added section heading; replies |
Auntieruth55 (talk | contribs) add support plus comments. |
||
Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
* "three hours previously (at 1:30) by Chilton" - consistency of when you're using am/pm. [[User:Hchc2009|Hchc2009]] ([[User talk:Hchc2009|talk]]) 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
* "three hours previously (at 1:30) by Chilton" - consistency of when you're using am/pm. [[User:Hchc2009|Hchc2009]] ([[User talk:Hchc2009|talk]]) 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
** Added "pm". Thank you, {{u|Hchc2009}} for your comments. --'''[[User:Ceradon|<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Ceradon|<font color="black">talk</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ceradon|<font color="black">edits</font>]])</small> 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
** Added "pm". Thank you, {{u|Hchc2009}} for your comments. --'''[[User:Ceradon|<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Ceradon|<font color="black">talk</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ceradon|<font color="black">edits</font>]])</small> 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
====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. |
|||
*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. |
|||
*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. |
|||
*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.. |
|||
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. [[User:Auntieruth55|auntieruth]] [[User talk:Auntieruth55|(talk)]] 14:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC). |
Revision as of 14:54, 21 August 2015
Battle of Malvern Hill
Battle of Malvern Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
Comments taking a look now. Will jot queries below.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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....
- Reworded a bit. Check if ir makes sense?
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)
- @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)
- Support looks much tighter after some good prose-massaging. nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
Resolved comments from — Cliftonian (talk) |
---|
Lead
Background
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) Prelude
Prelude, continued
More soon — Cliftonian (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Prelude, continued
Battle
Down to Magruder's charge. Very good work, I must say. More later. — Cliftonian (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Battle, continued
Aftermath
I hope this helps. Thanks for the great read. — Cliftonian (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
|
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- Thank you for the support and the compliment, Coemgenus. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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..
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).