Wikipedia:Peer review/5th New York Cavalry Regiment/archive1

5th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article status.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from AustralianRupert: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help! TwoScars (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8 different men, although 2 were in command for only a few days. The Medal of Honor was awarded to 6 of the regiment's soldier --> not sure about the numerals here per MOS:NUMERAL, probably should be spelled out unless in a list with other items that would normally take a numeral rather than being spelled out

Made change. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abram H. Krom conducted much of the unit's on-field leadership --> "Abram H. Krom provided much of the unit's on-field leadership"?

Replaced "conducted" with "provided". TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among the prisons where captured members of the regiment --> do we know how many were captured?

Two problems with the number captured: 1) Some of the men were exchanged and potentially captured again; 2) the regimental history has a section that lists engagements and their casualties, but no totals. I could add them up (I get 96 for 1862 only)—but that's getting close to original research. What do you think? TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, IMO, I think it should be okay to simply add the numbers so long as there is no interpretation or extrapolation per this and this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 538 enlisted men and 8 officers captured. I have some concerns about some "3"s and "8"s looking alike, so I put "Over 500 enlisted men and 8 officers were captured." in the War's end section instead of using the 538 for the enlisted men. TwoScars (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that seems a good solution in the circumstances. Interestingly, I had a similar problem when I was writing a journal article years ago. I had a lot of trouble deciphering some of the handwritten entries in an Australian infantry battalion's World War I war diary. The soldiers of that war seem to have incredible handwriting, but my generation -- brought up on computers -- writes in chicken scratching (myself included); the result of which is the beautifully written war diaries can sometimes be quite hard to read. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be a few harvnb errors: Pfanz 1865, Gallagher 2007, Starr 2007, Wright 1996, Tascheck 2009, Wittnberg & Petruzzi

Fixed Pfanz and Gallagher. More to come. TwoScars (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Gallagher, Starr, Wright, and Tascheck. More to come. TwoScars (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Wittenberg (Wittenburg=misspell) TwoScars (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

suggest moving Patchan and Wheelan to a Further reading section as it doesn't seem cited

Removed them. As usual for me, I wrote too much and had to cut portions of the article—that may have caused the problem. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel De Forest was under arrest and taken to New York --> "Colonel De Forest had been arrested and taken to New York"?

Made change. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

he praised the 5th New York's Captain Krom, who's battalion held --> " he praised the 5th New York's Captain Krom, whose battalion held" or " he praised Captain Krom and his battalion of the 5th New York, which had held..."?

Changed "who's" to "whose". Davies wrote "I would particularly mention for good conduct Captain Krom, who, with his battalion,...."

"War's End" --> "War's end" per WP:Section caps

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and 3 Confederate generals --> "and three Confederate generals" per MOS:NUMERAL?

Changed "3" to "three". TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"who's" --> "whose"? (who's is a contraction of "who is" not a possessive, I believe)

I agree. Fixed with Krom. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kges1901 Great work on this sorely needed detailed history of a Civil War unit, thanks for helping to improve the coverage of the war on Wikipedia.

Hello @Kges1901: - thank you for looking at this. 18th Pennsylvania Cavalry is next. TwoScars (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving this article to the title '5th New York Cavalry Regiment' because in most secondary sources published in the 20th century and beyond, Civil War Union regiments are referred as 'Xth state type of unit Regiment' rather than 'Xth regiment state volunteer type of unit, which is a 19th century usage. More Civil War articles on Wikipedia are increasingly shifting to the former over the latter order of words in the unit name. For example, Peter Cozzens' Shenandoah 1862 and James Ramage's Gray Ghost refer to the 5th New York as the "5th New York Cavalry".

Would like to change to 5th New York Cavalry or 5th New York Cavalry Regiment—how do I do that without (some type of redirect?) messing up links everywhere? The current name was chosen to be consistent with List of New York Civil War units#Cavalry. TwoScars (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:How to move a page. The current name will redirect to the new name, and a bot will fix any double redirects that ensue. Links will not be changed, so readers will still be directed to this article. Kges1901 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the 'Formation and organization' section seems to provide an unnecessary level of background detail that is better covered in broader articles. If readers aren't aware of basic information about the American Civil War such as uniform colors they can click on links instead.

Easy to fix that by eliminating the last sentence in the paragraph and the two notes with it. What do you think about Note 1? TwoScars (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 seems unnecessary as the basic background of the American Civil War is described by articles covering broader elements of the war. Kges1901 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the term 'rebels' as a descriptor of Confederate troops because Wikipedia articles on the war use the more neutral term Confederate rather than 'rebels', likewise Union is used rather than 'Federals'.

I can live with that even though the sources use the term rebels, but it seems like pretty dull writing if the word Confederate appears 50 times in the article. TwoScars (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NPS unit profile is copied from Dyer's Compendium so the latter can be cited instead, being the original source of the information on the NPS website.

Isn't it easier for the reader to have a web site where they can get the information? I have a PDF of volume 1 of Dyer's, and it is over 1800 pages. Are there any other Wikipedia articles that use Dyer's? Something more useful would be a replacement for the NPS Battle Summaries, which appear to be gradually being removed—not good for a useful source. TwoScars (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many Civil War unit articles use Dyer and a large amount are entirely copied from it. A solution would be to cite Dyer with a citation and note in the references that the NPS site mirrors Dyer.

This article relies heavily on Boudrye and other primary or near-primary sources even though there seem to be secondary sources available to cover the history of the regiment. I would suggest using Burns 2014 more frequently, and replacing usage of comparatively outdated sources such as Schaff 1910 with more recent scholarship. You've already cited Rhea, so Schaff should be redundant. Kges1901 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into it. In places (many) where Burns uses Boudrye or Hammond as a source, is it better to use the original source unless additional analysis of commentary is provided? I can get rid of some of the older sources such as Schaff, I just thought they made bluelinks possible that can help with verifiability. TwoScars (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schaff and Gallagher are the ones who discuss the importance of Hammond/5NY delaying action instead of only describing the action—it is important to leave them in. TwoScars (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]