Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Fairfax Court House (June 1863)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 20:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Battle of Fairfax Court House (June 1863)
[edit]... that 87 men of the Union Army's 11th New York Cavalry charged a division of Confederate Major General Jeb Stuart's Cavalry Corps at the Battle of Fairfax Court House (June 1863)?
Created/expanded by Donner60 (talk). Self nominated at 07:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC).
Article is long enough and extremely well-sourced. The copyvio detector tool reports, "No violations detected." QPQ requirement has been satisfied. The article includes a public domain, Civil War era photograph by Matthew Brady of the courthouse where the battle occurred. Using the photo could make this into a nice lead hook. Also, I think the hook could be trimmed just a bit without losing the substance of the hook. How about the following:
alt 1 ... that 87 men of the Union's 11th New York Cavalry charged a division of Jeb Stuart's Confederate Cavalry at the 1863 Battle of Fairfax Court House (courthouse pictured)?Cbl62 (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Both suggestions look fine to me. Donner60 (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The alt hook's still too cluttered with intricate detail, and I think it would more interesting to explicitly contrast the strength of the two forces. How about:
- ALT2: ... that in June 1863, at the Battle of Fairfax Court House, 87 men of the Union Army charged a division of 1,800 Confederate soldiers?
- It would be helpful if Donner60 could confirm that this hook is still factually accurate (specifically, whether "1,800" is an exact figure or an estimate). DoctorKubla (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the alternate hook is fine as well. It is what I was trying to express. The original and alt 1 assume readers understand that a "division" is a big number. This makes clearer what that number was. Although Civil War cavalry brigades and divisions were not necessarily uniform in size, especially over periods of time, the Army of Northern Virginia cavalry had just been reorganized and the source stated this division had 1,800 men. I assume this is a rounded number but it is stated as a fact, not an approximate or estimated number. I have revised the footnotes so that footnote 2 which supports the number in the infobox links directly to page 89 of "Morris" which has the 1,800 number Donner60 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well, I know I'm not supposed to approve my own hook, but it's essentially the same as the original, so I think it's alright. We're good to go. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the alternate hook is fine as well. It is what I was trying to express. The original and alt 1 assume readers understand that a "division" is a big number. This makes clearer what that number was. Although Civil War cavalry brigades and divisions were not necessarily uniform in size, especially over periods of time, the Army of Northern Virginia cavalry had just been reorganized and the source stated this division had 1,800 men. I assume this is a rounded number but it is stated as a fact, not an approximate or estimated number. I have revised the footnotes so that footnote 2 which supports the number in the infobox links directly to page 89 of "Morris" which has the 1,800 number Donner60 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- The alt hook's still too cluttered with intricate detail, and I think it would more interesting to explicitly contrast the strength of the two forces. How about:
DoctorKubla, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree that it's essentially the same hook. You've introduced two new facts in ALT2: June 1863 (rather than simply 1863) and 1,800 soldiers rather than a more general "division". Both of these need to be checked by an independent reviewer: that they're in the article, sourced by the end of the relevant sentence(s), and in those sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- If the 1,800 figure is to be used, it needs to be incorporated into the body of the article; a number merely appearing in an infobox is insufficient here, especially when the same source gives a higher number earlier in the same chapter. Some effort needs to be made to reconcile the "two thousand strong at least" from the source (Capt. Dagwell's account, page 80) and used in the article in the second paragraph of the "Pursuit toward Fairfax Station" subsection with the same source's account from Sgt. Morris nine pages later, where the 1,800 figure is given. I can't tell whether this was from Morris himself or Holmes, since the second paragraph indicates the next bit is from Holmes, and I don't see any indication that it reverts to Morris before the 1,800 material. (In a separate matter, I need to note that the June 1863 date is amply accounted for in the article, not least of which in the article's name; apologies for missing that.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. I have been a little under the weather. I have another source for the number, which is in the appendix to one of the sources already used. It has the number of men in each individual unit of the division from a report made only three days later. It will support the larger number rather than Morris's number. I will add this up again - it came to 1,998 in my first addition - and change the infobox and footnotes and related text accordingly. I should get this done within the next several hours. I was just checking in briefly now and wanted to respond immediately since I have been offline for awhile. I have to sign off for a short time but I will get the revision done later this morning UTC time. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I now have the revisions and additional citations to support the 2,000 figure, which closely coincides with Dagwell's estimate. According to Wittenberg and Petruzzi, pp. 299–300, Hampton's Brigade, or division depending on the source, had 1,999 men at Union Mills, Maryland three days after the battle. Another source, now cited in an earlier footnote, showed the brigade had 2,210 men when it rejoined Stuart in mid-May after the Battle of Chancellorsville. Attrition during the small battles before Fairfax Court House, and small losses in that battle and in the three days following, reduced the force to just under 2,000. Dagwell's statement about the force being at least 2,000 is thus confirmed. It is difficult to say where Morris came up with the 1,800 number since the only other source supports the 2,000 figure. I suppose he was being a bit conservative to avoid exaggeration. I hope the article is now ready but if any further editing is needed, leave another message and I will do it.Donner60 (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Great work! We're going to need a new hook, since the 1,800 number in ALT2 has been deprecated. I think the use of "about" in the article is misleading, since it allows variation above and below the number: Dagwell said "at least", which sets a floor at 2,000, and this is confirmed by the facts you mention above, so I've edited the article to reflect this, and also corrected one place where you had Remington telling himself about the 2K figure so it now has Dagwell doing the telling there. Here's an ALT3 with the new number, and with a "pictured" in case you still want to use the image introduced earlier:
- ALT3: ... that in June 1863, at the Battle of Fairfax Court House (courthouse pictured), 87 men of the Union Army charged a division of at least 2,000 Confederate soldiers?
- This just needs someone else (DoctorKubla, perhaps?) to do a final check of ALT3 and the recent updates, and it should be ready for approval. I've struck the earlier ALTs. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Great work! We're going to need a new hook, since the 1,800 number in ALT2 has been deprecated. I think the use of "about" in the article is misleading, since it allows variation above and below the number: Dagwell said "at least", which sets a floor at 2,000, and this is confirmed by the facts you mention above, so I've edited the article to reflect this, and also corrected one place where you had Remington telling himself about the 2K figure so it now has Dagwell doing the telling there. Here's an ALT3 with the new number, and with a "pictured" in case you still want to use the image introduced earlier: