Talk:Battle of the Wilderness/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 09:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that the "Background" section appears to cover the Union army only, with nothing about the confederates?

Added a paragraph that discusses Lee and his army. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Union Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant – see MOS:SEAOFBLUE

Dropped "Union" TwoScars (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Grant believed that eastern and western Union armies were too independent in fighting and strategy. – too independent for what?

Inserted "from each other" after "independent". TwoScars (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My concern was rather related to the word "too". They were independent from each other, yes, but why "too independent"? Too independent to do what? "Too" implies there is a problem that they were independent, but what is it? Why does it matter? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Will work on that tomorrow. Because they were so independent, Lee was able to shift Longstreet from one front to another using railroad lines. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that explained in the next two sentences? TwoScars (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is the rewording: Grant believed that eastern and western Union armies were too independent in fighting and strategy. The Union army had to spend resources to guard conquered territory, and the lack of coordination between Union armies allowed the Confederates to shift forces between battlefronts. Grant's new strategy was that Union armies would fight together with the objective of destroying Confederate armies instead of conquering territory. One army's mission could have an impact elsewhere. All forces would be used at the same time, making it difficult for the Confederates to transfer forces from one battlefront to another. TwoScars (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Better, but still not optimal. It's just too convoluted: First, we learn that the two armies are "too independent in fighting and strategy", and then, we also learn that they are "uncoordinated". These seem to be separate things (also indicated by the different formulations you used), and only after reading it several times, I think that they are supposed to mean the same. So why not just writing "they were too uncoordinated" from the start, making this clear? The next problem is that you use a lot of text to explain a relatively simple strategy, often by repeating stuff. It is not as concise as it should be. Third, you are mingling his strategy (attack at the same time) and his goal (destroy armies) together in a way that lacks any common thread or structure, leading to further confusion. So, what about, for example, this instead: Grant believed that eastern and western Union armies were too uncoordinated in their actions, and that the previous practise of conquering and guarding new territories required too many resources. Grant's new strategy was to attack with all forces at the same time, making it difficult for the Confederates to transfer forces from one battlefront to another. His objective was to destroy Confederate armies rather than conquering territory. My main concern with the article, at the moment, is that I found it pretty hard to follow due to problems like this one; it really needs work in this regard. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Changed to your example. Sorry about the article being difficult to follow. It was a complicated battle, with two fronts plus plenty of maneuvers elsewhere. Hopefully the images and the two orders of battle help. For some battles, I like to have one screen with the article and a second screen with the (enlarged) images. TwoScars (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Grant's Union forces totaled 118,700 men and 316 guns – What does "guns" mean here? Only 316 of them were armed?

Changed to "and 316 artillery pieces (a.k.a. guns)". I like using "artillery pieces" instead of "guns", but many historians use "guns". I can replace "guns" everywhere if you think it is worthwhile. TwoScars (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• The author of a book about the Wilderness battlefield says – That is a bit awkward and makes me wonder what qualifies this author to be a reliable source. I would instead provide his name, with some attribute to get an impression who that is ("Author xxx …")

Got rid of that. TwoScars (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• You have a number of sentences just about the size of the wilderness. Would't one sentence be enough, saying that estimates vary?

Now only one sentence that mentions the the large and smaller sizes. TwoScars (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Over time, small trees and shrubs replaced the original forest – How can that be if the original forest had been cut down, as stated in the previous sentence?

Will work on rewording. When you chop down a forest in the 1700s or early 1800s, it does not get paved over—and can grow back. TwoScars (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The detail on the evolution of the forest is now a footnote. The footnote explains tobacco farming, abandonment of depleted land, the mines, and the plank roads. It also has a quote from 1732 to give some perspective of time. The important part, two sentences that describe the Wilderness, moved into the first paragraph. TwoScars (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• more-manpower – why the "-"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed "-". TwoScars (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Lee needed Longstreet's First Corps to be in position before the fighting started – what position, could this be more specific? Does it simply mean he was waiting until Longstreet reached the wilderness?

Here is how the source, David J. Eicher, worded it: "Mead wanted to move southward through the Wilderness, and Lee did not want to engage until Longstreet was in position." By position, we mean the place that Lee wanted Longstreet to be when fighting. I changed the sentence to say "However, Lee needed Longstreet's First Corps to be in position to fight before the battle started." TwoScars (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• After head of the V Corps reached Wilderness Tavern around 11:00 am, – should it be "After the head"?

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• This change of plans by Union leadership – again, "the" missing? There are more similar instances …

Interesting. This is a case where I would not insert a "the" in front of Union. As an example of others doing the same thing, check out this article by the American Battlefield Trust. Third paragraph: "To avoid the tangle of trees, Union forces advanced...." Fifth paragraph: "Their movements were not entirely undetected, but were certainly underestimated by Union commanders...." That being said, I still plan to do a search on "Union" and "Confederate", and insert "the". TwoScars (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That is ok, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Inserted numerous "the"s in front of "Union" and "Confederate". TwoScars (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Spencer repeating rifles – can this be linked? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Spencer carbine is already linked in the Union Opposing forces section. The cavalry used Spencer carbines, which were lighter and had shorter barrels compared to the Spencer rifle. They called them Spencer rifles anyway, or Spencers, or Spencer repeating rifles. For some reason, nobody calls them Spencer repeating carbines—even though that is the best description. In this instance, it is important to remind the reader that the 5th New York Cavalry was armed with repeaters. I could change "rifle" to "carbine", if necessary, but that is a little–used term. TwoScars (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• After head of the V Corps reached Wilderness Tavern around 11:00 am, Wilson continued south. – "V Corps" and "Wilson" is the same unit, right? I found this quite confusing. I recommend to use the same terms when you mean the same things, otherwise the reader will assume that you mean something different.

V Corps and Wilson are different units. In the section "Grant crosses the river", it is explained that Wilson's cavalry led the way, while the V Corps and VI Corps followed. I will go back to the Opposing forces section and add "infantry" to the descriptions for II, V, VI, and IX Corps. They are not cavalry. Similar for Confederate infantry. TwoScars (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• and aligned his army from Germanna Ford to Shady Grove Church while it spent the night in the Wilderness – maybe add "north to south", I think it would help.

Made change. TwoScars (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• and western border is usually considered Mine Run. – What is "Mine Run"? I see it is explained later, but should be explained at first mention.

Moved the explanation up to the first mention. I agree that "Run" is a strange name for a small stream. TwoScars (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• On May 7, Meade and Lee's cavalries clashed again nearby at the Battle of Todd's Tavern. – But we are at "May 5". Could this be out of place?

Moved it down to Fighting Ends. TwoScars (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• the remainder of Wilson's cavalry division was cut off from Meade's infantry corps – you don't seem to refer to a particular corps (?), so I suggest to avoid confusion by saying "was cutt of from the Union infantry corps". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Changed to: "Once the Confederates advanced east of Parker's Store, the remainder of Wilson's cavalry division was cut off from Meade and Warren's VI Corps." Two points are inferred here: 1) Meade's "eyes" to the south were gone as Wilson was unable to get messages back to Meade; and 2) Wilson could no longer be supported by Warren's infantry, so his whole unit was in danger of being captured. TwoScars (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Before Hill's Corps collapsed totally – that would mean that it did collapse totally, which I think is not what you mean?

Changed to "While Hill's Corps retreated, reinforcements arrived." A more restrained sentence. As info, author Gordon Rhea says "...Hill's broken formation, the wreckage of the Confederate Third Corps streamed west from the front." TwoScars (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• The maps are indeed very helpful, as you say. But they can be improved:
  • In this one ([1]), the "Orange Turnpike" is not labelled, although the article section of this map has this name. So the reader may not know where on the map we are.

I agree. I plan to fix that, although I might not be able to fix it until next week. TwoScars (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• • On day six, there is no map showing the Orange Turnpike, I felt a bit helpless there.

Assume you mean the map in the Attacks begin section. I can't expand Hal's maps, only crop or overwrite them. The map in the section "Gordon attacks at Orange Turnpike" has the Turnpike labeled on the left side about 1/3 down from the top. TwoScars (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Lacy House – this and a few others do never appear on any of the maps.

"Lacy" is on the map in the "Fight at Saunders Field" section. I can add anything else you think is needed. TwoScars (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Note that I do not request fixes of the maps for this GA nomination; the three points above are optional.
• sides caused caused – word too much

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• When I started this article, I was quite confused about the first map, as I thought the armies of Sigel, Crook, and Butler were all involved in the Battle of the Wilderness. But it's just about Meade's army. Can you make this clear somehow? Maybe, in the section "Grant's plan", you could add an additional paragraph showing how this Battle fits inside this scheme.

Changed the second paragraph under "Grants plan" to made things clearer, and ended with a footnote that tells what happened to Sigel, Crook, Butler, and Sherman. TwoScars (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Also, you introduced "Grant's plan" but we never learn if that plan actually worked out?

In the "Performance and impact" section, added after what was the last sentence, which was: "The battle confirmed a warning made by Longstreet to Lee about Grant, that he would fight "every day and every hour till the end of the war"." Added: "By April 1865, Lee's army needed supplies and his men were starving. His army was trapped between Sheridan's and Meade's forces. On April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered his army to Grant after the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse." TwoScars (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I was quite happy with the second half of the article, it was good to follow. If the above are addressed, we should be ready to promote. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I might have everything fixed except maps. Anything else or anything I missed? TwoScars (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Looks all good now. Congrats. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)