Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBattle of Cedar Creek has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 2, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
April 16, 2022Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 19, 2012, October 19, 2014, October 19, 2016, and October 19, 2018.
Current status: Good article

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved, investigation of warring accounts underway. Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Belle Grove → Battle of Cedar Creek – This article was incorrectly renamed after 10 years with the correct name. The National Park Service and virtually all current Civil War historians--see the titles in the References and Further Reading section--call it the Battle of Cedar Creek. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

.

I've moved it back to the stable version, which appears to be supported by reliable sources including the relevant preservation societies and the National Park Service. If the move war resumes, I suggest steeply escalating blocks, as there is no sign that either participant used this talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I further note that the warring accounts appear to be closely related, and they both have some explaining to do. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a spill-over conflict from some Wikia wiki? [1].--Chaser (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. They both registered at the same time and got autoconfirmed, then started with the edit war, and that comment is odd. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

RESOLVED
There is a consensus that Battle of Cedar Creek is the PRIMARY topic. There is also a consensus that there should be a Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation) page. There is no consensus on what the exact hatnote on the primary topic should be but it would be common sense to make it {{Other|Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation)}}. (non-admin closure) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have other two topics named "Battle of Cedar Creek": Battle of Cedar Creek (Jacksonville) and Battle of Cedar Creek (1876). Recently, I created Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation) just in case. This "Battle of Cedar Creek" topic discusses one of battles fought in Virginia in 1864 during the American Civil War. Is this topic primary per WP:primary topic? If not, how can you disambiguate this Virginia battle? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Battle of Cedar Creek primary per WP:primary topic?
Well, yes. Over 800 people were killed compared to less than 50 at Battle of Cedar Creek (Jacksonville) and fewer than 10 at Battle of Cedar Creek (1876).
The tag
For other battles fought in the United States, see Battle of Cedar Creek (Jacksonville) and Battle of Cedar Creek (1876).
would seem to eliminate the need for the Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation) page.
What I wonder is who is even going to see the page since when you search "Battle of Cedar Creek" you get this article, not the page. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC) (editor randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek)[reply]
I recommend that this article be renamed Battle of Cedar Creek (Shenandoah), and that the disambiguation page be made primary. The other two battles are sufficiently important that a disambiguation page seems better than disambiguating hatnotes. This RFC will not be easy to close because it doesn't state a question and so doesn't have !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The battle was also fought in other two counties. I'm thinking Battle of Cedar Creek (Virginia). --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on page view statistics [2] [3] [4], more than 80% of readers are coming to and staying on this page. Checking What Links Here [5] [6] [7] also shows greater than 80% of links coming here. Based on the number of soldiers involved in each, I presume that this battle has the greatest significance in Sources. That covers all the bases on Determining_a_primary_topic. I'm not particularly opposed to a move, but my soft advice is to leave the page here. Alsee (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Cedar Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cedar Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 12:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next day or so. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing this. It is great to have a reviewer with such an impressive volume of FA and GA work. TwoScars (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Images:
    • Not required for GA, but if you're aiming for FA - you'll need sources for information in the maps. (The ones from 1912 will only need sourcing for the additions that have been made to the originally published maps)
      • Some of the images were made by Hal Jesperson, a professional cartographer. Excluding the Shenandoah Valley Campaigns map (first map), I have added a comparable map in the image's info. For example: Cedar Creek 0530.png now says in the source: Own work (Map compares favorably with map on page 62 of the book "The Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864" edited by Gary W. Gallagher.) Another example: the image Virginia October 1864 Winchester - Mt Jackson.png (1912 map) has for the Author "Sifton, Praed & Company, Ltd. with labels and circles added by TwoScarsUp based on the following books: The Guns of Cedar Creek by Thomas A. Lewis, The War in the East from Gettysburg to Appomattox by Stephen Z. Starr, and From Winchester to Cedar Creek by Jeffry D. Wert." Will they need more specific info for FA? TwoScars (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a REASON your images of the generals are so small? It's usually best to just leave images at the default thumbnail size, rather than trying to fiddle with them.
      • I have no problem changing them to thumb, but they will become giant. In the past, I have been criticized for images that were too big—and told to use "upright=". (See GA review for Third Battle of Winchester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Third_Battle_of_Winchester/GA1) TwoScars (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are set to thumb, you just have them at half the normal size. I've changed one to 80%, see how that works for you? Ealdgyth (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like it, but I worry about other viewers. It is 2.75 x 2 inches on my extra wide monitor using a MAC—that's pretty big. TwoScars (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs:
    • NOt required for GA - but make sure your citations are consistent. For example - Ref #10 (Fort Stevens) has American Battlefield Trust in italics, but ref#50 (George Crook) has American Battlefield Trust not italicized.
      • Fixed. The italics default to the website= in the template, while the non-italic are publisher= in the template. Changed to all publisher=, and checked to make sure National Park Service was OK too (it was). TwoScars (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also not required for GA, but using memoirs/etc for information is going to be a bit more iffy at FAC - I strongly recommend replacing the Sheridan and Early sources. Also the Ainsworth is dated - if it's not covered by more recent scholarship, it may not be WP:DUE in this article. And be careful of the use of correspondence (The Davis/Perry, etc War of the Rebellion source)
      • I agree, memoirs can be self-serving for the author, and Wikipedians need to be careful with them. Same with some of the writings about the Civil War made during the 1800s. In the case of Jubal Early, the citations are mostly for quotes—and total to only five citations although some are used twice. Sheridan's writings are used for 10 citations. Most are for his trip to and from Washington. I could probably replace them with current authors (that use those sources anyway), but will hold off for now. In the case of the Official Records references (Ainsworth, Davis), I also agree that one must be careful when using those. However, I have nine Civil War books currently sitting on my desk that all use the Official Records for some of their sources. This includes books by Gary W. Gallagher, Thomas A. Lewis, Stephen Z. Starr, and Jeffry D. Wert. Also Richard L. Armstrong, Terry Lowry, James M. McPherson, Gordon C. Rhea and Eric J. Wittenberg. The Davis/Perry correspondence is typically correspondence among officers—not soldiers writing home to mom. TwoScars (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's the thing. The folks that wrote those books that use the primary sources? They are historians... they are (presumably) trained and know how to use primary sources. Here on wikipedia, we're writing an encyclopedia - which uses secondary sources to summarize the state of scholarship. We don't do the historian's job, which is to interpret primary sources, instead we summarize the historian's works. So while we can occasionally use a memoir/letter/etc for "color" we should not be using them to determine what's in our articles - we look to the historian's to figure out what's important. We want McPherson, etc. to tell us what to write about here. Let them do the interpreting of the primary sources. (And yes, it's hard. I'm actually a historian of horse history (and trained as a medievalist). The hardest thing for me to do is to NOT use primary sources sometimes.... but it's important that we as wikipedia writers not let ourselves do that... for me, the easiest solution has been to not even LOOK at a primary source when I'm working on a wikipedia article, it helps me resist the temptation.) Ealdgyth (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I learned something today. I have nearly 20 citations that use the OR, and some are used multiple times—Ouch! TwoScars (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ack! I hope I didn't sound ... nasty or snarky or something. If they were utterly "wrong" i'd have been more "on point" about them. I did point out that this bullet point isn't required for GA - where the standards are less. And .. I can occasionally be a bit "preachy" about the use of primary sources on wikipedia, so for that I apologize. Take your time (and it can wait until after this GAN, like I said, it's really at FA that you might run into problems (you might not also - it all depends on who reviews) but if you were thinking about FA for this article, I figured you'd prefer I point out possible sticking points. (Yes, that should tell you that even with my nitpicking, it's the bones of a good solid article you should be proud of). Ealdgyth (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't worry—I like to learn from every reviewer, and it is good to have someone with a very different background. It is good to know what would be an issue with FA. I normally prefer to write GA to upgrade what is available and learn about the topic. Someday I might try for a FA. Here is an explanation of why I have all the footnotes and what you might consider trivial information. With my job, I have been responsible for vast amounts of statistical information. Sometimes people question my numbers. I always try to figure out what the questions will be—and already have answers prepared before the question is asked. People will have much more confidence in the data if you already are familiar with what might appear to be an issue and are aware of alternative sources that are different. So, many of the footnotes in my Wikipedia articles are in anticipation of someone wanting to "correct" or add to the article. TwoScars (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:
    • "and drove away Early's men while capturing most of their artillery and wagons." Did they capture Confederate artillery and wagons on TOP of recapturing the Union stuff? Or is this just recapturing?
      • Changed to: In addition to recapturing all of their own artillery seized in the morning, Sheridan's forces captured most of Early's artillery and wagons. TwoScars (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Union and Confederate strategies:
    • "The Confederate Army of the Valley was created by Lee in June 1864 and commanded by Lieutenant General Jubal Early. This army was a detachment of the Army of Northern Virginia's Second Corps." Can we combine these so they don't seem too choppy? Perhaps "The Confederate Army of the Valley was created by Lee in June 1864 as a detachment of the Army of Northern Virginia's Second Corps and was commanded by Lieutenant General Jubal Early."?
  • Sheridan's campaign:
    • "In an October 7 report from Woodstock, Virginia, Sheridan reported " do we really need the detail on where the report came from?
      • Changed sentence to: Sheridan claimed that when the destruction was completed, "the Valley, from Winchester up to Staunton, ninety-two miles [148 km], will have but little in it for man or beast." TwoScars (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we not have an article on Sheridan's campaign in the valley that isnt' a part of the bigger Valley campaign article? Some of the background details should be in that sort of article ... much of the detail on reinforcements/etc should be in the campaign articles ... for example - "On September 26, he was reinforced by the infantry division of Major General Joseph B. Kershaw, which was part of Lieutenant General James Longstreet's First Corps, Army of Northern Virginia. Kershaw also brought Cutshaw's battalion of artillery." - this article should be on the battle - we don't really need the struck through portions. The whole background section, if the information is elsewhere or is moved to the proper spots on the campaign, could then be cut back a bit and would read a bit smoother and easier. A futher example: "Rosser was given command of this division since Lee had been seriously wounded at Winchester and Brigadier General Williams Carter Wickham had resigned." the information is important, but not for THIS battle - it belongs in a fuller campaign article.
      • Will work on reducing this tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed some of the detail in the Early reinforced section, and it is now only two paragraphs with one less note. There is a portion of the Valley campaigns of 1864 that is devoted to Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley campaign. However, it is basically a paragraph plus a one to three sentence summary of each battle. There is one sentence on the creation of Sheridan's army. TwoScars (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Union forces:
    • "Sheridan returned during the battle around 10:30 am." this duplicates information we will find out in the battle description - unneeded detail here.
    • On the other hand - an introduction to the bullet points would be useful. Perhaps "The union forces were divided into the following:"
      • Made change, and did something similar for Confederate. TwoScars (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest putting "The Third Brigade of the 1st Division did not engage because it was in Winchester at the time of the battle" into an explanatory footnote.
      • I put the not-engaged brigade into a footnote. TwoScars (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest putting "The Third Brigade of the 1st Division was not engaged in the battle because it was guarding wagon trains." into an explanatory footnote and just deleting" Brigadier General William Dwight, usually commander of the 1st Division, was present but under arrest during the morning portion of the battle." altogether (unless Dwight's going to get killed dramatically sometime during the battle or he becomes relevant some other way) TwoScars (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put the not-engaged brigade in a footnote. Deleted the sentence about Dwight. (This was some foreshadowing for those familiar with the Third Battle of Winchester. Dwight was the only aggressive commander in a corps that was not so good. With him out, it is not so surprising that Early sent XIX Corps fleeing in disorder. However, Dwight is mentioned in the Union counterattack section (Sheridan reinstated him), and his arrest is in a footnote.) TwoScars (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This seven-shot weapon was a considerable advantage over single-shot firearms." I'm sure it was but... does this have bearing on the battle? Right here, reading it, it just sounds like trivia.
      • Took that sentence out. It was in because it was the cavalry that Early feared, and it was the cavalry that caused the panic among the Confederates at the end of the battle. TwoScars (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Two of Crook's men, Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes and Captain William McKinley, would eventually become President of the United States." interesting - but better suited to the campaign article, not the battle article
      This change was inappropriate, as William McKinley personally played a critical role in the battle itself. General Sheridan directly ordered McKinley to set up a line of pickets to intercept fleeing Union soldiers and re-organize them for the later Union counterattack. This task was performed with speed and efficiency which made the ultimate Union victory possible. McKinley wasn't merely present, he was a critical participant, to the extent that the battle can't be described accurately without mentioning him by name. The article makes mention of numerous other individuals whose roles in the battle were far less important in determining the eventual outcome. 2600:8805:B409:7400:B133:ED5B:5650:943F (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Second Brigade of Crook's 1st Division was in Winchester at the time of the battle, and therefore did not engage." explanatory footnote
      • I put the not-engaged brigade in a footnote. TwoScars (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you've detailed all these bits and pieces ... but we don't actually have numbers for the various corps/divisions/whatever. We hear that Crook's force was small but... we don't get a number nor can we compare it to the other three sections of the army to know it's small...
      • Added counts at each of the Union bullet points. (Worried about too many footnotes in this section.) TwoScars (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confederate:
    • "which was created in June 1864 and commanded by Lieutenant General Jubal Early." duplicated information - redundant. We don't do this redundant bit for the Union forces under Sheridan - why here? (and I say this with a family connection to Early - my first husband and my son are distant cousins to Early - I'd have to go dig to remember the exact relationship description (Heh, and I'm a distant cousin of some sort to Grant and Sherman too... gotta love genealogy)
      • Took it out. Now starts with: Early's Confederate Army of the Valley had an estimated 21,102 effectives. TwoScars (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gordon was Early's second–in–command.[59] Gordon was one of the principal architects of the plan for the early morning attack, and he personally scouted the woods and trails.[60] On the morning of the attack, Early took over command from Gordon around 8:00 am—after Gordon and Kershaw perfectly executed the initial phase of the plan.[61] During the time Gordon had command of a column of multiple divisions, Brigadier General Clement A. Evans commanded Gordon's Division." all this should be in the battle description, and is redundant here. Just clutters the narrative.
      • Took it all out except the "Gordon was Early's second–in–command."sentence. TwoScars (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "including his Laurel Brigade" who is "his" here? Lee? Lomax? Rosser?
      • Changed to: Rosser commanded Fitzhugh Lee's Division, which was composed of three brigades including Rosser's Laurel Brigade. TwoScars (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Upon arriving in the Shenandoah Valley, Rosser declared his Laurel Brigade as the "saviors of the valley"." - belongs in the campaign article
  • Sheridan ready to leave valley:
    • "To appease Grant, two brigades of cavalry from Powell's Division" ... why did they need to appease Grant?
      • Changed to: Because Grant still wanted the Confederate Virginia Central Railroad disabled, two brigades of cavalry from Powell's Division were sent south to attack the railroad lines at Gordonsville and Charlottesville. (The Virginia Central is mentioned as a target in the first paragraph of the Background that discusses Grant's strategy. Also, Footnote 1 [now 2] discusses Grant's preference that the railroad lines get destroyed, while Sheridan thought the logistics were too difficult and preferred to burn the Valley.) TwoScars (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hupp's Hill:
    • "Grant and Stanton still wanted Sheridan" still? I'm confused as we've not discussed them pushing Sheridan to do this previously...
      • At the end of the second section under Background, added: While this action achieved one of Grant's goals, Grant preferred attacks on the railroads that supplied Lee's army in Richmond. Also moved Note 1 to after this sentence, making it Note 2. TwoScars (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sheridan ordered all cavalry" is it "Sheridan ordered all his army's cavalry" or is it "Sheridan ordered his escort be all cavalry"?
      • Changed to: Sheridan ordered all three divisions of cavalry to accompany him to Front Royal, intending to send them to destroy a Virginia Central Railroad bridge.
  • Gordon makes:
    • "On October 17, Gordon and Captain Jedediah Hotchkiss climbed Signal Knob, the northern peak of Massanutten Mountain." why not "On October 17, Gordon climbed Massanutten Mountain..".. since the only other mention of Hotchkiss is when he accompanies Gordon later (and if you simplify here - remove Hotchkiss later). There are a LOT of names in this article - if someone doesn't do that much important IN the battle, try to avoid mentioning them just to mention them.
      • Changed to: On October 17, Gordon climbed Massanutten Mountain and determined that the Union left was vulnerable, as the Union forces appeared to be relying on the mountain and rivers for defense. Also removed Hotchkiss from the second paragraph as reminded. (As info, Hotchkiss became a famous cartographer, and many of his maps are in the Library of Congress. Some historians believe that the fact that he was with Gordon made it more likely that Early would approve the plan.) TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army of West Virginia:
    • "His wound would cause his death in January 1865." footnote or remove - it's just a distracting detail.
  • XIX Corps:
    • "in an act that was "not very sensible" for an army commander," trivia and not needed
      • Changed to: Wright led a bayonet charge by Wildes' men and received a bloody wound to his face. (In my opinion, anyone who read that the commander of the entire army was leading a bayonet charge would assume that the writing was a mistake. Army commanders are not supposed to lead charges, and the loss of the commander of an army can have serious consequences.) TwoScars (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early's fatal halt:
    • Suggest the title just be "Early's halt" to avoid POV issues.
    • Why is this quote box here? We avoid "pull quotes" - see MOS:PULLQUOTE - it is often a POV issue with pulling out specific questions like this.
      • Removed quote box, and made text from it first paragraph in the Union counterattack section. It is logical for someone to wonder why it took over 5 hours for the Union to counterattack (I sure wondered), and this explains why. TwoScars (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Confederate attack stopped at 1:00 pm" ... do we know why it halted?
      • Added this sentence at the end of the paragraph: Early's reasons for the ending the attack were the same issues causing his caution a few hours earlier: Union cavalry, missing troops that were plundering the Union camps, and exhausted and hungry soldiers. Also put the footnote about the Spencer repeating rifles back in a few sentences earlier. TwoScars (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Union counterattack:
    • "During Merritt's fighting with Wharton and Pegram's infantry, Colonel Charles Russell Lowell, commander of Merritt's Reserve Brigade and already wounded earlier in the morning, was mortally wounded by a sharpshooter." ... is this important to the outcome of the battle? It seems like ... too much detail.
      • Removed that sentence, put his full name (linked) in place of his last name in the casualties section. Colonels and generals are important. TwoScars (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did considerable copyediting - please double check that I didn't mangle anything in the process.
    • In the Intro, you changed "seven" to "7". I'm OK with it, but I have been "nailed" in reviews before for not spelling out any number less than 10. TwoScars (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The bit is "over 1,000 prisoners and over 20 artillery pieces while forcing 7 enemy infantry" ... I put in 7 becuase of this bit in MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32."...Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Background section, you replaced "all" with "Union" in the sentence "He would use all forces at the same time, making it difficult for the Confederates to transfer forces from one battlefront to another." How about "He would use multiple Union forces at the same time, making it difficult for the Confederates to transfer forces from one battlefront to another."
      • That works too if you want to do that. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Background, one edit now says "In June, Early beat Union forces the Battle of Lynchburg and Second Battle of Kernstown." Maybe insert "in" after Union forces. TwoScars (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That'd work if you want to do that. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put the sentence (from Opposing forces, Confederate) that said Evans commanded Gordon's Division in Gordon's absence, in the plan section. Evans is mentioned in the second section of the Confederate attacks section, and his name is on some of the maps. TwoScars (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article again. Microsoft Word is OK with the grammar and spelling. No duplicate links. I made a few small changes that were impacted from removing things earlier. The article is now below 80k. The external links are all OK. Although the NPS web pages have minor issues in the test, they work when humans try them. The Reflinks tool says OK now that I made one fix. Am I missing anything or is there anything else? I know you thought the Background and Disposition of forces sections were long. Events in those sections had impacts on the battle, such as Grant' plan, Grant wanting the railroads attacked (and Sheridan hesitant to do that), the Union army thinking Early was done, the Longstreet ruse, Hupp's Hill, the VI Corps recall, and the Washington trip. Any other problems it would have if trying for FA? TwoScars (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there stuff that should be in other articles but it's into the "differing views for differing editors" stage, not a "oh, gods, there's TOO MUCH there" territory. It could use a bit more copyediting before FA - I'm only an indifferent copyeditor at best - I can get you to GA level easy enough but the "polished" prose that folks want at FA is something I don't claim to be able to do easily or well. May I suggest an A-Class review at MilHist and perhaps ping in @Hog Farm, Gog the Mild, Mike Christie, and SandyGeorgia: to look at it after that? And while I have you "captive" ... what's a good one-to-three volume overview of the Civil War that's been recently published? I read Foote (for the sheer color/brilliance of his prose and ability to evoke the feeling of the situation) and the McPherson you're using here... but I'm sure there's something new that's come out in the last 10-15 years that's more "current"? My own fields are a bit far from American history so I'm not always up on the current "overview" work ... but I should probably refresh my knowledge .. it's been a while since I read McPherson... and if I keep reviewing your and Hog Farm's articles, I'll need a refresher...
If you want to make those changes above, I'll take one last look over it after that but I don't see any big issues that would hold this back after that... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good books and authors.... The Shelby Foote three volumes was good. McPherson rolls in politics with the war. David J. Eicher's The Longest Night (2001) is one volume (850+ pages plus notes, bib, & index gets to 990 pages) that covers the whole war. Grant by Ron Chernow is pretty recent (2017), and I enjoyed reading it. You get his whole life—more than the Civil War, but the Civil War part only covers Grant's participation. Focusing on my favorites, West Virginia and Virginia, Gordon C. Rhea, Gary W. Gallagher, and Scott C. Patchan are the best authors. Jeffry D. Wert is a level below them. Eric J. Wittenberg has written a bunch of books on battles and skirmishes. Terry Lowry (the Charleston Lowry) appears to focus on West Virginia. Stephen Z. Starr focuses on cavalry. TwoScars (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never read Eicher, but thought Foote was good. Have a paperback copy of McPherson that I've read parts of and is on my list to read through. A lot of what I read is about the more backwater Western/Trans-Mississippi stuff. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All changes made. I took out the first map, but put it back in because it shows where The Burning happened. TwoScars (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you want to go to FA, you'll need a map that has sources, but it's not really required here at GA... Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TwoScars, I would be willing to review this at ACR. I have print copies of Wert and Lewis (yes, I have slightly over 200 books and have only gotten through reading about half of them so far). My advice with the Official Records - I generally try to only use them in a few cases - in unit articles to map out specific movements, and in battle articles to give what the commanders reported. Sometimes, it's necessary to put together a few things from there when the article subject is super obscure (see Capture of Sedalia and CSS Tuscarora for ones where I felt like it was unavoidable), but Cedar Creek should be well documented enough that it isn't necessary very much here. For FA, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of footnotes was challenged either.
My overall recommendation would be to submit to WP:MILHIST/ACR, with the caveat that it can be kinda slow sometimes (my ACR nom for Battle of Raymond has been up since December, but that's not the standard length time). Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Cedar_Creek&oldid=1205385697"