Talk:Warrenton Junction Raid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 12:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up over the next few days. From a first glance through, it doesn't fail any of the quick-fail criteria. One concern I do have is how much of the article is sourced to primary sources: Boudrye, Mosby, Scott and Congress make up 19 of the 64 sources, and in places do quite a lot of work. Can alternative secondary references be used to back up some of this information? Harrias ^talk 12:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this. I probably will not be able to do much until this weekend since I work full time. For sources, O'Neil, Williamson, Black, and Pyott were also used in the Attack section (the most important part). As you know, some Civil War sources are full of "puffery", and one source that I tried to not use much was clearly a cheerleader for Mosby. Just let me know where you think alternative sources would help and I will work on it. TwoScars (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

More thoughts on sources.... Mosby and probably Boudrye were actually at the Raid. Scott & Congress have reports from the superior officers of the men who were there. The other sources are mostly books that have a chapter where the author discusses the raid based on their research that probably includes Mosby, Boudrye, and the reports of the commanding officers. They may have access to additional sources such as soldiers' letters home or local accounts of the raid. TwoScars (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: Family life has been pretty hectic this weekend, so it might be another couple of days before I get to this. Sorry! Harrias ^talk 16:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Family life is good! My kids used to play sports year around—been there. All is good. TwoScars (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

• The article says Mosby had 70 – 100 men, with a note that it could be as high as 125. Could the infobox reflect this uncertainty, rather than plainly stating 100?

Changed infobox from 100 to 70-125 TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• "..the unit surprised by Mosby, totaled to 16 men." In BrEng, we'd typically use "totaled 16 men." without "to". However, looking around online, this seems a common usage, so if it is the more common phrasing in AmEng, I have no problem with it.

Dropped the "to". TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• I feel that the first sentence of the final paragraph suffers a little bit from WP:EDITORIALIZING, particularly starting with "While..", and then the phrase "it serves as an example of". Can this be made a little bit more neutral?

Changed first sentence to "The two sides involved in this minor fight became very skilled in warfare—but were still learning those skills at that time." If you prefer, could also drop the last part and say "The two sides involved in this minor fight became very skilled in warfare."

Background

Can I just say that this is one of the best background sections I've read. Despite knowing very little about the American Civil War in general, and nothing at all about this fight and region, the information provided was brilliant in helping me the whys and wherefores.

• "The federal government of the United States did not accept the succession.." Should that be "secession", rather than "succession"?

Fixed (either my bad spelling or Wikipedia's autocorrect) TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Because of the county's location and a railroad.." Sounds a bit disjointed, maybe "Because of the county's location and the presence of a railroad.." ?

Fixed (much better) TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• "The purpose of Mosby's unit was not to win major battles. Its purpose was to.." To avoid the repetition, switch to "The purpose of Mosby's unit was not to win major battles, but to.." Would be worth attributing this quote inline; who said it?

Changed to Mosby said that the purpose of his unit was not to win major battles, but to "compel the enemy either greatly to contract his lines or to reinforce them; either of which would be of great advantage to the Southern cause."

• "..Mosby's Rangers would make quick strikes.." "..would make made.."

Change to As partisan rangers, Mosby's Rangers made quick strikes,.... TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is some variation in the 1st (West) Virginia Cavalry section about whether you use "1st (West) Virginia Cavalry" or "1st West Virginia Cavalry", and indeed "1st (West Virginia) Cavalry"; can this be made consistent?

Will work on that. Several months later their name was changed from 1st Virginia Cavalry to 1st West Virginia Cavalry. Many of the reports made later call them the 1st West Virginia, even before the name was changed. For much of the war they called themselves the 1st Virginia. Will work on this tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe it is cleaned up. 1st (West) Virginia Cavalry before the name change, and 1st West Virginia Cavalry after the name change. TwoScars (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• "However, Richmond was a vast improvement over Anisansel as a regiment commander." Even though it is in a footnote rather than the article, this needs inline attribution in the note to avoid it appearing like an editorial opinion. Who thought he was a vast improvement?

Changed to "However, at least one soldier and one historian believe Richmond was an improvement over Anisansel as a regiment commander." The soldier and historian are from the footnotes. The soldier was unnamed but wrote the letter to the Wheeling newspaper. The historian is Eric Wittenburg. He has a blog (linked) and has written some books on the Civil War (one is cited). I could say At least one soldier and historian Eric Wittenburg.... TwoScars (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Changed again. Now says However, Richmond was popular with his fellow officers. At least one soldier credited Richmond for changing the reputation of the regiment from bad to good. Historian Eric Wittenberg described Richmond as a "fine soldier who did his duty and did it well." All three sentences are footnoted. The officer footnote is a link to a newspaper article about a farewell dinner given by fellow officers. The at least-one–soldier sentence links to the newspaper article that describes how things improved when Richmond took over (and the original commander left). The third sentence links to Wittenburg's blog. TwoScars (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• "The boom of distant artillery in preparation for the Battle of Chancellorsville could be heard." Is this relevant to this article?

I thought it was relevant because it implied that the men thought they were out of harm's way. I removed it. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Attack

• "Those that could leave the smoke-filled house did so. The first floor was covered with blood. The Rangers collected prisoners and their equipment. These very short sentences come across like a list of bullet points, rather than flowing prose; can they be rewritten slightly to flow better?

Changed to Those that could leave the smoke-filled house exited through a first floor that was covered with blood. The Rangers collected prisoners and equipment, and then began to retrieve horses.

• "..set loose by Major Steele were stampeded toward the camp.." I don't think "were" is needed here.

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Link "5th New York Cavalry" here, its first mention in the body.

Made redlink. I am working on a 5th NY Cavalry page since one does not exist, but it is still in my sandbox and has a long long way to go. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• "His horse was killed." Again, the flow would be improved if this was merged into another sentence.

Changed to The 5th New York's Captain Abram H. Krom was shot twice (face and leg) and his horse killed—yet survived fighting with his saber. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• "The 1st Vermont Cavalry arrived after the initial fighting, but joined the pursuit of Mosby's men." "and" might work better than "but" here.

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• "One of the officers (Steel) was.." Assuming it's the same chap, you spelt it "Steele" previously.

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "..for the First Vermont Cavalry." For consistency, this should be "1st Vermont Cavalry".

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Mosby agrees that his men were mistaken for Union cavalry.[36] However, Mosby wrote that his men were all dressed in gray." Could consider merging these sentences: "Mosby agrees that his men were mistaken for Union cavalry, but wrote that his men were all dressed in gray."

Made change. Has two footnotes because those observations were on non-consecutive pages. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• "On June 20, the new state of West Virginia joined the Union, and the 1st Virginia Cavalry (loyal) became known as the 1st West Virginia Cavalry—although many still called it the 1st Virginia." This is an almost direct repeat of the sentence in the background section.

Changed to "Later in June, after the new state of West Virginia joined the Union, the 1st (West) Virginia Cavalry became known as the 1st West Virginia Cavalry."

The whole 1st Virginia–1st West Virginia issue is difficult. It helps that you are not from this area, and I am open to any suggestions on how to handle it. In general, I have tried to call them "1st (West) Virginia Cavalry before the name change became official, but call them 1st West Virginia Cavalry after the name change. TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• In general, I think this section goes into a bit too much detail of the later actions of the 1st (West) Virginia Cavalry; only a brief outline is necessary after the immediate aftermath of the battle. There is a bit more repetition from the background section too ("..most active, and most effective.."). Perhaps have a good read through this and the background section and have a bit of a cull?

Eliminated most of this except their improved performance at Gettysburg. All the Capehart (and image) information is gone. Added that all 3 regiments were at Gettysburg and performed well. TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Although the article is about a cavalry raid that happened at Warrenton Junction, one of the main points is that both sides made mistakes in this raid—but they improved their fighting abilities and performed well later in the war. TwoScars (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• "The 5th New York Cavalry had a rising star." Not really encyclopaedic language.

Eliminated that. (He was their best leader in the field throughout the war—but not necessary here.) TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• "A great equestrian and leader.." Editorial opinion again, unless attributed.

Attributed to the regiment historian. Boudrye was regimental chaplain and wrote a history of the regiment in 1865. TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Same for the first paragraph of the Mosby learned section. Given the quotes are from Mosby himself, the remaining content appears to be editorial opinion.

Changed some things to say "Mosby wrote...". Also added a citation to the first section. O'Neil is the author who analyzed Mosby's performance at Warrenton Junction. TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Images

• The map in the Fauquier County section could do with a caption.

Fixed TwoScars (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION consider switching the image of Mosby to the left, though I have no opposition to it remaining where it is. ("It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text.")
• I would consider removing the "letter" image. On my screen the article looks a bit cluttered with images, and this one doesn't add a great deal.

Removed it. Its purpose was to show (as in the text) that the regiment was originally called cowards. It also has praise for Lt. Col. Richmond and tactfully notes that Anisansel ("A certain-Colonel") resigned when the regiment was sent to the front. TwoScars (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Added a different letter image with a caption "Low morale for 1VA Cavalry". It is briefer and hopefully easier to read. I think we need an image here, and there are few for this cavalry this early in its existence. I want to reinforce the fact that this cavalry was not very good at first, but became very good. TwoScars (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Henry Capehart seems of no real relevance to the subject of this article, including an image of him seems to give him undue precedence, I would suggest removing it too.

Removed it. I replaced it with a Gettysburg monument for the 5th New York. All three regiments fought together as a brigade at Gettysburg—one of the most famous battle of the American Civil War. They performed well in that campaign, which is a strong contrast to the 1WVA at Warrenton Junction. TwoScars (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Expand the caption "Historical Marker" for the final image (also, "marker" does not need a capital letter.)

Changed to Mosby historical marker in Virginia TwoScars (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• All images are appropriately tagged.

References

• Generally the primary sources are dealt with well inline. I have noted a couple of exceptions and will review this again once further edits have been made. I don't see it as a show-stopper though.
• Not necessary for GA, but I would get picky about it for an FA is the fact that citations using the templates have periods at the end (ref #1 for example), but the short books references don't (ref #6 for example). As I say, no problem here, but would be a (very minor) inconsistency in formatting for an FA.

Should Wikipedia fix their templates? TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ref #54 "DETAILS OF THE PURSUIT.; BATTLES OF THE CAVALRY." No need for the capital letters.

That is gone now. The newspapers of the time often went all caps. TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Refs #12, #54 and #61, the links should be the article title, not part of the article quote.

I tried to put the link in the title, but the template will not allow it. TwoScars (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ref #16 has a rogue speech mark, and is missing a link ([1]) and the author details (Rick Beard).

Fixed. Consistent with Washington, Wheeling and Richmond newspapers. TwoScars (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ref #28 uses Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), while ref #33 Wheeling Daily Intelligencer.

Fixed and linked. Will fix citation 12, 16 and 57.TwoScars (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

All fixed and consistent. TwoScars (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Salmon, John S.; Peters, Margaret (1994) is included in the references, but isn't used. Either move it to external links, use it, or remove it.

Removed TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Overall this is a really well written article. As noted, I have a few concerns about opinions being included without attribution, but that is the only major concern, the rest of my points are just nit-picking. I'll stick the nomination on hold. I have this page watchlisted, but feel free to ping me about anything on here. Harrias ^talk 10:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this. I was almost certainly pickier than the GA criteria required, but I think it is an improved article for it. Let me know if you nominate it for A-class or Featured status down the line, and I will be more than happy to take part in those reviews, where I think it would do well. Harrias ^talk 20:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)