Talk:Louis H. Carpenter

Article started
I was not aware that a previous article on this person was deleted. I hope that this one will be better received. Jrcrin001 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Honor
Please do not marginalize the Medal of Honor section and the image of the 1896 version of the MOH. I strongly feel that this is important to the article on Louis H. Carpenter and honors the men he served with. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Article status
Each section now has a suitable reference except for the intro paragraph which does not need them. I do appreciate those who helped clean up this article. We may have the occasional disagreement, but our common goal is for a better article for the public. It appears B1 is now yes? What else is needed to go to GA status? Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * I think there are a couple things before it goes to GA, but I think its pretty close.

1 The Medal of Honor image should be moved to the section with his Medal of Honor.
 * I did this one. --Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ✅

2 There are a couple of "references" refering to see also that should be removed. 11 and 12 I think
 * I fixed these. --Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ✅

3 There is 1 reference that should be split away into a separate Footnotes section. 14 I think. Thats all I see at the moment.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ✅

4 I also think that a separate section should be added for Honors and awards and include the Medal of Honor and any other awards he might have received as as as possibly a display of his Medals (see Smedley Butler for an example).
 * Done. I added footnote 2 to explain how Brevet ranks were used during and after the Civil War. Kumioko created the separate section for Honors and awards. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)  ✅

5 there are also several DAB links [|See here].✅ 6 There are also some Reference issues [| here].
 * I thought this was done because I found the one "Louis H. Carpenter|" and fixed it. AH! typo in link corrected. I see it now. Removed bad external links. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ✅

7 The structure should be cleaned up. It does not need to be chronologically ordered but right now the flow of the article is somewhat choppy and should be reorganized to group like things together, for example start with his Ancestry, education and Early life then go into his military career, then retirement and later years, then Honors and awards (including the Medal of Honor and any others he might have received). ✅ 8 It might also be advisable to put it through a peer review also, its been my experience that if you do not put it through peer review first it will sit in the GA review and languish for at least 30 days before anyone looks at it. ✅ I have 3 there now that have been there since the beginning of June and I am getting ready to submit a couple more along with the 3 I have in peer review and the 2 I currently have pending FLC.--Kumioko (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some adjustments to some structure, images and references. I think we need to replace ref 1 with a (no offense intended here) reliable and verifiable one. Just a couple notes, Portals should not be between the defaultsort and categories, See also should not be used as an inline citation and sections should not normally start with an image.--Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I adjusted pictures to start at sub-sub?-sections instead of section headings. Bio portal instructions indicate that that portal goes just above categories. See [| Here] for link on this. The other portal instructions state that portals "may" be placed under the See Also section. Confusing, but the current version follows the current guidelines. I will try to avoid the "See alsos."
 * Ref 1 is a 1912 book by the subject. There is a "Carpenters' Encyclopedia of Carpenters 2009" data DVD that contains that data with corrections and updates. It is used also as a reference in the article. Maybe add both to show 1912 and 2009 as reference? I added a link for the 1912 book verification. ✅
 * I am amazed that we have not tripped over more on this by working at almost the same time. While we may never agree 100%, we have the goal of a GA article. The article is beginning to look very, very good. I am going off line now.  Thanks for the education and effort! Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the large bio format above and a few more tasks completed. I leave 7 & 8 for Kumioko to review. see above. I also see duplicate references, in the past I used IBID. What is the better way of citing those duplicates? Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try and work on this over the next couple days. --Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bio Portal placement
I put a question and request regarding the conflicting instructions of portal placement at Portal talk:Biography. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too but I put it in under WP:Portal.--Kumioko (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bio portal moved per discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Portal. Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Old Info box
I placed the old info box here for comparison purposes. Apparently the little images are a no-no when working toward a GA status. But, I personaly think it enhances the info box. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We can submit it and see what happens but from past experience it won't pass with the images (except for branch and allegiance). I am going to go ahead and submit this for GA. I don't think there are any major issues with it that cannot be easily corrected and it will be at least 2 - 4 weeks before anyone reviews it anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I put out some notifications as new articles. Some how I missed that earlier. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok now we can just chisel away at anything last minute tweaks we see or think we need to add and wait. I will be very surprised if anyone reviews this in less than he next 3 weeks but well see. The reviewers are very busy reviweing so maybe well get lucky. --Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Status
This article met GA staus via peer review and a lot of help. Thank you to those who contributed! Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The next goal "A-Class" Status - Failed 28 day review
Can this article meet the following five criteria which is much stricker than the B-class format? A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.

A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.

A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.

A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.

See also the A-Class review & criteria FAQ.

Any help to achieve this "A-Class" would be very helpful. Constructive comments welcome! Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I expanded LHC's sections on his continued frontier service as requested in the A review. New refs given for these sections and some may need some tweaking. I had some problems with a bot reverting several revisions instead of one. Hopefully all of these revs were taken care of. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review closed after 28 days and the results were "Fail." Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Category expansion?
Would it be appropiate to add categories similar to the following? Or is this overkill?


 * Category:Battles involving the Comanche
 * Category:Battles involving the Kiowa
 * Category:Battles involving the Apaches
 * Category:Texas-Indian Wars

Comments? Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added these and a couple of others but 2 of the ones you listed were not valid categories as far as I can tell. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Some concerns
This article is coming along, but still needs some work before we get it A/FA status. We'll get there though. I fixed some things on here and I will be back to do some more but in the mean time here are some things that I notice in the article that I think should be corrected. ❌
 * There are still some areas that need to be copyedited or expanded.
 * The Battle of Gettysburg section doesn't say anything about carpenter so it should either be removed or expanded to reflect his involvement in the battle. ✅ Carpenter added.
 * The references need to be cleaned up. they should use the Cite template consistently throughout. Currently it is used in some places but not others. ✅ Please check, I believe I have them listed properly.
 * The reference for the carpenter DVD might need to be eliminated. The book is acceptable because it has an ISBN and is maintained in the LOC but I am not so sure about the DVD update. I am sure that it exists and assuming good faith that it contains the info mentioned, we just have no way to verify it. This is especially a problem if this article gets submitted to FA. ✅ Removed & I added a comment to the book ref.
 * There are multiple references that appear to be identical pertaining to the buffalo soldiers. Once clicked they lead the reader to a distinctly different page and should be clarified. ✅
 * All the references that say something like click here or here should be cleaned up and displyed properly using the cite template. ✅
 * There are some sections where it gives a lot of detail about the battles but only a sentence about what carpenters participation was in the battle. For these we either need to trim down and merge some of these sections or expand them to give more details about carpenters participation (obviously the latter is preferred but might not be possible). ✅
 * '''I also am awaiting more information. When the info comes in, it will be added to the sections you referenced above. For example the Victorio section. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple friends at the National Archives and at the library of congress doing some digging for me on ol' Louis here so if they come up with anything new I will get them to load it to the appropriate website and let you know were its at. Its not original research if you can find it in google.;-)--Kumioko (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please review and let me know what else is needed. When I check the references I find only one in the green with a so-called redirect. But it doesn't redirect as it claims. Is this one a problem? Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good nice job, sorry I haven't really had much time to help. The only recommendation I see is I notice in a couple of things referring to wikipedia pages (like frocking and brevet promotions in the notes) you should do this as as a wikilink vice a reference link. Other than that I think it would probably pass an A class review. Good job.--Kumioko (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the links because the notes act different from regular refs. I will try again at another time. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Battle of Winchester
I removed this section in the article. While the Official Records cite a Carpenter there, the 6th US Cavalry Regiment was not present. It was the 6th Maine Cavalry Regiment. I found an error in a cite. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gettysburg Campaign
I added wikibox for chain of command reference for engagements and battles the the 6th & Carpenter took part of. I also added 6th US Cav battles & engagements for June and July 1863 to show how involved Carpenter was in the campaign. I am still waiting for more info to come in to fill in details of other battles and a few dates needed. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

New Information
I added new information that I had been waiting on for some time. I added some more pictures which may be one too many. Big updates on ranks, assignments and the related dates. The information on the 5th United States Colored Cavalry (USCC) is newly added. No doubt I have mis-spelling or grammer errors despite my efforts!

I am not sure the current format of Image verses File for pictures? Is there a difference? As always, any help appreciated. This is about as complete as I can get this article.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick review
As per the request on my talk page, here is a quick review of the article. I'd suggest putting it up for peer review before going to ACR or FA. Here are some suggestions, although I haven't had time to thoroughly go through the article.


 * in the lead you link brigadier general twice;
 * And I mentioned Medal of Honor twice. I kept lede simple and added article summary section. How is that? JRC


 * suggest collapsing the Buffalo soldiers template at the bottom of the page;
 * I tried to find out how to hide the template when the page opens, but I could not find the code for that. Any ideas how to? JRC


 * I think that the article possibly has too many images, which probably should be rationalised (unit insignia not really required, IMO);
 * I removed a few and another one or two are pending. JRC


 * in the Early life and family section, you have incorrectly used endashes in "great-great-great-grandson". In this case it should just be a normal hyphen. There are a number of examples of this in the text, for instance in the American Civil War section: pre-war, battle-proven, long-range, etc. This is against WP:DASH and would need to be fixed before taking it to A or FA;
 * That was a bot (not mine) going wild. I think I fixed the primary ones in the article. JRC


 * check capitalisation, for instance "the War" in the American Civil War section is incorrect. It is not a proper noun as there are many wars that get referred to as "the war";
 * I think I got them all and stressed "Civil War" with the first use as "American Civil War." JRC


 * in the Gettysburg Campaign section, listing the battles and the order of battle like that would possibly lead to claims of including too much information at ACR. It is a biography so it needs to focus upon Carpenter and while background information is required the OOB and battle list doesn't belong here, I believe;
 * It may be TMI, but I still think it helps people understand his placement and fuction in an organization. This includes his superiors and many of those he worked with mentioned in the article. I used the same format with the 5th USCC. Before it is removed, let me and others mull on it. JRC


 * on my screen there is a large amount of whitespace in the 5th US Colored Cavalry section;
 * H'mm, none on mine. Anyone else have that whitespace? I know that such whitespace can happened and it was frustrating to find a tiny little setting changed to cause it. JRC


 * in the Reconstruction subsection, is there a need for quotes like "damn-yankee" and "colored"? Doesn't seem encyclopedic to me;
 * I took out damn-yankee. I have used "colored" in quotations in the article to stress the correct and polite term used in the 1860s instead of the current African-American term. JRC


 * in the Pursuit of Victorio subsection, I wouldn't include the block quote like that, nor would I ask the question "What type of officer...?" as this style seems a bit journalistic, not encyclopedic;
 * I took out "What type of ..." comment. Is that better? JRC


 * in the Rattlesnake Springs subsection, "companies B and H" should be "Companies B and H" as it is a proper noun group;
 * That was an easy fix. ✅ Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Overall you've put in a lot of a work, which I think is great, however, I would advise caution in taking it to FA at this stage. A peer review might help iron out some issues that might arise there. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Insignia of ranks display
In the listing of Carpenter's promotions and their insignia (ranks), I see what looks like the modern versions (images). However, with at least one of the insignia, Second Lieutenant, there was no such insignia until the 1900s. (I have not looked at the others.) Accordingly, I recommend either editing to provide original insignia or a notation that these are the modern versions.--S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis H. Carpenter. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004080242/http://www.bencaudill.com/documents_msc/battle_of_marion.html to http://www.bencaudill.com/documents_msc/battle_of_marion.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609200309/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gott.pdf to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gott.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Louis H. Carpenter. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820135344/http://www.qvna.org/TrinityChurch.pdf to http://www.qvna.org/TrinityChurch.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215000652/http://firstnccav.home.mindspring.com/sixthuscav.html to http://firstnccav.home.mindspring.com/sixthuscav.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430193859/http://home.comcast.net/~5thuscc/massacr.htm to http://home.comcast.net/~5thuscc/massacr.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706234607/http://libraries.uta.edu/SpecColl/crose04/fortdavis.htm to http://libraries.uta.edu/SpecColl/crose04/fortdavis.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706234607/http://libraries.uta.edu/SpecColl/crose04/fortdavis.htm to http://libraries.uta.edu/SpecColl/crose04/fortdavis.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis H. Carpenter. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090523131152/http://www.freewebs.com/5thusccsimpsonville/index.htm to http://www.freewebs.com/5thusccsimpsonville/index.htm
 * Added tag to http://home.comcast.net/~5thuscc/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100926112141/http://www.lwfaaf.net/cwdata/cwbattle.htm to http://www.lwfaaf.net/cwdata/cwbattle.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)