Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2015 [1].

Battle of Malvern Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Battle of Malvern Hill, fought July 1, 1862, between General George McClellan's Army of the Potomac and General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. The battle ended in a Confederate defeat and effectively ended McClellan's campaign on the Virginian Peninsula. This is my first FA article but I dare not ask you to go easy on me (neither will you ;)). FAs are the best of the best. For the record though, I would like to get it to FA before July 1 so it can be featured on the Main Page. It may be jumping the gun but it is a solid goal :) Thank you, ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment: You should probably mention that the battle is part of the American Civil War in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Image review

  • Is the Battle begins caption taken from somewhere else, or is meant to be a title? Its tone is a bit odd
    • Changed to "The Union ships Monitor, Galena, Jacob Bell and Aroostook launching missiles onto the battlefield at Malvern Hill." Good?
  • File:Sneden_watercolor_of_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • I think this is corrected.
  • File:GenGS.jpg needs US PD tag and author date of death
    • This should be done as well.
  • File:John_B_Magruder.jpg: author and date of death?
    • Not sure if this corrects it, but I changed the license to {{PD-US}}. It was published between 1861-1865, well before 1923 so must be in the public domain. Furthermore, the source (Library of Congress) doesn't say who the source is.
  • File:Revised_Union_battleplan_for_the_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Map_of_the_night's_march_after_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg
    • Instead of {{PD-US}}, tagged the images with {{PD-old}} and {{PD-1923}}. The author died more than 70 years ago so they're in the public domain. I don't think the exact date of publishing is necessary then right?
      • Not quite. We know that these images were created during the war, but they were in someone's diary, which is an archival source unless it was known to be published. Without more information we can't assume that PD-1923 applies. Was the diary formally published at some point, or was its first "publication" the digitization by LOC? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: According to the Virginia Historical Society, it was published in 2000 but there are no restrictions on use/re-use of anything in it. Excuse my ignorance of matters of files licenses but how should I play this lieu of that information. Just put a {{public domain}} tag on it and update it with "No restrictions on usage" and the VHS source. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • VHS source link here BTW: http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and-resources/how-we-can-help-your-research/researcher-resources/finding-aids/sneden-0 --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmmm. I'm a bit confused about how VHS is coming up with their restriction notes. If we look at this record - where given the dates involved part of the collection is certainly copyrighted - it still says no restrictions. Same with several other recent (1980-1990s) records. This leads me to suspect that they are not including copyright in their consideration of usage restrictions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Nikkimaria: I might have gone looking too far when the answer lay at the Library of Congress website where I got it from: "The maps in the Civil War Maps materials were either published prior to 1922, produced by the United States government, or both". source. By the way this FAC has been languishing for some time. Is this normal? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Union_barrage_at_Malvern_Hill_-_July_1,_1862.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Can I use this as a source? It's from the Hampton Roads Naval Museum. I could also use this as a source from the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. Using the former would allow me to reupload a more clear, coloured version of the same image. Both of those seem to be reliable sources. In fact I can use both. The source at the VAF says it was published in 1863 and since it's necessary that I provide a date of publication, that's valuable. Thoughts? (By the way, thank you Nikkimaria for the image review.) Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe we can mark this as done as well. I've reuploaded a colored version. and added {{PD-art}} and {{PD-old-100}}. Both are applicable and together they prove that the image is in the public domain according to US copyright laws and most copyright laws around the world. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll be happy to help with copyediting after we get a support or two. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Striking, there's more to do here than I have time for. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Thank you Dank. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pending support I'll support this, after it gets some copy -editing. You've got a lot of dupe links, too. Let me know when Dank does his copy edit, and I'll give it another go-over for copy/prose. your source list doesn't include all in your footnotes (such as Sweetman or Rollyson). auntieruth (talk)

@Auntieruth55: Mike Christie has copyedited recently, did you want to take another look at the article now? @Dank: Just FYI... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Ian, there's more to do here than I have time for. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: fine

  • did not do spot checks
  • sources cited include many of the principle works on the battle/campaign.
  • further reading section is a nice touch, and includes several important and readable works on the campaign. auntieruth (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Auntieruth55. I removed the duplinks I found with Ucucha's script (I though I'd got them all but a whole bunch of them popped up when I used the script in the edit window.) Hey Dank, do you think this would be enough to endorse a copyedit ? Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Resolved concerns

I'm copyediting as I go through the article; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • "McClellan's attempts to take the city were repeatedly held off by Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston. But when Johnston was replaced by Robert E. Lee, the Confederacy went on the offensive." Rather than start a sentence with "But", I'd suggest either joining these two sentences with a comma, or making it "When Johnston" at the start of the second one.
    • Changed to "However, when Johnston".
      I wasn't keen on the new wording so I've switched it around a little; let me know if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Collectively called the Seven Days Battles, Lee launched a series of counterattacks": rephrase -- Lee was not collectively called the Seven Days Battles.
    • Reworded to Collectively called the Seven Days Battles, a series of counterattacks against McClellan and his army were launched by Lee
      Also rephrased per my comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the next day, McClellan extended his battle line": either "had extended" or cut "By".
    • Changed to "had extended".
  • "By May 30, McClellan had already begun moving troops": why "already"?
    • Removed.
  • Should the caption say the bridge was created by Sumner's troops, rather than by Sumner? That's how the information on the image itself has it.
  • "Lee was ostensibly not feeling so reclusive": I like the idea here, but I don't think this quite works. How about just "Lee was less cautious"?
    • Changed to "Lee was less cautious"
  • "The resulting battle was a unique occurrence during the Seven Days": in what way?
    • Added , in terms of tactics and casualties
      I don't think that really fixes it -- the reader still doesn't know what it is that's unique about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to The resulting battle was the only clear-cut Confederate victory during the Seven Days. While the sun shone, some of Lee's men had launched one attack after another over muddy, uneven ground against the Union line; all to no avail.
        Much better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one mismatched attack after another": I don't follow -- they were overmatched by their Union opponents? Or they failed to coordinate their attacks?
    • one attack after another over muddy, uneven ground against the Union line
  • "The day after however": I'd cut "however", and I think you should give the date -- it's been a day or two since the previous date was given and the reader won't be sure what date we've reached.
    • Deleted "however" and added "On June 29"
  • "The battle's execution was uncoordinated, allowing the Federals escaped": looks like an incompletely edited sentence.
    • Yup, good catch. Fixed.
  • "This series of aggressions would come to be a part of the Seven Days Battles": I'm not sure what "come to be a part of" means here.
  • "inviting battle; Lee obliged": there's nothing wrong with this, but you might consider making that a period after battle -- making the last two words a sentence on their own would be a rather nice dramatic touch.
    • Changed semi-colon to period.
  • "was distanced about two miles from": suggest cutting "distanced".
    • Deleted "distanced"
  • "Western Run creek, another tributary of Turkey Island Creek which, perversely enough, lay mostly along the eastern side of the hill and slanted into the northern side slightly": this sentence has no main verb, and I don't understand "perversely enough".
    • Reworded to Western Run creek was another tributary of Turkey Island Creek which lay mostly along the eastern side of the hill and slanted into the northern side slightly
  • Is there any chance of a simplified topographic map that could accompany the geography section? The description seems precise but a map is worth a thousand words.
    • Tried to find some on LoC and NARA websites. All of them have complicated sketches of where the Union/Confederate divisions were placed instead of a simple depiction of the hill's topography.
      Fair enough; it would be nice to add something like that if you ever do find something suitable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet ostensibly did not share Hill's objections": I don't think "ostensibly" adds anything here.
    • Deleted "ostensibly"
  • "Lee chose for the relatively well-rested units of": I think this would read more naturally without "for".
    • Deleted "for"
  • Several times you repeat the full rank and name of a general after introducing him earlier in the section. There's rarely a need for this unless it's been a while since they were mentioned; A.P. Hill and D.H. Hill are an obvious exception, but Longstreet should usually just be Longstreet after the reader knows who he is.
    • Cut several instances of this but I left several instances where it would say "James Longstreet" and "Stonewall Jackson" instead of just Longstreet and Jackson
      I did a few more; revert if you think I overdid it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lee's Army of Northern Virginia would form a semi-circle enveloping Malvern Hill": it's not clear if this is a description of the plan or a description of what would actually happen. I think it's the plan, so I would make it something like "Lee's plan was for the Army of Northern Virginia ...". I also don't think a colon is the best punctuation at the end of that sentence; I'd suggest a period there.
    • Reworded to Lee planned for his Army of Northern Virginia to form a semi-circle enveloping Malvern Hill.
  • "the divisions of Stonewall Jackson forces and John Magruder": I suspect this is incompletely edited. Shouldn't it be either "the divisions of Stonewall Jackson and John Magruder" or "Stonewall Jackson's and John Magruder's forces"?
    • Yup, fixed.
  • "who held the battle of Malvern Hill as the first battle he'd ever commanded in": a bit wordy. How about "who had never before held a command during battle"?
  • The text says the order was unlikely to have been seen by Lee, but the quote box doesn't make that clear. I think adding a note to the quotebox would be worthwhile -- I read it before I read the text and assumed that this was verbatim from Lee.
  • "He corroborated his view with": this might be more natural as "This view was corroborated by".
    • Reworded.
  • "As evidenced by the plights of Major General John Magruder and Brigadier General Benjamin Huger, Malvern Hill would be no exception": I'm not keen on this wording, for a couple of reasons. It might be better to simplify it a little. How about "These misfortunes continued during the Battle of Malvern Hill, with both Magruder and Huger making mistakes in the deployment of their forces"?
    • Reworded
  • "destined to reach the day's battlefield": I'm not sure what "destined" means here.
    • Reworded to eventually reaching the day's battlefields
  • "a relatively less disparate condition": I don't think this means quite what you want it to. I think you mean that the army's disposition was more orderly and there were no serious errors in the disposition, as there were with the Confederates. How about "The Army of the Potomac's disposition in the lead up to the battle was more orderly than Lee's"?
    • Reworded.
  • "somewhat less precarious than Magruder": "precarious" doesn't seem the right word; there was nothing precarious about Magruder's mistake, surely?
    • Reworded to Brigadier General Huger and his men had found themselves in a predicament as delicate as Magruder's
  • "A.P. Hill sent one of his batteries to the right artillery position—his best one, supposedly": I'm curious about the source for "supposedly"; if this is truly an opinion, and not definite, is it worth attributing the source in the text?
    • Deleted —his best one, supposedly since it is speculative.
  • "the Rowan Artillery of the Brigadier General William H.C. Whiting's division": should be "of", not "of the"?
    • Yup, fixed.
  • "waked the wrath": this might be an American English vs. British English point, but I'd expect to see "woke the wrath", not "waked".
    • Seems either would have been correct in this case but nonetheless I changed it to "woke"
  • Since the story of the beginning of the battle doesn't reach 3:30 P.M. till towards the end of that section, it might be better to move the mention of the gunboats to that point, since the Galena didn't return till about that time. Or were the other two boats engaged earlier?
    • The source doesn't make this clear. There is evidence to suggest that the gunboats began their barrage at around the same time the artillery fight began to pick up (at about 1 PM) but this contitutes original research since no source directly states that.
      I think this is a problem as currently worded. The narrative in the beginning of battle section makes it clear that the artillery fire from both sides was underway well before 2:30 P.M., but the when the involvement of the ironclad and the boats is mentioned the only time context we are given is that the ironclad was not present till 3:30. I think it would be better to be clearer that the ironclad was not involved at the time the barrage began, and that the gunboats may or may not have been -- it's OK to let the reader know that the sources are unclear on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Magruder think Armistead's men had been successful? And in fact how did he know what happened to them at all, given that Huger didn't know where they were?
    • He thought Armistead was successful because by the time he reached the battlefield, Armistead's men were halfway up the hill. (He might have thought that with healthy reinforcements, Armistead's men could advance. This was proven untrue when the first major charge of the day was repelled quite effectively by the Union guns) Huger didn't know where Armistead and Wright were because he sent them ahead the perform flanking actions on the Charles City Road to any Union forces they met. They didn't meet any Union forces because the road was clear. So they just marched until they reached the battlefield. Once they reached the battlefield they were ordered to replace Magruder and Huger. Benjamin Huger was a stickler for the chain of command and hated when anyone but himself gave his brigades orders. He was quite upset at Malvern Hill.
      Rereading I think this is OK; I think the material is all there. If I can figure a way to clarify it I'll try it but I think it's OK as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Equally grim as the visuals left from Malvern Hill's fighting were the casualty numbers": I think "visuals" sounds a bit anachronistic here, and I'm also not convinced it's a good comparision -- the sight of the dead and wounded isn't really a separate issue from the casualty numbers; they're just different aspects of the same thing. Comparing the two makes little rhetorical sense. I think you can make this just "The casualty numbers from the battle were grim."
    • Reworded.
  • "She recalled that they "breathed in the vapors" of the charnel houses": I wouldn't use "charnel house" outside quotes unless you specifically mean an actual charnel house; if it's a metaphorical use it's better if the original quote is used.
    • Added the full text of the quote.
  • "In fact, Lee reported that he'd taken some ten thousand Union soldiers prisoner": what does "in fact" mean here? If the point is the difference between the two counts of missing soldiers, I'd suggest being more direct -- perhaps "Lee reported that he'd taken ten thousand Union soldiers prisoner, a number significantly higher than the total reporting missing by McLellan."
    • Reworded to Enough Federals had fallen into Confederate hands that Lee reported capturing ten thousand prisoners.
  • Our article on Fitz John Porter uses the spelling with the space between the first two names; you're using "FitzJohn". It's apparent both are used, so this isn't relevant for FAC, but it would be nice if we were consistent across articles. Is there any reason to pick one spelling over another?
    • Force of habit actually. Wikipedia was the first place I'd ever heard FitzJohn Porter referred to as "Fitz John Porter" with space. The literature I'd read on the Peninsula Campaign always referred to him as "FitzJohn". Either way, I've changed all instances to "Fitz John" per precedent.
  • "James Longstreet might have incited the Confederate defeat": I'm not sure what the intended meaning is, but "incited" seems clearly the wrong word.
    • Changed to "instigated"
  • "Despite these occurrences, however": "occurrences" doesn't seem right -- I think you want to say something like "Despite these issues" or "problems".
    • Reworded to Despite these mishaps
  • "the same shell that wounded me wounded four other's in my company": is the apostrophe in the source? If so I'd add a [sic] after it.
    • Removed comma. Added accidentally.
  • "in good timing as well—mere seconds later": I'd cut this to just "seconds later".
    • Deleted "merely"
  • In footnote f, it should be "lay", not "lie", and you have three "however"s, as well as "additionally" and "also". These can surely be cut down. "However" is very easy to overuse and can often be simply deleted with no ill effects.
    • Changed "lie" to "lay". Did some rewording to correct the "however"s, etc.
  • "Sears goes on, saying that": suggest "Sears goes on to say that" or just "Sears adds that".
    • Done. Sears adds that
  • "nine-inch (230 millimeter)– and eleven inch (280 millimetre)–Dahlgrens": this is a bit hard to read, with the conversions as well as the separated hyphenation. How about just giving the non-metric units, then adding a parenthesis after "Dahlgrens" to give both the conversions?
    • changed to Moreover, nine-inch and eleven-inch (230 millimeter and 280 millimeter) Dahlgren guns and one hundred-pounder (45 kilogram) Parrot rifles

I've completed a pass through the article and will wait for responses before reading through again. Generally I think this is a sound article, well-organized and appropriately sourced. I have some concerns about the prose but I think they're mostly cosmetic. I've indicated some issues above and have made a few copyedits; I'll do another pass later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has been taken care of. I'll do another read through and copyedit, and will post any further points I find here; as before if my copyedits don't look right to you please revert. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. I have three more minor points that can be easily fixed.

  • In the geography section, some instances of "creek" are capitalized in the names and some are not -- can you just confirm that this is consistent with the sources?
  • "Davis and Lee eventually decided that large-scale pursuit of McClellan's army was careless": "careless" is surely not the right word; and the tense seems wrong too: do you mean something like "would be too risky"?
  • "Our success has not as great or complete as we should have desired": I didn't fix this because it's a direct quote, but I assume this is missing "been".

Other than these three points I think this article is now FA-quality, with a couple of caveats. First, I see that it has not had a A-class review from the Military History Wikiproject. Of course that's not a prerequisite, but in the absence of an A-class review I'd like to hear from someone with ACW expertise that this article does fairly reflect the scholarship on the battle; I'm just a layman on the topic and can't pretend to have reviewed this for comprehensiveness or balance. Second, I think the article would benefit from at least one more map. I think the basic topography of the area would be much easier to understand with a good map, and there are geographic features in the larger area that I gather are beyond the borders of the one map that we do have -- e.g. the James River. The current map is very good for its age, but clarity is as important as authenticity and as a reader I couldn't follow the battle as well as I would have liked to. I'd also like to be able to follow some of the action on a map (perhaps a different one): Magruder's misdirected march, and Huger's delays, are still vague to me because I couldn't place them in relation to the battlefield as well as I would like; and of course if the sources exist then the action on the battlefield itself could be illustrated too -- exactly where was Armistead's "successful" charge, for example?

I've indicated weak support above because of these two points, but really the addition of one or more modern maps is the main thing that would lead me to strike "weak" from my support. The comment about MilHist just reflects that fact that I can't honestly support on 1b and 1c of the FA criteria. The structure of the article seems just right to me, and the narrative is straightforward and clear. A very good article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

Resolved concerns

This article looks pretty good overall, but the lede, especially, has some problems.

Lede
  • The first paragraph is fine. The second is awkward. I'd start with a sentence describing how the Army of the Potomac got to the peninsula--whatever else historians think of McClellan, the idea to transport the army by ship behind rebel lines was a bold one, and sets up the story.
    • I was conflicted as when I should start the background. This certainly would be a neat addition. I've added and cited it in the main "Military situation" section, and added it to the lede.
  • "McClellan's attempts to take the city were repeatedly fended off by Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston." The passive voice shifts the action here. Why not "Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston fended off McClellan's repeated attempts to take the city."?
    • Done.
  • "Lee succeeded Johnston..." Maybe slightly more detail is warranted. Perhaps "After Johnson was wounded, Lee took command and..."
    • Done.
  • "...began taking up positions..." Probably better as "took up positions".
    • Done.
  • "The preparations of Lee's men..." Probably better as "Confederate preparations..." or even "Lee's preparations..."
    • Done.
  • "...caution caused Benjamin Huger to be late..." Might read better as "... an excess of caution delayed Benjamin Huger..."
    • Done.
  • "Nonetheless, it was the Confederates who started the battle..." Might read better as "Nonetheless, the Confederates attacked first..."
    • Done.
  • "The Union artillery triumphed in its defensive role, however. This was the story of the day, as attack after attack was repulsed by the Union." Could be tightened up. For example: "The Union artillery, however, was the story of the day, repulsing attack after attack."
    • A note on this though: I changed "The Union artillery" to "The Federal artillery". the double use of "Union" (it's used just a few words prior) might be jarring to the reader.
  • "...Lee was heralded as the savior of Richmond in Confederate newspapers." Again, passive voice is a problem here. Try: "... Confederate newspapers heralded Lee..." or "...the Confederate press heralded Lee..."
    • Done.
  • "...and began preparing..." could be "...to prepare..." That way we emphasise the important verb in the sentence (" to prepare").
    • Done.
  • "...Malvern Hill effectively ended the campaign..." If McClellan withdrew, it was fully ended, right? The word "effectively" weakens the point, unless there was some further action on the peninsula I'm forgetting.
    • Nope, not forgetting anything. The Campaign was over, I've deleted effectively.
  • I'll stop there. More to follow. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Military situation
  • The body of the article is mostly good, but there are passive voice problems here and there. Not that it's wrong to use it where called for, but sentences usually sound better with active-voice phrasing. I'd recommend a thorough read-through on this one issue.
  • For example: "This attack was repelled by the Union however, with heavy losses on the Confederate side." It would read better as "Union fires repelled the attack with heavy losses on the Confederate side." Or even: "Union forces turned back the Confederate onslaught, inflicting heavy losses."
    • @Coemgenus: I've done a read through of it and I've corrected the ones I've found. Although, you seem to be more of an expert on the topic so you'll probably find a few more (perhaps, a lot more, even.) Furthermore, I'd like to get your opinion on Note c in the article. Should I just put that as a paragraph in the text rather than a note that people won't read. It explains the [immense] breadth of the fire that day. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note c looks good as it is. I'll continue reading the rest of the article, but it seems much improved so far. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of note: I also pinged Parsecboy (the GA reviewer) who said he would re-review and drop a note here. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm satisfied overall. This article is much improved, and I'm happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Sourcing comments

  • Using fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth. Also, {{refbegin}} has that parameter, which should be used over adding {{div col}}
  • Be consistent in whether books include location; if they do it should be more specific than "United States"
  • Some bibliographic details are repeated between Citations and Sources, while other sources are represented by short cites in Citations and full details only in Sources
  • Can you verify the Cullen title?
  • Can you verify the Longstreet listing? It's missing date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • I'm not seeing any of that paragraph in FN88, at least not on the listed page
  • Some of the content from FN96 is too close to the source - compare for example "McClellan, in contrast to Lee, knew exactly where the blame lay. It was the "heartless villains" in Washington that authored his defeat" with "McClellan knew precisely where to lay the blame. The authors of his defeat...were the "heartless villains" in Washington", or "McClellan found solace in his opinion that everything that happened to him on the Peninsula was the divine will of God" with "The general found solace in his conviction that everything that had happened to him on the Peninsula was God's will".
    • Still some problems here - "paramount enemy" is direct from the source, though the source applies it to McClellan rather than Stanton.
  • "Lieutenant William Folwell, wondered why "they deify a General whose greatest feat was a masterly retreat."[96]" - quote in the source says "whose greatest feat has been a masterly retreat" (my emphasis), please correct
  • "Longstreet did not share Hill's objections, laughing off his caution and saying, "Don't get so scared, now that we've got him [General McClellan] whipped."" - this quote is actually on p314 of that source, not 309 or 310
  • "The Confederate artillery fire had some effect" is a direct quote from the source
  • "The cries of the wounded tore through the night air" is a direct quote from the source
  • "uncomplaining silence from the hero" - should be "of the hero"
  • The long Averell quote is missing a few words
  • "In obedience to your orders, twice responded" - source says "twice repeated"
  • "A gun burst, of course, would cause terrible damage to the crew operating it. It takes extreme courage to operate guns in this way" is very close to "It took courage to fire in this way, for a bursting gun would do terrible damage to its crew". Please check for other instances of too-close paraphrasing
  • "I do not think McClellan was up to the mark" - source says "I do not think McClellan has come up to the mark". Please check for other errors in direct quotes

Oppose at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone over the entire article and addressed the points you've raised. I've reworded what needs rewording, check the citations, added quotes to what needs it, etc. It's rather incredible how easy it is to close-paraphrase. My fault entirely. I think another spotcheck is in order. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits so far, but there are still issues here:

  • "have been established to rake the enemy's line" - should be "enemies' line"
  • "The regiments pushed the skirmishers back easily enough, but in doing so, walked into the intense fire" is quite close to "They chased the skirmishers back easily enough, but in doing so advanced into a withering fire"
  • "the Federals were pulling back across Malvern Hill (this was actually Edwin Sumner's troops moving because of Confederate shelling); and Union artillery fire slackening on his front" is quite close to "Yankee troops pulling back across Malvern Hill (this was Sumner's men taking cover from the Confederate shells) and the enemy's artillery fire slackening on his front"
  • "kin searched among the wounded for their loved ones and tried to reclaim the bodies of the dead" is quite close to "families searched for the wounded and tried to reclaim the bodies of the dead"

Generally speaking, verifiability is better than on last check, but I'm still quite concerned about the paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for your response. Lesson learned. I'll do a paragraph-by-paragraph sweep tomorrow. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, and I have struck my oppose. Some remaining concerns:

  • Note K: do you mean Parrott rifles?
  • Note C has some phrasing a bit too close, and some grammatical issues as well
  • "Mahone's brigade..." paragraph could also use additional rephrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nikkimaria, can you see if your concerns have been addressed (particularly the sourcing comments) and strike them if you feel they have. Thank you very much, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - per the ping above

  • Check for WP:ENGVAR issues - I spot a convert template that produces a "kilometres"
  • I'd move one of the photos in the "Beginning of battle" section down so it doesn't sandwich text with the other image.
  • It would be worthwhile to include the number of guns in the infobox (see for instance the box at Battle of Waterloo)
  • One duplicate link for Fort Monroe in the "McClellan goes to Harrison's Landing" section Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Parsecboy. Can you possibly do a look over to see if your concerns have been addressed, and stirike your comments if so, r indicate which one haven't been? Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Karanacs[edit]

Oppose for now by karanacs. There are pervasive issues in the article with appropriate citation of quotations. It is best practice to cite a quotation to the specific book and page number on which it appeared, not to a range of pages (unless the quote crosses pages) or multiple books. This is not the case for many of the quotations in this article. I've noted most of those issues here but ask you to please double-check the others and make sure they are also appropriately cited. I'll strike the oppose when those are addressed. There are also instances throughout of ranks being used where they don't need to be.

  • In the first paragraph, we need a more specific citation for the quotation - "the stride of a giant". The page range is not specific enough.
  • they "could see the church spires of the city" -> Which book did this quotation from from? The citation after the next sentence lists two. This needs to be more explicitly cited.
  • " As glorious as that victory might have been," -> I'm not sure why this phrase is included. The wording doesn't seem neutral at all
  • Do we need "General" in the section names? I'd actually change them to "Union forces prepare" and "Confederate forces advance", but I understand leaving it as "McCllellan's forces..." etc.
  • The first sentence of Lee's forces advance seems awkward to me. I would expect the list of generals to appear immediately after "met with his generals, ... ," before the "on the Long Bridge Road...." I see this same structure in a few other places in the article also. It's an awkward read, and I believe syntactically incorrect (of course, I'm old, so maybe things have changed).
  • "so discomfit them as to warrant an assault by infantry." -> again, the citation is not specific enough
  • I'm not thrilled with the gallery of images. I think it is unnecessary, and it does not display well on my widescreen monitor (the second row is centered, the first row is offset to the left because the box for "Lee's message to his commanders" is almost entirely in this section). Having to scroll for one of the captions is also not good practice. If the images can't be distributed throughout the rest of the article, do they really need to be there?
  • "They landed on the battlefield eventually," - shouldn't landed just be for ships and planes?
  • The first and last paragraphs of Major General Magruder arrives has the same issue with quotations and citations
  • "No troops were ever better handled; never was better military skill displayed than by him." - again, specific citation
  • There are a lot of instances where ranks are repeated after the person's introduction, which isn't necessary. I removed several but may have missed some - can you please look through to fix this?
  • " "They have not all got away if we go immediately after them." -> quote, two different books cited

Karanacs (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Karanacs: Thank you for your comments. Now that I have time I'll go through all of them one-by-one. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through the article and corrected what I've seen, Karanacs. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't had a chance to go back through the article. I'm striking my oppose on your promise that it's been fixed. Karanacs (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Auntieruth55[edit]

  • Ok, I've done a read through of half of the article....it is in much better shape than it was earlier in this process. It's still got rough edges. I took the liberty of smoothing some of them out, mostly repetitive phrases, etc. YOu can see what I did in the history.
  • in the lead: it would haunt him? it haunted him, or the issue dogged his campaign, or something.
  • the Preliminary goals and strengths of forces section is very weak and choppy. It seems to me that suddenly we've found that McClellan's effort has failed--he's in retreat--and that Lee's is successful. Is there a way to weave this together? The armies are relatively evenly matched. As I'm reading this, M is making a "last stand" .... It would make some sense to me to weave in the strength of forces with the efforts of both armies to reconnoiter one another. Just some thoughts. I'll get back to reading the rest on Wednesday a.m. auntieruth (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but we've given this every chance to garner sufficient support for promotion and it hasn't happened, so I'm going to archive it and suggest a fresh start after the usual two-week break. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Malvern_Hill/archive1&oldid=1138455609"