Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Moorefield/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this now.

  • Thanks for reviewing this. I work full time, so I will be slow to respond to some things. Hopefully I can get some of the responses in this weekend. Averell is an interesting character. He was relieved of command twice—once by General Hooker and once by General Sheridan. Yet Averell was one of the few who had successes in West Virginia-Virginia before Sheridan took over. TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If we can get everything done within a week, that would be excellent. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "who had successes when operating on his own, but did not work well under direct supervision." There are a few problems here. Firstly, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Typically, this includes any controversial material, especially when something negative is being said about someone. This is obviously the case here. If this text is to stay in the article, it needs a source. Personally, I question its relevance. It doesn't seem to fit in well with the text around it. But I'll leave it up to you whether to keep it or not. Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is what Scott Pachan, author of several books on the Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley, says on page 119 of the book Shenandoah Summer: "Hunter's opinion notwithstanding, Averell displayed sound military skills throughout the war, and he possessed the ability to develop innovative operations. However, his inability to subordinate his own ego and ideas to his superiors had led to difficulties and sometimes affected his performance in the field. His most notable successes, Kelly's Ford and Droop Mountain, came while serving as an independent or quasi-independent commander, while his failures arose when his superiors expected him to cooperate within the framework of a larger command structure." Page 119 is footnoted in the similar statement in the Aftermath section. My point in the lead section is that Averell was "in his element". Despite being relieved of command once in the Army of Potomac, and later relieved of command by Sheridan, Moorefield was a situation where Averell was likely to have success. That being said, I will try to rewrite that last sentence so that it does not appear negative and recognizes Averell's strengths. Averell deserves plenty of credit for this major (and rare at that time) cavalry victory in the east.TwoScars (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could definitely be rewritten. And please make sure to include the source. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed last sentence to read "This Union triumph was the third of three major victories (Battle of Droop Mountain, Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Battle of Moorefield) for Brigadier General William W. Averell, who performed best when operating on his own." The sentence has a note that explains more about Averell and has two references. (I thought lead sections do not need references unless someone is quoted.)TwoScars (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very important point. The Confederate commanders were responsible for making sure their campsites were secure and defendable—they failed. Local militia leader Hanse McNeill recognized this problem, and moved his troops away. The inadequate precautions made it easier for Averell to attack and more difficult for the Confederates to defend. If you think I need to expand upon this point in the lead, I will. I thought that was something better discussed in the main section.TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed sentence to "Those campsites were better suited for grazing their tired horses than they were for providing for the security of the troops—McCausland assumed that Averell's pursuing force was still...." TwoScars (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also expanded upon Hanse McNeil's concern about the campsites in the McCausland moves south section. TwoScars (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of information in the lead about the prelude to the battle but almost nothing on the battle itself. It would be a good idea to shorten some of the background information and expand on the section concerning the battle itself. It's also acceptable to have as many as 4 paragraphs in the lead. So another one, maybe discussing the aftermath in greater detail, would also be acceptable. Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will add a few sentences to the third paragraph.TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded paragraph 3 that describes the battle.TwoScars (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Added three sentences. TwoScars (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. (It was General David Hunter). TwoScars (talk)

Averell attacks

  • As a general note, when mentioning anyone in a Wikipedia article for the first time, be sure to state their first name. There are several people in this article who are introduced only by their rank and surname. Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a list of all 27 people in the article and where they first appear. I cannot find any instances where someone is introduced only by their rank and surname. Who are these "several people"? TwoScars (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were a couple cases where I thought it happened, but taking a closer look it appears I was wrong. Maybe it's that I'm not too used to looking for people's names without the blue hyperlink that caused me to miss it. Obviously, a lot of these people don't have and some might not need there own articles, so that's fine. Sorry about that. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. "He performed relatively well at Moorefield...." TwoScars (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the river

Fixed. Added river name and wiki-linked. TwoScars (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Removed "at the time" from the Confederate captain (it is not normal for a captain to command the entire regiment), and changed the sentence describing the Lincoln Cavalry to say "The Lincoln Cavalry detachment, commanded by Captain Abram Jones...." Jones was not the commander of the entire regiment, but he was commander of the detachment.TwoScars (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "his battle was the last of a group of seven battles in the campaign called Early's Raid and Operations Against the B&O Railroad"-The italics are not needed and should go. There also shouldn't be a need to state the full title here. Just say "in Early's campaigns against the B&O Railroad." Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily make that change, but it does not make sense. According to the Civil War Trust, a campaign is "A series of military operations that form a distinct phase of the War". The footnote links to a web page by the National Park Service that defines this battle as part of a certain campaign, which is named Early's Raid and Operations Against the B&O Railroad. Your change equates a campaign with a battle or skirmish—and that is wrong. Do you still think I should make your change? TwoScars (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to equate a campaign with a battle of skirmish. I have enough common sense and have read enough military history to know that they're not the same thing. What I mean to have it changed to is "his battle was the last of the seven battles in Early's campaign against the B&O Railroad." This clearly distinguishes between a campaign and a battle. I think that the current version uses too many words and just doesn't sound right. I won't fail on this basis, but I do think that the sentence needs some sort of revision or condensation. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made change. Making "campaign" singular solves the problem. TwoScars (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing

  • The last sentence of the lead: "Averell's victory inflicted permanent damage on the Confederate cavalry, and it was never again the dominant force it once was in the Shenandoah Valley." Doesn't this seem like an overstatement of the battle's importance at all? It sort of makes it seem as though the Battle of Morefield permanently ended the Confederate's ability to use and occupy the Shenandoah Valley. In reality, they remained present for many more months. Personally, I've always thought of Cedar Creek as the main decisive battle in the 1864 Valley Campaigns. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my reasoning for the statement:
  • "This defeat impeded the morale and effectiveness of the Confederate cavalry for the remainder of the 1864 Valley Campaign." - U.S. National Park Service
  • Early later wrote that the battle had "a very damaging effect upon my cavalry for the rest of the campaign." - p.59 of Early's book
  • "The fight was one of the most signal victories for the Union cause during the war." - Lang, p.200.
  • "Averell's victory at Moorefield marked the permanent ascendancy of the Union cavalry in the Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864. It also broke the back of Early's already much maligned cavalry." - Pachan, Shenandoah Summer p.310
  • "lost nearly a third of their men and all of their artillery in the contest at Moorefield." "Aside from the physical losses of Moorefield, these commands became completely demoralized, a contagion that soon spread to other brigades. - Pachan, The Last Battle of Winchester, ch. 3 of e-book.
  • "McCausland's and Johnson's brigades never recovered from the effects of the Moorefield affair." - Sutton p.153
  • "And the effects, immediate and long-term, of Averell's victory were also significant. With the defeat and dispersion of his two strongest brigades, the strength of Early's cavalry was at once reduced from about four thousand to under two thousand. Early judged the moral results to be even more serious...." - Starr, p. 244
That being said, I made some changes to the paragraph, putting emphasis on the damage being done to Early's cavalry instead of Confederate cavalry. Remember also that no infantry was involved in this battle. TwoScars (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better now. I'll go ahead and pass the article. Good work. Display name 99 (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Moorefield/GA1&oldid=801130435"