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

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]

• Comments taking a look now. Will jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 August 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.

• 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

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]

• 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.
  • @
    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
        Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • How about using Template:Location map+ and marking Malvern Hill, Richmond and other relevant places on a map of Virginia? —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Coemgenus

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]
  • Fixed tks• 
    Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:58, 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

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]
  • Added "pm". Thank you, Hchc2009 for your comments. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Auntieruth

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]

• Thank you for your comments and support, Auntieruth55. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:20, 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]
  • Corrected. Thank you, Nikki. --ceradon 04:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- @Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Graeme Bartlett: A month, 6 supports, image, source and spotcheck review. I think that's a wrap. Just a heads up; don't mind my giddiness. --ceradon 04:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Graeme Bartlett

• 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".
    • There is still one "cross-fire" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Must be VisualEditor's fault. Fixed. --ceradon 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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
  ]

• 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]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]