Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive2

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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2015 [1].

Battle of Malvern Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC), Lingzhi[reply]

Well, here we are again. Since the last FAC this article has gone through MILHIST A-Class review and a number of improvements. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I supported last time and have just read through the article again; I think this is excellent work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, Mike. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Confederate_General_Robert_E._Lee_poses_in_a_late_April_1865.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the image to File:Leeedit.jpg which is the same thing just edited for quality (and a Featured Picture). I have also archived the source link there. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wanna make the lead engaging. The first para didn't grab me so I massaged the text a little. Let me know what you think:
The background of the battle begins with.. - why is this in present tense if everything else is in past tense?
Changed to past tense.
In each phase, the effectiveness of the Federal artillery was the deciding factor, repulsing attack after attack. The result was a tactical Union victory. - might flow better as "In each phase, the effectiveness of the Federal artillery was the deciding factor, repulsing attack after attack, resulting in a tactical Union victory."
Done.
but Confederate soldiers captured by the Federals inflated Magruder's numbers to 100,000. - I don't follow - should this be "Union soldiers"?
Reworded a bit. Check if ir makes sense?
Well, err, yes, you've chopped out some stuff....
When the Union army tried to attack Richmond by way of the James River, this was stopped as well in the Battle of Drewry's Bluff on May 15. - you've changed the subject. Should be (?) "When the Union army tried to attack Richmond by way of the James River, they were stopped as well in the Battle of Drewry's Bluff on May 15."
Done.
The lack of decisive action on the Virginia Peninsula made Washington, and especially President Abraham Lincoln, upset and anxious. , why not "The lack of decisive action on the Virginia Peninsula worried Washington, and especially President Abraham Lincoln, gravely."
Done.
However, heavy rains and thunderstorms on the night of May 30 caused the water level to swell --> "However, heavy rains and thunderstorms that night caused the water level to swell"
Done.
The subsequent two weeks on the peninsula were mostly peaceful. - "peaceful" seems the wrong word to use here in time of war...."quiet"?
Done.

Overall, there is some clunkiness and repetitiveness to the prose. Some points are laboured. See if I lose any meaning by doing this and this? I can do this elsewhere.

  • Casliber, Your help is & would be genuinely appreciated. Tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Casliber: Thank you for your comments so far. Responded above. Just as well, further copyediting to cut out the fat is welcome. --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks much tighter after some good prose-massaging. nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Cliftonian[edit]

Support. Article meets the FA criteria in my view. A fine read. Note that my support is conditional on the article passing checks on sourcing, close paraphrasing, etc. Thank you to you both for your fine work on this article. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —  Cliftonian (talk) 
Lead
  • The passage starting "The background of the battle was McClellan's ambitious plan to launch his Peninsula Campaign and eventually take Richmond" seems to me clumsily worded, and we don't say which peninsula we are talking about. Perhaps "The Seven Days Battles were the climax of the Peninsula Campaign, during which McClellan's Army of the Potomac sailed around the Confederate lines, landed at the tip of the Virginian Peninsula, south-east of Richmond, and struck inland towards the Confederate capital. Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston fended off McClellan's repeated attempts to take the city ..." Then you don't need to clarify "Seven Days Battles" again later in the paragraph.
  • "took up positions on the hill on June 30 in preparation for the battle, which began the following day" you can end this sentence at "June 30" in my opinion
    • Done
  • "McClellan himself" don't need "himself"
    • Done
  • "having boarded the ironclad USS Galena and sailed down the James River" why?
  • "Confederate preparations were hindered by several mishaps. Bad maps and faulty guides " perhaps improve the flow a tadge by substituting an emdash for the full stop in the middle here.
    • @Cliftonian: (one of two pings) Not sure what you mean. I see a short sentence in front of a snaky one; joining them makes snakezilla. Am I understanding this correctly?• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear here what side Armistead was on. Ditto Hill.
  • artillery fire by who? three successive infantry charges by who? the Confederates or the Union?
    • I think "exchange of artillery fire" entails both sides, or is it not as clear as I think? Plus I added the word "Confederate" twice, but worry if that's too repetitive. Tks
  • "Lee withdrew to Richmond to prepare for his next operation, as the action on Malvern Hill ended the campaign on the Peninsula." don't think you need this.
  • "and thereby suffer heavy casualties" I think this is a run-on and would do better as a separate short sentence. The sentence before it is very good.

Background


  • "developed an ambitious plan to capture Richmond, the Confederate capital, and the Virginian Peninsula" I think the main priority was Richmond as opposed to the whole peninsula. I would stop at "to capture Richmond, the Confederate capital", and mention the Virginia peninsula for the first time at "to the tip of the peninsula at Fort Monroe".
  • Virginia Peninsula or Virginian Peninsula? We have both. I think either is okay but be consistent.
  • Why not link Lincoln?
    • Done tks
  • "spy its church spires" I think "spy" and "spire" sound unfortunately similar. perhaps change "spy" for a synonym or change "spire" for "steeple"
    • Done tks
  • "By May 30, he had begun moving troops" McClellan?
  • General Lee, one of my own personal favourites, is not wikilinked here.
    • Done
  • "was the only clear Confederate victory during the Seven Days" but we haven't yet introduced the Seven Days in the body of the article.
  • we have both "Union Army" and "Union army". be consistent with capitalisation
    • Done tks
  • "Nevertheless, on June 30," I'm not sure "Nevertheless" is needed. I think "On June 30" would do just as well.
    • Done tks
  • I believe sandwiching prose between an image and a quote box, as we have here under "Geography and location", is against MOS (see WP:IMGLOC). I would recommend putting the box in the centre as in the background section at Shangani Patrol, either at the start or the middle of the section (the end, I think, has a good peroration that is worth retaining as we go on to the prelude).
    • I removed the map. We may have from one to four more maps coming onto the page soon, and that map didn't really add much anyhow IMO. Tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather good so far; the prose is a little choppy in places but also has some great turns of phrase I enjoyed. More later. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude

  • Perhaps substitute an image of Lee that shows him more or less the same size as McClellan and Porter next to him. As we stand he looks a bit small. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third try for an image now, with Lee not such a wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie. Unfortunately, however, now Porter has that undesirable flaw in scale.• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've subbed another one that is both more contemporary to the battle and more appropriate size-wise. I hope this is okay. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude, continued

  • "and his fear of being cut off from his supply depot[17] left him cautious and wary." why this citation in the middle of the sentence rather than at the end?
    • Fixed.
  • "So, on the night of June 28" You don't need "So"; just "On the night of June 28" would do just as well
    • Done.
  • "McClellan announced to his generals his intentions to move his army" perhaps "McClellan told his generals that he intended to move his army"
  • Fitz John Porter is wikilinked in the image caption but not in the prose itself. Perhaps wl in the prose too.
    • Done.
  • "from which Lee's forces were expected to attack" careful regarding POV. perhaps "from which the Federals expected Lee's forces to attack" or similar.
    • Done.
  • "Having recently come" when? a few hours before? a few days before?
    • The night before. Fixed.
  • Harrison's Landing is wikilinked at the second mention but not the first. reverse
    • Fixed.
  • "Western Run—an area necessary for the planned movement of his forces to Harrison's Landing—where he feared an attack might come" he feared an attack might come at Western Run or at Harrison's Landing? The first, right? The mention of Harrison's Landing between the two emdashes also creates ambiguity in the next sentence ("As a result, he posted the largest portion of his army there"). Since we've already said this was the penultimate stop before Harrison's Landing, perhaps change to "Western Run—an area necessary for the final leg of his planned movement—where he feared an attack might come" or something like that, to make clear we're still talking about Western Run.
    • Fixed.
  • "Despite saying that his army was "in no condition to fight without 24 hours rest" and praying Lee's forces might leave his army alone that day,[23] McClellan left his troops at Malvern Hill and traveled downstream aboard the ironclad USS Galena towards Harrison's Landing on the north bank of the James River to inspect his army's future resting place there." This is a very long sentence. I would trim "towards Harrison's Landing on the north bank of the James River to inspect his army's future resting place there" down to "towards his army's future resting place at Harrison's Landing."
    • Fixed.
  • "McClellan did not give the command of the troops to any person" perhaps "McClellan did not delegate an interim commander" or similar
    • Done.

More soon —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude, continued

  • "led Lee to conclude that the men of the Army of the Potomac were demoralized and retreating" perhaps just "led Lee to conclude that the Army of the Potomac was demoralized and retreating"
    • Done tks
  • spacing of initials: A. P. Hill but D.H. Hill? Is this deliberate?
    • Can't find anything in MOS; assume a space. Done.
  • "rimming" oh my.
    • Oh my indeed! A sex act was going to be mention at some point; I should have known. Changed to "fringing". --ceradon (talk • edits) 01:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest of the section is very well done and the map is helpful.

Battle

  • The quote box at the top right is labelled as a message from Lee, but then attributed beneath as from Colonel Chilton. I understand that this is explained in the prose but it will still probably confuse people. This message wasn't really from Lee, as I understand it—we say "it is quite unlikely that Lee saw and approved such a vague and poorly drawn order". Presumably, then, Lee just gave Chilton the gist of what he wanted and the colonel composed the actual message, which was still presented as from Lee? I would clarify this.
  • We have already wikilinked Darius Couch higher up.
    • Unwl tks
  • footnote d has no inline citation in it.
  • Are the cannons in the picture here Federal or Confederate pieces? Or just decorative reproductions?
    • I can't find a source ofr whether or not it's the actual cannons or not. --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lt. Haydon supposedly fell asleep" who? Northerner, presumably?
    • Yes. Fixed, thanks.

Down to Magruder's charge. Very good work, I must say. More later. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle, continued

  • "Magruder was told to move to Huger's right." by who?
    • He was told at that morning's council. Done.
  • Perhaps add to the caption of the map here that the Confederates are in red and the Federals in blue (the lay reader may get confused by the Southerners being in the northern positions and vice versa).
    • Done.

Aftermath

  • "In fact, one veteran of the War wrote" who? Union or Confederate? Officer or enlisted man?
    • Removed that whole thing. Unnecessary.
  • Sneden, who made this map, was a Union private, presumably? I would make this 100% clear
    • Yup. Clarified.
  • "Lee, with Stonewall Jackson, met President Jefferson Davis" perhaps "Lee and Stonewall Jackson met President Jefferson Davis"
    • Done.
  • I'd move the "Gunboat candidate" picture to the right. On my screen it forces the section header beneath over to the middle of the page in a rather unsightly manner.
    • Done.
  • "continuously being reassigned" don't need the word "being"
    • Done.
  • In the caption, perhaps substitute "McClellan is depicted as saying:" for "The dialogue box reads:"
    • Done.

I hope this helps. Thanks for the great read. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think a map here demonstrating the grand sweeping movement of the Union landing would be very helpful, particularly for non-US readers who might not be so acquainted with the relevant geography.
    • @Cliftonian: this bears thought. I have been seriously considering making/adding 3 maps that show the three general waves of infantry assaults. The current battle map is not quite adequate, IMO, for a couple of reasons. If we add a map of the "giant stride" (assuming a usable one is available), that would be 4 maps added.• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is in my opinion very important to make clear exactly where the battle was and what the campaign movements were like. I have seen maps of the Peninsula Campaign and the Federal landing was very dramatic and impressive. It's also important because it lets the reader see concisely and intuitively that the Northern forces were to the south of the battlefield, and vice versa. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • This battle was the very end of the campaign. There is this map from the Peninsula campaign article. It shows the "giant stride", but it basically covers points farther east and times in the preceding weeks relative to the battle in this article. It is very nice for the campaign article, but doesn't quite fit n this one, I believe... an uninformed reader would have a hard time finding Malvern Hill, which has no troops marked... • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Coemgenus[edit]

Support. I supported last time after a lengthy review. Reading through it again, I'm happy to restate that support. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support and the compliment, Coemgenus. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why are you sometimes using footnotes in the Additional notes section and other times parentheticals?
    • Fixed tks
  • FN61 should be a single "p.", and the Sears listing in Sources shouldn't specify a page range that doesn't include citations like this one
    • Fixed tks
  • "Abridged" is an edition statement, not part of the title. Nikkimaria(talk) 03:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- hi all, because AFAIK this would be Cerandon's first FA, and Ling has been away from FAC for a while, I'd like to see a reviewer undertake a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promotion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009[edit]

Support with minor comments:

  • "In spring 1862, Union commander Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan developed an ambitious plan to capture Richmond, the Confederate capital, and the Virginia Peninsula: his 121,500-man Army of the Potomac, along with 14,592 animals, 1,224 wagons and ambulances, and 44 artillery batteries, would load onto 389 vessels and sail to the tip of the peninsula at Fort Monroe, then move inland and capture the capital." - this is a very long sentence, and I'd advise breaking into two after "Peninsula".
    • Done.
  • "having "the stride of a giant", was executed with few incidents" - could we attribute the quote in-line, as you do for other quotes in the article? (e.g. "the historian Steers called this...") - otherwise it is unclear if it is a contemporary statement or a modern opinion.
    • Removed that quote. Unnecessary.
  • "the defensive earthworks were undefended" - which defensive earthworks? I don't think the article's mentioned any yet
    • Done.
  • "and the two armies did battle there" - "did battle" felt a bit antiquated as a construct to me, but might just be me...
    • Changed to "battled"
  • "McClellan did not believe his army was ready for a battle, and wished that Lee did not give them one." - the tense in the second half seemed odd; "and hoped that Lee would not give them one"?
    • Done.
  • "A confederate scout observed Union soldiers resting in position" - capitalisation of Confederate
    • Done.
  • "three hours previously (at 1:30) by Chilton" - consistency of when you're using am/pm. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Auntieruth[edit]

Support with minor comments:

  • Geography and location--seems some of the geography is over cited. I suspect that the sentence with the two foot notes in it could be just one footnote, since they are the same. Probably the footnote at the end is sufficient.
    • Merged the two refs.
  • This sentence: "Despite the mishaps and disunity, Malvern Hill would be the first time during the Seven Days Battles that all of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was concentrated in the same place" seems awkward to me first time that Lee managed to concentrate the entire Army of Northern Virginia in the same place? Technically, we could leave it at concentrate his force, because that's implied in the use of term concentrate, but non military historians probably wouldn't understand.... It might be useful to link to Force concentration here.
    • Done.
  • Union movement during the barrage was later mistaken for withdrawal? Was this was generated the untimed order from Chilton to attack? looks like it was...this could be clearer.
    • I don't think it was. I tried to make it a bit clearer. Sources don't say either way.
  • This sentence, The explosions and impacts of the gunboat fire were extremely impressive to Confederate troops, but their aim was unreliable, and the large shells did considerably less damage than might be expected....impressed the Confederate troops, but the..
    • Reworded.

Very nice work, and much improved over the last submission. I have to go to work now, but will log back in on this tomorrow a.m. auntieruth (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    • I've made a few other tweaks that you can see in the history. I like this article very much. Much improved over the first submission. Well done, researched, and informative. We can tweak it until the cows come home, but I think well meets the Featured standards. auntieruth (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • "However, this shift of forces, together with other minor instances of Union movement, was later mistaken by Confederates for a Union retreat" - not seeing this on cited page
    • Corrected.
  • "Jackson's response was that Hill should obey the original orders: charge with a yell after Armistead's brigade. No yell was heard for hours, and Hill's men began building bivouac shelters to sleep in" - not seeing this on cited pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

  • There are three CS1 maint errors on the Salmon, Snell and Sweetman references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a cs1 error, and what tool did you use to find it? Tks• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: I, too, can't seem to find any CS1 errors. Any further details you can give please? --ceradon 17:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett, okay, I see it now after adding something to my .css page. However, I think that may be just a bug. You see: "illustrated" ends with "ed", so I think the software is parsing that (through RegEx or something) and only seeing the "ed" at the end and assuming it's a CS1 error. I'm pretty sure that's why that is. Should/could anything be done about that? --ceradon 17:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be correct! Unfortunately it also put the article into a hidden maintenance category. This code in Module:Citation/CS1 is what spots the ed:
if Edition:match ('[Ee]d%.?$') or Edition:match ('[Ee]dition$') then add_maint_cat ('extra_text', 'edition');
So we cannot count this against the article and I suppose have to report a bug, I will give that a go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett, so until it's gone from that category, this can't be promoted? Just curious. I don't know if you or any of the other coords think it may be tacky for "Wikipedia's best work" to be in an error tracking category. --ceradon 23:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be promoted with those sort of errors still there, as the error is not in the article. However I am looking for more problems.
  • anti-personnel and antipersonnel both appear, we should just have one spelling I believe.
    • Changed to "antipersonnel".
  • Use of long dash — would seem to be better replaced by commas or semicolons, but I am not a style expert.
    • Removed some usage of the emdash.
  • Sometime we have cross-fire, but there is also crossfire.
    • Changed to "crossfire".
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett, should be tidied up now. --ceradon 23:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are quick to fix!
  • In "Burton 2010, p. 458 n5" there is n5—what does that mean?
    • Means "note 5" -- expanded that.
  • Is abbreviating US states to two letter abbreviations allowed for FA?
    • Can't find any justification for that in the MOS. Abbreviations expanded.
      • There are still abbreviations in the Further reading section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Thank you. --ceradon 01:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am still only up to "n", still o-z to go, in my checking of words. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should thirty-eight and thirty-seven be spelled out or 38, 37 be used? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup. Done. Thanks, Graeme Bartlett. (If pinging you is annoying, feel free to tell me to fuck off not do that) Cheers! --ceradon 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no words starting with z in the article, so I have finished the word scan. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issues are addressed so I will add my support vote. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your support and comments, Graeme. Much appreciated. --ceradon 01:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I'll be done shortly. These are my edits. Prose is much better than last time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Dank for your copyedit, and support. --ceradon 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing, sorry I couldn't finish this sooner. One more thing: search throughout for ," (comma-quote marks). I generally let one or two slide ... they might have been in the original, and there might be some reason for preserving them ... but there's enough of them that I think there's probably a series of WP:LQ violations here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dank, did a Ctrl+F and fixed the ones I saw in accordance with the MOS. Thank you for pointing that out, and, again, thank you for your support. --ceradon 02:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since Graeme is "involved", and Ian is on vacation, Laser brain, you are our only hope! --ceradon 13:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're getting Graeme confused with Graham Beards. But yes, I will be looking through the list for possible promotions this weekend. --Laser brain (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes. Embarrassing. My bad. I was wondering if you guys had a schedule for promotions. Should have just asked rather than pinging randomly. Anyway, cheers! --ceradon 14:23, 27 August 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/archive2&oldid=1138455615"