Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2017 [1].

6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia which gained considerable notoriety at the start of the American Civil War. They were the first regiment to arrive in Washington in response to Lincoln's call for volunteer troops. En route, they were engaged in the Baltimore Riot during which the regiment became the first Union unit to lose casualties in action. The incident attracted world-wide attention as evidenced by the large number of newspaper depictions of the Baltimore Riot, some of which I've included in the article. I think their experience is a key piece of American Civil War history. Thanks. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

This article is in pretty good shape. I have the following comments:

"three separate tours" - 'tours' is somewhat unclear, and the term Tour of duty was not used at the time of the US Civil War, and isn't appropriate as its usually applied to individuals. The later use of 'terms' is fine, and 'periods of service' or similar would also work.
Did this regiment exist before 1861? (eg, was it a reserve unit) - the text implies that this was the case. If so, please say when it was raised and what its status was prior to this year.
How was the regiment manned during its first and second periods of service? Did its member soldiers volunteer to be activated, were they compelled, or was the regiment filled with volunteers who weren't necessarily peacetime members of the regiment?
"seven of the ten original companies returned for the second tour" - as above, how did the manning situation work here? (also, a second use of 'tour')
"On May 13, the 6th Massachusetts joined its final expedition to the Blackwater River" - what the 'its' is here is unclear
"Battle of Carsville or the Battle of Holland House" - please link (if only red link) given it seems to have been a notable engagement from the description
"In the middle of the battle, when the 6th Massachusetts was driven back out of the woods, Private Joseph S.G. Sweatt of Company C perceived that several of his comrades had been hit and were left in the woods. He rushed back into the woods in an effort to pull them out." - 'woods' is repeated a bit too much here
"Sweatt was eventually released" - can you say when?
"fell back to Deserted House" - does 'Deserted House' need to be capitalised? (eg, was it a settlement or geographical feature rather than a single house?). If it was a settlement or notable geographic feature, a link should probably be added.
"prompted Lincoln to issue a call for 500,000 troops to serve a brief term of 100 days to bolster defenses around the capital" - does the source really say this? This is a vast number of troops, and far more than would be needed for this purpose (especially as it was recognised by the Union government that the raid was a one-off). I can't find any references attesting to this via a Google search, though Lincoln did call for 500,000 volunteers in July 1864 [2]. There also appears to have been a raising of short-service units in the spring of 1864 for rear duties tasks across the north, but not only for Washington's defences.
What was the status of the regiment between its periods of active service? The text implies that it was a manned reserve unit given that it had largely the same leadership, structure and personnel across each period of service.
What happened to the regiment after the war? Was it disbanded and never raised again? Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks very much for the review of the article and comments. I've addressed them (as best I can given available info) as follows:

I agree "tour of duty" doesn't seem right to the modern reader in this context. It was a term at the time...the regimental history of the 5th Mass is titled "History of the 5th Massachusetts during its three tours of duty." But I've removed any use of "tours" and replaced as suggested with "term" or "period of service."
Regarding earlier uses of the designation "6th Mass," I meant to add clarification to the "Earlier units" section but forgot. Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity. I added language and hope its clear...the name was used for other units but there was never a continuous 6th Massachusetts. So, I tried to indicate that the Rev War 6th Mass was a completely different entity than the 6th Mass that was organized in 1855 and served in the Civil War.
Regarding how it was manned, I've added language in several places indicating that they were volunteers, that soldiers were not compelled to reenlist, that some recruiting was needed for the subsequent terms, and that the rosters therefore changed but the sources indicate that the roster of officers remained substantially the same.
Reworded the ambiguous "its"
Added redlink for Battle of Carrsville up in the lead where it first appears.
Reworded to fix repetition of "woods"
I have tried hard to figure out when Sweatt was released. I wish I could say. At present I just don't know.
"Deserted House" was a place designation and is linked above in "Battle of Deserted House."
I took out the sentence about Early's raid and reworded the sentences about the July 1864 call for troops along the lines of what you've pointed out here.
I can't find any reference to the status of the regiment between active terms of service. I suspect they were completely inactive but I just don't have anything to go on there.
I added a brief section on a later 6th Massachusetts that served during the Spanish American War. Again, I've tried to indicate that these were different entities that happened to share the same designation.

I hope these edits mostly clear things up. Thanks again. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
File:Baltimore_Riot_1861.jpg: source link is dead; where was this first published?
File:6th_Massachusetts_Militia_attacked_in_Baltimore_1861.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
File:Five_soldiers_in_Union_uniforms_of_the_6th_Regiment_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Militia.jpg: what was the author's date of death and when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks very much. I've addressed these issues as follows:

Included periods were captions are complete sentences
I could not find the origins of that colored engraving with the dead link. So I uploaded another, not colored, from a U.S. Army website. Published in 1861. I included links in the media file to the U.S. Army site and the same lithograph in the LOC (the latter shows all the publication info). I've replaced the dead link one with this version in the infobox.
File:6th_Massachusetts_Militia_attacked_in_Baltimore_1861.jpg, Oliver Pelton, engraver, died in 1882 [3]
File:Five_soldiers_in_Union_uniforms_of_the_6th_Regiment_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Militia.jpg: I can't track down the author, date of death or the first publication date. Following the link to the LOC, I see that the photo was gifted outright to the LOC in 2010, which should put it in the public domain?

Comments by AustralianRupert

G'day, nice work. I have a few minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the References: " Life of Luther C. Ladd: the first martyr that fell a sacrifice to his country, in the city of Baltimore, on the 19th of April, 1861, etc.": the title should probably use title case capitalisation instead of sentence case, e.g. " Life of Luther C. Ladd: The First Martyr that Fell a Sacrifice to his Country, in the City of Baltimore, on the 19th of April, 1861, etc."
as above, "Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861; A study of the War" --> " Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861; A Study of the War"
as above, "Regiments and Armories of Massachusetts. An historical narration of the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia. With portraits and biographies of Officers, past and present, etc. Vol." --> " Regiments and Armories of Massachusetts. An Historical Narration of the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia. With Portraits and Biographies of Officers, Past and Present, etc. Vol."
Benjamin F. Butler appears to be overlinked
Are there any later units that claim lineage from this one? I note that there are links to a later unit in the article, which is a great addition, but I also wonder if any more recent units draw campaign credit from this one?
this seems a little awkward grammatically: "The 6th Massachusetts served a third term in response to the emergency call for troops to defend Washington lasted 100 days...". Suggest that perhaps "lasted" should be changed to "lasting", or add "that" in front of "lasted";
"...he “double-quick.” This...": the quotation marks here should be straight quotes per MOS:CURLY
"Ladd died on Pratt street" --> "Ladd died on Pratt Street"
"Needham. 36 men of the 6th Massachusetts..." I believe the MOS prefers that sentences do not start with numerals, as such I'd suggest maybe something like this: "Needham. A total of 36 men of the 6th Massachusetts..."
"9-month term of service"? same same "90-day term of service" and "100-day term of service"?
"The 3rd Massachusetts formed a peripheral part...": do you mean the 6th here?
"Eight companies of the..." suggest linking Company (military unit)
"regiment lost 13 men killed or mortally wounded and 18 by disease..." --> "regiment lost 13 men killed or mortally wounded in combat and 18 by disease..."?
"for 100 days regiments" --> "for 100-day regiments"?
"They departed on July 20 for Washington, reaching the city on July 22 and posted on Arlington Heights in Fort C.F. Smith" --> suggest splitting this sentence after "July 22", and then joining the rest of the sentence with the next one.

Response: Thanks very much for these corrections and suggestions. I'm particularly glad you caught "3rd Massachusetts"...that was an "oops." I've incorporated all these suggestions with the exception of the "companies (military unit)" link as its linked in the lead of the article. The biggest change: I included the 181st Infantry Regiment (United States) in the "later units" section as they claim the 6th Mass in their lineage. Military heraldry seems a bit arbitrary to me, but who am I to question? If they claim it, I think it belongs in this article. Thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've always used the link once in the lead, and once in the body rule of thumb, but it's not a warstoper. Support for promotion as all of my comments have been addressed, or responded to. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

This article is in fine shape, and makes a interesting read. I have only a few queries/comments:

Governor Andrew should just be Governor Andrew after he's first mentioned by full title and name per WP:SURNAME
same for Follansbee
I made a couple of minor c/e tweaks to insert what looked like a missing word
I wonder if a disambiguation hatnote for the article is appropriate, given the other 6th Mass' that have existed? Perhaps pointing to the disambiguation page?
Battle of Bunker Hill is linked twice in the body
Given he commanded the regiment for two terms of service, I wonder whether Follansbee should be mentioned in the lead
the lead should probably mention that their duties at Fort Delaware were guarding POWs
the infobox should probably be simplified to just show the regiment as active 1861–1864, readers can read the article to get the exact dates of each term. It is a bit cluttered at present.
I'm interested in the history of the regiment before and after the war. It was first raised in peacetime in 1855, but when was it disbanded as a peacetime regiment?
add the oclc for Annual Register of the General Society of Colonial Wars and ISSN for Harper's weekly

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks very much. I've made these corrections. With regard to the dates in the infobox, I wonder if 1861-1864 would give the impression that it was one of the three year regiments at a quick glance? I've tried to make it less cluttered by just using the month and year. If that's still too cluttered, I can change it to the year range. With regard to before and after the war, there is very little information available in secondary sources. Hall's book addresses both to some degree. I've added a bit to the "Later units" section to explain that it persisted as a peacetime militia unit. My sense is that it remained a militia organization with little or no hiatus between the Civil War and the Spanish American War, but I can't find a source that expressly states that. I think to go any further than the general statements I've made in the "Earlier units" and "Later units" sections would be getting into primary research. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think those changes are fine. Just one final thing, there really should be no need for citations in the lead, as everything in it should be in the body and cited there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed the citations. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

What makes Massachusetts in the War from 1889 a high quality reliable source?
~~Same for Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861?~~
Same for A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion?
Same for Historical Sketch of the Old Sixth Regiment?
~~Same for The Life of John A. Andrew?~~
~~Same for A History of Massachusetts in the Civil War?~~
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. ~~Earwig's tool shows some concerns that probably need to be addressed.~~

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks very much. In reviewing information on authors, I realize there are a number of authorlinks I should have included. So, I’ve added those.

"Massachusetts in the Civil War," based mainly on regimental histories, was written by James L. Bowen, a veteran of the 37th Massachusetts. After the war, a journalist and magazine editor. Became commissioner of Massachusetts State Aid and Soldier Relief. Prominent citizen of Springfield, Massachusetts. According to his obit, "In 1882, Mr. Bowen was made historian of his regiment, and wrote "Massachusetts in the War, 1861-1865." He made a deep study into history of the civil conflict, and wrote many papers on the subject."[4] He was an authority.
"Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April" was written by George William Brown, mayor of Baltimore during the riot.
"A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion," was written by Frederick Henry Dyer. The Compendium was compiled primarily using the official records of the U.S. War Department. The section on Dyer’s Compendium cites Bell I. Wiley who wrote the introduction to the 1959 edition and asserted that veterans praised the Dyer’s work for its accuracy.
"Historical Sketch of the Old Sixth Regiment" was written by the chaplain of the regiment with the members of the regiment itself as the main audience. He states in the preface that he therefore strove for unvarnished accuracy.
"The Life of John A. Andrew" was based mainly on the official correspondence of the Governor. According to the introduction, Pearson was assisted in the research by some of the Governor’s closest friends. His is still the preeminent biography of Gov. John Andrew.
"A History of Massachusetts in the War" was written by William Schouler, Adjutant General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the war. He had full charge of the militia and was responsible for organizing, equipping, training, transporting, paying, supplying Massachusetts soldiers. Probably no greater authority on the subject.

Are there no more recent works that cover the regiment? Because, quite honestly, the practice of history has moved on quite a bit since the late 1800s and new sources are available. These are all written by amateur historians, if you can even call them amateurs. We require high quality sources at FAC, and works written over a 100 years ago by non-historians are going to be difficult to show they are high quality. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely newer works which briefly reference the 6th Massachusetts but newer works won't offer the depth of detail provided by sources like Hanson and Bowen. And those newer works which discuss the 6th Massachusetts will almost certainly cite Hanson and others I've cited here. So I generally choose to eliminate the middle-man and go right to the main authority on the subject...which in this case is the official regimental history written by Hanson. Yes, there indeed have been just a few advances in the historical profession, believe me, I'm intimately aware of that. Nonetheless, I feel these are absolutely solid sources. And I'm not alone. A quick search on Google Books shows that John Hanson's book on the "Old Sixth" is cited by Stephen W. Sears, Gary Gallagher, Leon Litwack, and Mark Neeley, to name a few. "Massachusetts in the War" and other works by James L. Bowen are cited by James M. McPherson (in his Pulitzer Prize winning book), Bradley Gottfried, David J. Eicher, and Harry Pfanz. If he's good enough for McPherson...The likes of Bowen, Hanson and Schouler may not have been professional historians but they were extraordinarily accomplished and respected professionals who were the highest of authorities on this subject. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Hi. I've done some work to address the issue of these older sources:

I eliminated half of them (Schouler, Brown, and Pearson), replacing those citations by citing other more recent works instead.
I've added as references some recent works which cover the 6th Mass (O'Connor, Puleo and Berenson). I also realized that I really underutilized Wills (a 2001 source that I only cited once). He's about the only recent writer who has some good detail on the 6th Mass and their 9-month second enlistment, so I was able to replace many of the citations of older works in those sections with Wills. I also added a recent source (Temple) who discusses the 6th Mass at Fort Delaware.
Hanson, Bowen and Dyer have info on the 6th Mass that can't be found anywhere else. But I've tried to reduce my reliance on them in many instances by citing new sources instead (O'Connor, Puleo and Berenson).

I hope this mitigates/remedies these source issues. Thanks very much again for your comments. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement, but its always a concern to rely on these older sources - they weren't trained historians and they viewed history differently than we do now. I'm not going to oppose, but it is a concern that more modern historians haven't covered the information - is it because they trust these regimental histories or is it because they don't think it's notable? Or is it because they aren't including the information because they don't trust the regimental histories and have concluded the events didn't happen that way? Do you see the concerns? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I think the fact that more recent historians haven't covered much of this has a good deal to do with the way history is written now, focusing more broadly on larger campaigns or the entire war, rarely a single regiment. I suppose notability is involved there. The 6th Mass is one of the most notable regiments I know of due to their experience in Baltimore and gets at least a quick mention (or a few pages) in just about every survey of the full war I've picked up. Are they as notable for their fairly uneventful second term in Virginia? Not so much. I definitely don't think the information isn't getting repeated due to any lack of trust in those older sources. In fact, those brief mentions of the Baltimore Riot almost always cite Hanson. So, good historians trust him (and Bowen). I guess I just keep coming back to the fact that regimental histories like Hanson's were typically hugely vetted works (roughly a thousand men who were actually there would be picking apart every detail) usually written by someone chosen by a regimental association who reviewed the work. So, it's an old source, no doubt, but I really feel it is solidly reliable.Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some copy edits which I think address the issues turned up by Earwig.

Hope this addresses your questions. Thanks very much. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Historical Perspective 2, suggest you ping Ealdgyth again to see if she's happy with your responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop a note on her talk page. Thanks. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

Recusing from coord duties...

I copyedited so pls let me know if I misinterpreted anything or simply if you disagree with my changes. Considering the regiment didn't see a huge amount of action, I found the article quite interesting to read and easy to comprehend -- well done.
A few outstanding points:
- Re. the infobox: I think we just say United States rather than United States of America; also I generally expect notable commanders to be worthy of their own article in WP.
- Re. "spring of 1864", we should avoid seasonal references -- do we know the month?
- Can you expand a little on just how the 6th "openly condemned" abuses at Fort Delaware?

I daresay I'll be supporting once these and the sourcing questions are finalised. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks very much for your comments and the copy edits. Those were very helpful and look good to me. I've made those adjustments to the infobox (took out Follansbee) and specified May 1864. I can't, unfortunately, expand much on "openly condemned." That source doesn't elaborate. I went to the primary source he cited which states that the previous unit was particularly harsh and the 6th Mass "spoke contemptuously of the actions of their predecessors." It's a memoir, though, and I don't think I can cite it here. So, I tried to specify a bit as to what the previous poor treatment entailed. If "condemned" is too vague a statement, I'll certainly take out that sentence. As to sources, I have done my best to address the concerns with changes outlined above. Any suggestions in that regard would be appreciated. Many thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I just tweaked a little. Re. sources, concur with PM's suggestion above -- will keep an eye on developments. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted final exchange re. sourcing and am prepared to support promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Ealdgyth is relatively happy with the sourcing, but raises a few interesting points about using older sources in history articles. I must confess, coming from a history background, that I share some of her concerns with this general practice. However, this is not the only article to be sourced in such a way and I'm not a fan of using individual FACs as "test cases", so I don't think it would be fair to hold this up any longer. However, it may be worth discussing further at some point at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.