Talk:Battle of White Sulphur Springs

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Hog Farm in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of White Sulphur Springs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 02:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply


I ought to be able to get to this one this coming week. Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • In the background material, briefly indicate when the war began and recommend mentioning Fort Sumter
  • In the material about West Virginia, it may be worth mentioning that the Union had reasonable control over much of the area after McClellan's 1861 campaign where he beat Lee in the Western Virginia campaign
  • "performance in a raid by Brigadier General George Stoneman," - the linking here for the raid is a little MOS:EGG-y. It's not obvious you're linking a specific raid, rather than just the term raid. Maybe expand the piped link so that it includes "a raid"?
    • Changed to "A few months later, Major General Joseph Hooker was unhappy with Averell's performance in Brigadier General George Stoneman's 1863 railroad raid at Gordonsville, Virginia, and Averell was relieved of command of the 2nd Division of the Cavalry Corps, effective May 2." "1863 railroad raid" links to Stoneman's 1863 raid. TwoScars (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Corrected Stoneman's rank to Major General. TwoScars (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • "and had the youngest colonel in the Union Army" - was this for the whole war or at the time?
    • Don't know. He was younger than Custer. Lowry and Wittenberg say youngest when commissioned. Obit says "perhaps the youngest Union soldier in command of a cavalry brigade during the war". Working on it. TwoScars (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Changed to "The only full cavalry regiment in his command, the 14th Pennsylvania Cavalry, was formed less than one year earlier with a colonel that was only 20 years old at the time." I left the footnote as is. I believe the main point is that they had a young and inexperienced colonel—that point is more important than if he was the youngest in the army (although interesting). The footnote still tells the story that he was, when commissioned, the youngest. TwoScars (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I would recommend moving note 4 to after "Confederate Major General Sam Jones commanded the Department of Western Virginia,"
  • "Most of the fighting at White Sulphur Springs was done by Echols' Brigade, normally under the command of Brigadier General John Echols." - remove "normally under the command of Brigadier General John Echols" as this is already implied a few lines above when it's stated that Echols commanded a brigade
  • "and at least one member of the cavalry of killed" - something is off here
  • "causing more losses for the enemy than from any other source in the battle" - this is sourced to the regimental history, written by Reader, a veteran and presumeably a participant of the fighting. Is this supported by other sources? Because I'm personally doubting that Reader would have great knowledge of CSA losses in the battle. From writing other Civil War articles, I've found that eyewitness estimates of enemy casualties are often questionable - when writing First Battle of Newtonia, I came across the a source noting that one CSA participant stated that over 1,000 Union soldiers were killed in the battle, when the grand total of Union k/w/c likely didn't exceed 400
    • Changed sentence to "Morton's artillery eventually swept the cornfield with canister." As info, the 22nd Virginia Cavalry was fighting in this charge, and it had the most casualties of the CSA units according to official reports. However, I could find no additional proof of where the casualties happened. TwoScars (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • "One source claims that over 300 amputations were performed, but this number does not correspond well with the number of wounded listed by both commanders" - if it's just the older source that supports this, recommend removing since it doesn't correspond with wounded counts. (It's also possible there were cases of multiple amputations to the same poor soul)
  • "and this is somewhat close to the total (124) listed by Averell as captured or missing plus the wounded men left behind" - Given that this is sourced only to the official records, this is bordering pretty close to original research. If this point isn't made explicitly in the sources, recommend removing.
  • "The count of 13 missing reported by Patton contrasts with Averell's report of 266 prisoners, although Averell's number includes the trips to and from the battle" - recommend removing. Again, since this is based only on the primary records, this is bordering on original research. As you note, it's also note an apples-to-apples comparison, because Patton and Averell are using different time periods. I wouldn't object to stating that Averell reported capturing 266 Confederate during the whole excursion, though
  • Patchan 2007 is listed in the references, but doesn't seem to be used

Placing this one on hold; overall good work. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply