Talk:Battle of Malvern Hill/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this on, but it will probably take a while to get through the whole article. Since I know you're planning on taking this to FAC quickly, I'll be a little more thorough than I would otherwise be for GAN. Much of what I'll comment on will not be necessary to pass the GAN, but it would be helpful to address before running the article at ACR/FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've gotten through the lead and done the images so far - will do more later. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Up through the Battle section now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think I'm through reading now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope you don't mind but I had a good read of Battle of Schliengen and some essays on writing FAs and I thought that the amount of detail in the lede was too much. I rewrote it (all of which was from previous versions of the article, but now it's condensed, dropping unnecessary detail) I also had a swing at the last paragraph of Battle of Malvern Hill. Apparently "listiness" breaks the flow for the reader and makes it unengaging. Nevertheless, just a heads up, shouldn't be too big of a deal. Smile.png Thanks, --ceradon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, take the time you need to do the work. If we can get the article in good enough shape here, it'll have an easier time at ACR/FAC. One issue I saw in your recent changes though - you changed the date format from MDY to DMY - as far as I know, the US military's preference for DMY is a more recent development. I think per WP:DATEVAR, the article should use MDY. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did some minor rewording and copyediting; also added note about Manassas and Second Bull Run. Unless you have some more concerns, I'd say we're good to go. Wink.png --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Lead section
 * I think the date really ought to be in the first sentence - I'd probably say "At the Battle of Malvern Hill, fought on July 1, 1862..."
 * Changed to "At the Battle of Malvern Hill (July 1, 1862)".
 * I don't really like the "When XXX, YYY happened, when AAA, BBB happened" format - I'd probably say instead that Malvern Hill was the culmination of the Seven Days Battles during the Peninsular Campaign
 * Reworded.
 * "an elevation of land" is redundant - you might also include the link to Malvern Hill there
 * "Preparations for the battle began...V Corps began " - too much repetition - I'd suggest cutting the "preparations" bit entirely, and say something along the lines of "The Union V Corps, under FitzJohn Porter, began taking up positions on the hill on 30 June..."
 * Really, that entire paragraph has a lot of repetition - McClellan being absent is mentioned 3 times, for instance
 * Yup, reworded.
 * There are some problems with semi-colons that should be commas, particularly the line about Confederate casualties
 * Also, fixed.
 * I wouldn't ever say that casualties are "made" - I'd probably say the Union force suffered that many casualties. I also don't know that I've ever heard the term "Unionist" to refer to Union soldiers (as far as I know, it's usually referred to a political ideology, comparable to secessionism)
 * I've reworded the casualties part and changes all occurrences of "Unionist" to either "Federals", "Union soldiers" or "McClellan's army"
 * "that same year" is redundant and could be trimmed
 * Yes it is, removed.
 * You might want to include the fact that the Union defeat during the Seven Days set the stage for 2nd Manassas (or at least in the body)
 * ✅ I'll try and find something in my sources and add it before the review is over. --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a place to put it, I'd suggest the last paragraph in the Reasons for outcome section
 * Background ✅
 * "By the next day, McClellan extended his battle line into areas north of Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy; by May 30, McClellan had already begun moving troops across the Chickahominy River, the only major natural barrier that separated him and his army from Richmond." - this is a bit long for one sentence - I'd split it where you have the semi-colon instead.
 * It might be worth including the actual figures for both armies in the note on Little Mac's pleas for more troops - IIRC he actually outnumbered Lee by a significant amount
 * Piping Gaines's Mill as "attacked" seems a little WP:EGGy to me - I might say attacked at Gaines's Mill
 * Need a citation for the last line of the military situation sub-section
 * You can merge the two conversions in the next section like this: 100 to 130 ft and you could probably combine both citations into a note with a line on contradictory measurements
 * McClellan's forces prepare ✅
 * In the first line, I'd probably just say "...witnessed V Corps, under FitzJohn Porter..." to avoid the EGGy link
 * "...a skilled artilleryman and General McClellan's chief of artillery..." - the "skilled artilleryman" bit seems problematic - by placing it first in the line, it makes it seem more important that his position as chief of artillery, and reversing the order makes it redundant (one would think that the chief of artillery would be skilled, in the absence of evidence to the contrary).
 * Lee's forces advance ✅
 * "...enemy (McClellan) forces..." - I'd just say "Federal/Union/etc. forces"
 * Battle ✅
 * ""...for one reason or another; for one cause or another; for one chance happening or another" - entirely redundant, chop two of them.
 * Need a citation for the first paragraph in the disposition of forces section
 * "...continued their awesome attack..." - I understand you're using the word in its original sense, remember that we're writing for a general audience that will not read it that way
 * "Magruder was in the dark..." - I don't think reviewers at FAC will accept expressions like that - best to write more plainly, since we are an international encyclopedia and non-native speakers might read it more literally
 * Need a citation for the attack of McLaw's two brigades
 * Another one is needed for the last sentence of the following paragraph
 * Aftermath ✅
 * "The Confederates counted some 5,650 casualties. Some 30,000 Confederates engaged that day, though several thousand more endured the Union shelling.[56] Of which, 869 were dead, 4,241 wounded and 540 missing." - it seems like the "of which, 869 were..." line is referring back to the 5,650, so it should be placed directly after it. I'd actually give the total number of soldiers engaged in the fight first, and then say how many casualties they suffered.
 * I'd quibble over saying that Whiting's men weren't engaged at all - the Union artillery certainly engaged them - it would be better to say they weren't involved in the assaults.
 * When discussing the total casualties for the Union forces, make clear that the 15k figure is for all of the Seven Days Battles.
 * "Longstreet's suggestions was seemed sound at the time" - the "was" is probably lingering after an earlier rewrite of the sentence - I do this all the time ;)
 * The couple of lines from "The effect of Lee not being on the battlefield... to "...countermanding Magruder's offensive. could be significantly tightened up by getting rid of the "Lee being on the field" bits and combining the second and third sentence - you could more simply state that "He might have stopped Whiting's artillery from firing, prevented Armistead's charge, and countermanded Magruder's offensive."
 * General comments ✅
 * There are several duplicate links scattered throughout the article - there's a script here that's really helpful in identifying them
 * Thanks for the info on Ucucha's script by the way. Should definitely come into handy.
 * Standard practice is to use the rank of an individual only when introduced, and then use the last name only thereafter. There might be a case in this instance that since there are so many individuals named, keeping the ranks might be helpful. It might be useful to keep that in mind for ACR/FAC.
 * Ah, yes. I'll go over the article and see if I can correct this. --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a few tweaks here and there - please check that they're ok.
 * Looked them over, all good :D ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:George B McClellan - retouched.jpg - should have the author information present on the original version
 * File:Fitz John Porter.jpg - we need the author to know that he died more than 100 years ago, and ideally a call number at the LoC
 * ✅ uploaded a new image entirely. File:FitzJohn Porter.jpg Straight from LoC archives.
 * File:Daniel Harvey Hill.jpg - need the original publication (or at least one that's pre-1923)
 * This one has proven more difficult than expected. I can't find an LoC record of it and there aren't any LoC images of D.H. Hill. I've found some images from the National Park Services's website that say it's from LoC but no record of those either, and there aren't any dates. I may have to remove the D.H. Hill image altogether.
 * You might have luck trawling through old books and journals in Google Books (I frequently find usable images this way) - you can even restrict the time range of returns to get only pre-1923 publications. I found this book, which has a photo of Hill that appears to be a cropped version of the above photo. If nothing else, it proves the photo has been published prior to 1923. You might even be able to find a better quality version.
 * not seeing the image. I've been looking through some books but still nothing. Sigh... D.H. Hill was sardonic and painful to work with in life and even in death his spirit lingers.... --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about where you're from, but I'm sure he's glad to be stymieing the efforts of at least one Northerner ;) I think the photo in the book I linked above is good enough, since it's the same image, albeit a cropped and retouched version of it. The photo was obviously in circulation before 1923, so we're covered, copyright-wise. Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added note on file desc page. All that's left to be done is the Second Manassas note. I'll tackle that now. --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * File:John B Magruder.jpg - same
 * File:Jackson-Stonewall-LOC.jpg - I highly doubt a Confederate photographer counts as an employee of the Federal government ;)
 * ✅ Replaced image with File:Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.jpg
 * File:Benjamin Huger.jpg - the link on the image description page is just to the copyright page on the LoC website, can you update it with the link to the actual record?
 * What sources were used to create File:Seven Days July 1.png?
 * ✅ replaced the image with File:Revised Union battleplan for the Battle of Malvern Hill.jpg
 * File:Union barrage at Malvern Hill - July 1, 1862.jpg - can we track down the original publication? The link mentions the publisher as well as the author.
 * Hmm, well, there is this picture. The picture was made by Charles Parsons, the head photographer/painter for Harper's Weekly. The picture I showed is the colored version of the image in the article. The image is definitely in the public domain (Parsons has been dead since 1910) The image is shown in several museums but I suppose you could use this as a source for the image. There is also this. That image was actually shown in Harper's Weekly sometime in 1863-1864. All of Harper's Weekly's images are in the public domain. Even the ACW part of MilHist has it. But that image is far less vivid. I was even thinking of uploading the full-color version.
 * File:Sneden watercolor of Battle of Malvern Hill.jpg - please add Sneden's date of death to the image page - according to his article, he passed away in 1918 (same for File:Map of the night's march after Battle of Malvern Hill.jpg, which should also be corrected to the 70-year PMA template)
 * ✅ on both counts.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Excellent work on this article, I'm pleased to pass it for GA. Good luck getting it to FA for the anniversary! Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What sources were used to create File:Seven Days July 1.png?
 * ✅ replaced the image with File:Revised Union battleplan for the Battle of Malvern Hill.jpg
 * File:Union barrage at Malvern Hill - July 1, 1862.jpg - can we track down the original publication? The link mentions the publisher as well as the author.
 * Hmm, well, there is this picture. The picture was made by Charles Parsons, the head photographer/painter for Harper's Weekly. The picture I showed is the colored version of the image in the article. The image is definitely in the public domain (Parsons has been dead since 1910) The image is shown in several museums but I suppose you could use this as a source for the image. There is also this. That image was actually shown in Harper's Weekly sometime in 1863-1864. All of Harper's Weekly's images are in the public domain. Even the ACW part of MilHist has it. But that image is far less vivid. I was even thinking of uploading the full-color version.
 * File:Sneden watercolor of Battle of Malvern Hill.jpg - please add Sneden's date of death to the image page - according to his article, he passed away in 1918 (same for File:Map of the night's march after Battle of Malvern Hill.jpg, which should also be corrected to the 70-year PMA template)
 * ✅ on both counts.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Excellent work on this article, I'm pleased to pass it for GA. Good luck getting it to FA for the anniversary! Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)