Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of White Sulphur Springs/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Battle of White Sulphur Springs

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to a Good Article.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... – It's been a while since I've done a Peer Review, but I'm in the mood today (plus I teach history) so this should be fun. Here are some of my thoughts on peer reviews so you know where I'm coming from. Runfellow (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Runfellow, Part 1 I find it interesting that there are so few featured articles on Civil War battles. Given the number of people interested in the topic, you'd think there would be all sorts of high-level stuff out there. Anyway, here we go:

Lead
  • The second paragraph contains a fair amount of specific information regarding the objectives of the Union army. The third paragraph seems as though it will contain the same information regarding the Confederate forces, but it seems to cover a much broader scope. Regarding the actions during the battle itself, there is only a terse description: "Patton stopped Averell near White Sulphur Springs—about 10 miles (16 km) east of Lewisburg." I suggest that you shorten the description of the plans and goals here, and add a very brief summary of the actions of the battle, following with your article structure.
  • The article begins very early (more on that later) with the successive secessions (language is fun) of Virginia from the Union and West Virginia from the Confederacy. There is no mention of this in the lead, though.
  • After I get through the entire article, I will probably add or modify some things here.
Response to lead changes

This is definitely better. A few minor notes:

  • I would move the sentence starting with "A Confederate army" (should "army" be capitalized here? I'm not sure.) Since it clearly states who won the battle, I'd place it right there after "American Civil War."
  • Change "This" to "The" before "expedition."
  • Rather than "Patton stopped Averell" I think I'd make it clear which side stopped which. As it's written, it almost makes it sound as though it was a person-to-person interaction.
  • Change "and forced" to "and was forced"
  • Recommend deleting "multiple" since "forces" implies plural already.
  • You should include a brief sentence about the battlefield today, since there is a subsection of the article that covers that topic.
    • Added "As of 2011, the battlefield has not been preserved. Three small monuments are side by side near a fast food restaurant, and across the street on the other side of a small creek is a historical marker that calls the clash the "Dry Creek Battle". TwoScars (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Background and plans
  • West Virginia
  • As mentioned above, this section goes pretty far back for context. Given West Virginia's complicated situation in the article, I think I'm okay with that. However, it would be a good idea to look at this section from the perspective of someone who knows little to nothing about this context already. For the most part, this does an excellent job. Here are some further suggestions:
    • Change "Many people in the northwestern portion of the state preferred to remain loyal to the United States, and delegates from that portion of the state met in June at the Second Wheeling Convention." to "In June of that year, residents of the northwest part of the state who remained loyal to the United States met at the Second Wheeling Convention." This also removes the vague phrase "many people."
    • The sentence "Although loyal Virginians approved their own statehood on October 24, 1861, West Virginia did not become a state in the United States until June 20, 1863." introduces a mild bias by suggesting that the delay was longer than was reasonable. I suggest rephrasing to "Virginians loyal to the United States declared their own statehood on October 24, 1861, and it officially became the state of West Virginia on June 20, 1863."
    • Suggested rephrase: "and its people were poor" to "and far fewer financial resources than neighboring Virginia."
    • Suggested rephrase: "Residents were not all loyal to the union, and the state continued to be plagued by bushwhackers and Partisan rangers practicing guerrilla warfare." to "Not all residents were loyal to the Union; bushwhackers and partisan rangers practiced guerilla warfare tactics to gain control of the state."
    • Is there any way to be more specific than "Many of the people"? Perhaps not, but it's worth a try.
      • The source says: "the mountain people were, many of them, for the Union, while those in the large valleys were slaveholders, and joined the Confederacy." This makes it difficult to replace the term "many". However, I'm changing the second "many" that relates to those supporting the Confederacy to "the majority". TwoScars (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Historians" is not an official term; you might want to mention which groups.
      • Changed sentence to say One author writes that recent studies have adjusted the original counts of West Virginians serving in the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War, with "historians estimating approximately twenty thousand to twenty-two thousand fighting for each side". TwoScars (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC) [The author uses the term historian.][reply]
    • Suggested rephrase: "was one of the communities that supported the Confederacy" to "supported the Confederacy."
    • The last sentence of this section should be moved to earlier in the paragraph, so that it fits chronologically, or to the section on Kelly's orders.
Response to West Virginia changes

Again, great work. I think this reads a lot clearer now. A few minor notes:

  • I think I have given you some bad advice regarding the sentence about "historians". The sentence beginning with "One author" is now nested and awkward. This is entirely my fault. How about "Approximately twenty to twenty-two thousand West Virginians fought on each side of the conflict" and then add your source. That way we can skip the entire issue.
Response to Railroads changes
  • I suggest changing "and in Virginia the Confederate capital city of" to "where the Confederate capital city of"
  • William W. Averell
    • "one of the best–trained and best–disciplined" should have an attribution in text, if you're quoting directly from a source.
    • "Historians debate on if Averell was sent to West Virginia as a punishment, or because he could train Union Army units in cavalry tactics." Is this debate covered in the source from the next sentence? It's a little unclear.
    • "promptly" is a subjective term. I suggest clarifying or omitting entirely.
    • "youngest colonel in the Union Army" Hey I'm curious... who was it? Does he have an article you can link to?


  • Kelley's orders
    • Regarding the use of phrases like "would destroy," "would seize," etc., I suggest caution. This could be interpreted as "He was ordered to destroy" but it also could be read as "he destroyed." I suggest rephrasing to make this clearer.
    • Can you be any clearer than "users"?
    • I suggest deleting "currently" before "detached".
Response to William W. Averell and Kelley's orders changes
  • I still recommend an in-text citation for anything in quotation marks, but I don't think it's required, per se.
    • I believe Patchan, Wittenberg, and Lowry are the best Civil War historians for West Virginia-Virginia. They have plenty of detail, and they cite their sources. However, I'm uncomfortable inserting their names into the main body of a Wikipedia article. I changed the sentence to: His men considered him an excellent drillmaster, and at least one historian believed the regiment was "one of the best–trained and best–disciplined" volunteer cavalry regiments. The sentence has two citations. The first is from a book about the regiment by a former soldier. The second is Wittenberg's book where the quoted material comes from. TwoScars (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit in the footnote about how important the law library is should be included in the article itself. It declares the importance of one of the major objectives, and I think that merits inclusion in the main body of text.
    • Left the footnote in, but took the quote from Kelley about the lawbooks rightfully belonging to the new state out of the footnote and into the main body of text. TwoScars (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last four sentences of this section begin with "Averell was" or "Averell would". Might want to mix that up a bit.
Opposing forces

Hmmmm, it seems as though I've been reading about the opposing forces in this article already. I'm not entirely sure if there should be some things moved around, but it might be worth looking into.

  • Confederate army
    • I think it's clear that Lewisberg is in West Virginia, at this point.
    • Suggest moving the sentence about Imboden somewhere else, as the two sentences surrounding it are about Jackson (whom I had never heard of, by the way! I love learning.)
      • Moved Imboden to end of paragraph.
    • The sentence "Jackson was a target..." contains some awkward syntax. I'm not entirely sure how to rephrase it, yet, but there are many bits of information you're trying to convey in one sentence.
    • "grandfather of the future World War II tank commander also named George S. Patton" I was wondering if this would end up in here. I'm not denying that it's interesting, but I don't think it's particularly relevant. I suggest deleting, but I wouldn't blame you for keeping it in there.
    • Suggest changing "had" to "commanded"
    • Is there any information about the weapons used by the Confederate forces?
Response to Opposing forces changes
  • Yes, I think the info about where the troops are from fits nicely here. Well done.
  • Suggest changing "Averell had" to "Averell commanded" or something along those lines.
  • Union Army
    • Awkward syntax: "split among multiple places." Suggest changing to "split into multiple units"? Not sure.
    • Suggest changing "had" to "commanded" here, too.
      • Change to "His command also included...."
    • Suggest changing "Gibson's Cavalry Battalion (six companies)" to "six companies of Gibson's Cavalry Battalion"
    • Suggest changing "Ewing's Battery. Ewing's Battery had six guns." to "the six guns of Ewing's Battery." This would also remove the redundant source (36) at the end of the second sentence.
    • Suggest adding a comma after "At the battle" since you have it in the sentence in the Confederate military.

I'll update this later today with the next part. In the meantime, let me know if you have any questions. My apologies for anything I wasn't clear about. I am working fast, and no doubt missed some things and/or made some goofy mistakes in my suggestions above. Runfellow (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Runfellow, Part 2

Initial movements
  • "harassing" is a term that shows up quite frequently in historical sources, but it isn't specific enough for a reader who might be unfamiliar with that context.
    • Eliminated the first usage. The second usage (now first) was expanded to explain more: During this time, Averell's force was often harassed by local bushwhackers, who used hit-and-run tactics to weaken the Union force while avoiding the risk of direct confrontation.
  • Hardy County
    • "similar distance" <- Could you give a direction?
    • Should the sentence about the people in the county be moved to just after you mentioned it for the first time in this paragraph?
    • End the sentence after "arrive soon" then begin with "This did not include horses for Ewing's Battery, forcing..."
    • Along those same lines, you have capitalized "Ewing's Battery" up to this point. I don't know whether it should be or not, but I know it should be consistent throughout the article.
  • Highland County
    • I'm not quite sure what "Initial reasoning was that..." means in this context.
      • Changed to "Originally, Confederate leadership believed Averell was planning an attack on Staunton, Virginia, which was also a stop for the Virginia Central Railroad. Robert E. Lee's opinion differed, and he correctly believed Averell's targets were Huntersville and Lewisburg." TwoScars (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huntersville and Callaghan's

As near as I can tell, this is still the prelude to the battle. I suggest combining this section and the "initial movements" into a section with that title. There is a ton of detail here, and I'm beginning to wonder if all of it is significant. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, though, before I start suggesting major deletions.

  • Jackson driven from Huntersville
    • Might need a link to Vanguard
    • Suggest deleting "on" in the phrase "on the next day"
    • Since "false advance" is in quotation marks, it will need an in-text citation. Who used that phrase to describe the tactic?
      • Changed to "The next day, Averell sent Gibson's Battalion on what he called a "false advance", while the main portion of his force took a different road and reached Huntersville without any resistance."
    • "appearing to fear being" Did he appear to fear, or was he fearful?
      • [From the Union soldier viewpoint, he appeared to fear....] Changed to "Understanding that he had been outflanked and making sure he was not cut off from Warm Springs, Jackson moved east on the Warm Springs Road." [This also eliminates speculation that he was fearful.] TwoScars (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warm Springs and Callaghan's
      • This section has some importance because it sets the start of the battle, and answers the question of why the northern army was approaching from the south while the southern army was approaching from the north. Some of the excess detail was eliminated. TwoScars (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "driven back" meaning he was forced back by an advancing force, or he retreated tactically?
      • Changed to "chased back". There was some skirmishing, but Jackson had a history of not wanting to confront Averell. Mudwall certainly did not have a fighting mentality like his cousin Stonewall, but Mudwall survived the war and lived until 1890. TwoScars (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest changing "weapons, both guns and sabres" to "muskets and sabres" (or whichever guns you are referring to specifically)
      • Took that sentence out. The source says "we captured a number of sabres, guns, etc", and I cannot tell if a "gun" is a sidearm or an artillery piece. Eliminating the sentence also cuts back on the excess detail you mentioned. TwoScars (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest changing "had Patton" to "ordered Patton"

My biggest concern right now is with the number of details. These references to individual actions do not seem to be keeping with the spirit of summary style. A big part of that may be the fact that the War of the Rebellion papers are being used quite frequently. These reports provide context, but they do not all need to be included on an article of this type. I'll be back to cover the battle section later. Runfellow (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Runfellow, Part 3

Battle

I'll be honest: I can't go through this section line-by-line. I'm sorry to take the easy way out on this, but...

  • I'm getting bogged down in details. It's too much. A minute-by-minute, unit-by-unit account of the battle is not necessary, since the War of the Rebellion records are publicly available. More useful would be a general account of the ebb and tide of the battle, as well as the reasoning behind the tactical decisions made by major leaders (not captains and liutenants). Take a look at the article for Battle of Malvern Hill (a featured article) to see what I mean.
      • The Battle of Malvern Hill lasted 7.5 hours and has 15 paragraphs in the Battle section, while the Battle of White Sulphur Springs lasted about 10 hours on the first day plus more fighting for half of the second day, yet has 10 paragraphs. The entire Battle of Malvern Hill page is 77,266 bytes in length, while the Battle of White Sulphur Springs has 72,035 bytes (currently). Plus the Battle of White Sulphur Springs was part of an excursion that had two other objectives: driving Jackson out of Huntersville and destroying a gunpowder works. The Battle of Malvern Hill had over 100,000 soldiers fighting, while the Battle of White Sulphur Springs had 3,000 to 4,000—and had only one general at the battle. Ltcs, majors, and captains were leading men because there was nobody else. A lieutenant in a battery of artillery is the second-highest artillery commander. Battle of White Sulphur Springs now down to 67,951 bytes. TwoScars (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still plan to look for cutbacks in the battle section.
      • Made more cutbacks. Size down to 67,846.
  • Casualties from the battle should just be called Casualties and it should probably be in the Aftermath section. It is also far too long, as it is almost a list of every casualty from every major unit that engaged in the battle.
Retreat and pursuit
  • Other than the issue mentioned above, I don't see any major problems here.
Performance and impact
  • It's possible that the quote in the first paragraph would do well as a block quote, or as an aside (see the "Message to Confederate commanders" on the article for Battle of Malvern Hill
  • I know it's explained in subsequent sentences, but calling a performance "lackluster" either needs to be removed or qualified with a quote ("were perceived as lackluster by General So-and-so...")
  • The same holds true for "ineffective"
  • "Thomas J. 'Stonewall' Jackson had a great reputation..." Should definitely qualify this remark with who he had a great reputation with, especially since the "Stonewall" story has been questioned.
  • Maybe I missed this before, but why were these law books so important? Surely they weren't worth fighting an entire battle over...
    • That is now covered in a footnote under Kelley's orders. Remember that Averell's mission also included a gunpowder works and driving Confederates away from certain counties, so the law books were only part of his orders. TwoScars (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""noted as a terror to the enemy" needs an in-text citation.
    • Changed to: A major from the 6th West Virginia Cavalry Regiment wrote that Averell's brigade became "noted as a terror to the enemy". [Also has a citation to Lang's book. I can change it to "Major Joseph J. Lang from the...." if necessary.] TwoScars (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A documentary firm" I think is supposed to be "film" but then again even that word is redundant (so too might be the sentence)
  • Aftermath
    • The first paragraph of this section does not belong here; it is about the origin of the units and officers, rather than the aftermath of the battle.
    • "Today," <- replace with "As of XXXX,"
    • "a small monument to Baron Paul von Köenig dedicated by Colonel Schoonmaker" <- who and who???
      • Changed to "Next to it is a small monument to Baron Paul von Köenig, who led some of the Union charges and was killed in the battle. The von Köenig monument was dedicated on November 9th, 1914, by Colonel James M. Schoonmaker, who commanded the 14th Pennsylvania Cavalry in the battle." TwoScars (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned above, the casualties section needs to be here.
      • Changed the section after Retreat and pursuit to Aftermath, with a subsection titled Casualties from the battle, and a second subsection titled Performance and impact. A third and final subsection is titled Battlefield. "Casualties from the battle" needs to keep its name instead of simply "Casualties", since casualties to and from the battle are excluded from Averell's report. TwoScars (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As another side note, many picture captions should be rewritten to describe the image, rather than its importance or relevance.

Anyway, that's all I have for today. I hope I didn't seem to cruel or flippant, but I wanted to offer some general ideas and specific suggestions to get this on the way to GA status. Best of luck to you! If you'd care to reply to anything I wrote here, or you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Runfellow (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Don't worry about seeming too cruel or flippant. I have written 23 Good Articles, and reviewers all have differing opinions. Sometimes I push back, but don't let that offend you. I think it is great that a history teacher that does not live in the eastern United States has taken the time to review the article. TwoScars (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Battle_of_White_Sulphur_Springs/archive1&oldid=1033295475"