confederate approach, Banks had about 6,500 men in Strasburg, about 1,000 or 1,500 in Front Royal, and 1,000 in Winchester." Need to use one number for Front Royal. The 1,500 does not agree with the InfoBox. If necessary, add a footnote about the second source saying 1,500. TwoScars (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the 1500 figure entirely, as there's much better support for the 1000 figure

Battle

[edit]
  •  Done - Turner Ashby's rank
    • @TwoScars: - This is an interesting one. Essentially, Ashby was appointed as a brigadier general on May 23, the day of the Front Royal battle. Because he was killed at Harrisonburg not long afterwards, he was never confirmed so there's some minor dispute over his appointment (Warner's General in Grey, which takes a narrower definition, counts him as a general). Per Cozzens p. 425, Ashby didn't learn of the promotion until June. It's a bit of a weird case of to use BG or Colonel since he was promoted simultaneously with the fighting but the promotion wasn't known until later. Hog Farm Talk 23:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe a footnote that explains the situation would be good. TwoScars (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • In Ashby's after-action report dated March 26, 1862, (NOT May 23) he calls himself "Colonel". This is on page 385 of the OR, XII Part I. This, the NPS web page, and Cozzens lead me to believe colonel is best because that is probably what he was called at the time—so I would use that as his rank. The reports from June call him a general. (To find this report, use Google Books and search for "In reporting the part performed by troops under my". This will take you to the first line of his report.) Then add the footnote that explains his promotion. The footnote will prevent (hopefully) someone from changing his rank in the article. TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done All the times everywhere need a {{nbsp}} in the space before pm (or am) so they don't get separated. For example: 4:30 pm should be coded as 4:30{{nbsp}}pm.
    • Didn't see any am's, but have done it for the 5 pm's I found.
  •  Done Roberdeau Wheat's rank
    • added
  •  Done Where is Richardson's Hill? North near the main road to Winchester?
    • Clarified from Ecelbarger
  •  Done Stapleton Crutchfield's rank
    • Added
  •  Done Crutchfield was eventually able to turn up three cannons with long enough ranges.... "turn up" could be replaced—find? secure? locate?
    • Went with "locate"
  •  Done - As info, the 5th NY Cavalry detachment was only two companies, or about 100 men. From Ch 2 of Ecelbarger's e-book that I don't have anymore.
  •  Done 1st Maryland, 6th Louisiana, 2nd Virginia Cavalry, 6th Virginia Cavalry, 8th Louisiana = only 3,000 men? (Not much you can do here if sources don't have higher number.)
    • Ecelbarger doesn't give a full strength figure, but with Flournoy only taking 250 men into the final charge, and Ecelbarger placing the 1st Maryland and Wheat's battalion combined at 450 men, 3,000 doesn't seem unreasonable. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]
  •  Done Use numbers that agree with the InfoBox first, then mention numbers from other sources. Then Bank's race to Winchester, before he was cut off from his supply base (Winchester) by Jackson.
    • I've add a little bit to clarify the hasty nature of Banks's retreat and that he was trying to not be cut off from Winchester. See a comment above about the casualties/infobox

Other

[edit]
  •  Done - Although Warren County is mentioned in the lede, it is never mentioned in the main part of the article.

Hope to finish tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars: I think I might be able to pick up Ecelberger and then Tanner's Stonewall in the Valley from a university library in a day or two. Hog Farm Talk 22:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait a few days. Not really a lot to clean up, with or without the two additional sources, for GA. TwoScars (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I was busy with work and was just this afternoon able to get to the library for Tanner and Ecelbarger. Tanner should be easy to go through, but Ecelbarger is detailed enough that I'll need to skim that work first. Hog Farm Talk 23:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, no need to hurry. Perhaps you can confirm my theory that the battle was part of a bigger plan for Jackson that was to put Confederate troops in front and behind Banks, preventing him from escaping north. TwoScars (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the first skim of Ecelbarger, will need to do another reading of more of it for the post-battle reactions of Jackson and Banks, but that'll probably be Friday because I'm hoping to attend a combine demolition derby tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 01:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check back Friday afternoon or Saturday. TwoScars (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you think it is ready. TwoScars (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be ready. FWIW, I was a bit underwhelmed with Tanner. While not as borderline mythological at G. F. R. Henderson's bio of Jackson, and not semi-fictional like John Esten Cooke's, IMO it's on a noticeably lower tier than Cozzens or Ecelbarger or Robertson's bio. Hog Farm Talk 00:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last look

[edit]

All done

[edit]

Well written, verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated. I agree with the description of the event. TwoScars (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Front_Royal&oldid=1205380348"