Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Cedar Creek/archive1

Battle of Cedar Creek

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to a Good Article rating. This is an article that was originally written 10 or 15 years ago, and I have (hopefully) upgraded it to include the citations expected in today's Good Articles. I also added much of the discussion about cavalry. It needs a simple read-through, as some things that a well-read Civil War person may assume everyone knows may be unclear to the average reader. Also, images are important in articles about battles, as they make it easier to comprehend what went on. I have two images that I am uncertain if they add to the article: 1) Would this map be useful in the Background section (replacing the image of Grant); and 2) Would a newspaper article that lists what a single regiment captured be useful in the casualties section? The images, Virginia 1864.png and 5th NY Cavalry New York Herald 11-9-1864 Page 4.png, are in Wikimedia Commons for Battle of Cedar Creek. This battle is a famous one, and contributed to Philip Sheridan's fame. It deserves to be upgraded to a GA or someday a FA. Thanks in advance TwoScars (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@TwoScars: Hello! I noticed your article has been waiting for a peer review for quite a while and it looks pretty interesting. This is my first official peer review but I am familiar with the Good Article process, so I'd love to help. I am by no means a Civil War buff so hopefully I can give a good layman's perspective. This may take me a little while so I'll probably post comments piecemeal. Just to be sure, the focus of the review is on the readability of the prose and the usefulness of the images? If that's the case I'll assume you've got the references sorted out pretty well and just focus on the text. Best wishes, Fritzmann (message me) 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Review

• Lead
  • "...while Sheridan was away" Perhaps clarify this, it is a bit of a jarring end to the sentence and I think it would be justified to briefly say why Sheridan was not at his camp. Additionally, it could probably be made more clear as to whether Early planned the surprise attack to occur when Sheridan was away, or if it was just a coincidence.

Much of the detail is gone from the first paragraph, and it does not mention Sheridan was away until the second paragraph. TwoScars (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "What appeared to be a Confederate victory" The tense here is a bit strange. What I mean is, to whom did it appear to be a Confederate victory? Maybe something like, "While the battle favored the Confederates in its early stages..." or something along those lines might make the sentence read a bit easier.

First paragraph has a sentence that now reads "During the morning, Lieutenant General Jubal Early appeared to have a victory for his Confederate army, as he captured over 1,000 prisoners and over 20 artillery pieces while forcing seven enemy infantry divisions to fall back."

• • "and rallied his men in the afternoon" I think if you give the timeframe here it might be helpful to mention when Early initially attacked; I'm assuming that would just be attaching "in the morning" onto one of the sentences prior.

First paragraph, after the sentence about Early doing well in the morning, simply says "The Union army, led by Major General Philip Sheridan, rallied in late afternoon and drove away Early's men while capturing most of their artillery and wagons." TwoScars (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Early's surprise attack occurred before dawn in heavy fog" Yeah good elaboration here but I still think a quick mention of "morning" early in the lead would help clear up the chronology.

Now mentioned: Early did well in the morning, and Sheridan in the late afternoon. TwoScars (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Hmm... this second paragraph is seeming to me to just be a slightly more detailed version of the first paragraph. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but economy of words in the lead is always important for a GA-prospect. If you wanted, and this is totally up to you, I think you could probably mix up the lead a few different ways which could help the introduction.
    • Option 1: Combine the first and second paragraphs, maintaining *most* of the details, and then add in a fourth paragraph of separate information (perhaps a brief comparison of the opposing forces)
    • Option 2: Keep two separate paragraphs, but make the first one focus on Early's attack and the second on Sheridan's counterattack
    • Option 3: Cut a bit of the battle summary from paragraph one which is repeated in paragraph two and substitute in some more general information (perhaps on the importance of the battle or its background)

Second paragraph now describes the battle, while first gives the who-what-when-where-why.

• • On the second sentence of the third paragraph I think an "Additionally" or other similar word would make it flow a tad better

Added "Additionally". TwoScars (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Redid the intro. First paragraph simply tells the name of the battle, when and where it occurred. Why they were fighting (a civil war), and who won (also who was winning in the morning). The second paragraph gives details for the battle. Here is where we learn of the early morning surprise attack and Early's pause. We also learn Sheridan was away and returned to rally his army. We learn that the counter attack was made at 4:00 pm, and Sheridan made use of his cavalry. The third paragraph is mostly the same: we learn the impact the battle had on the Confederacy and Shenandoah Valley, Lincoln's reelection, and Sheridan's fame. TwoScars (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Background
  • This would apply to the whole article, but perhaps link the ranks in the images, even if only once? I'm familiar with how military ranks work so I wasn't too confused but a blue link to the rank article would definitely help readers who may not know what those abbreviations mean, and it wouldn't clutter the picture caption at all.

Excellent idea! Wikilinked the rank for Grant, Sheridan, and Getty. Also Early and Gordon (Confederate ranks). TwoScars (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Grant decided that Early's threat had to be eliminated, particularly in the wake of the cavalry raid that burned Chambersburg." Maybe flip-flop the clauses here? "Partly because of the cavalry raid that burned Chambersburg, Grant decided that Early's threat had to be eliminated." Not grammatically incorrect and just personal preference here but I think that just allows the sections to have a bit more continuity with one another.

Changed to "After the cavalry raid that burned Chambersburg, Grant decided that Early's threat had to be eliminated." TwoScars (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• • I have to say that these sections so far are wonderfully written. I feel like you have given me, the reader, a very good basis for understanding this battle without going into too much unnecessary detail. I particularly like the use of the notes in this section; I feel as though those are often underused or used incorrectly, but here I think they work very well.
  • "Kershaw *also* brought Cutshaw's battalion of artillery."

Added "also". TwoScars (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Kershaw's Division (2,700 fighters), Rosser's Laurel Brigade (600 men)" Any reason why "fighters" and "men" are used instead of the same word? Just curious if that was intentional.

Two reasons: 1) to not be repetitive; 2) "fighters" is intentional. Early's book (the source) says "Kershaw's division numbered 2,700 muskets for duty". That led me to believe that Early was not counting cooks, wagon drivers, and staffers—fighters only. Wert (the other source) says "Rosser's 600 horsemen", so I felt OK with saying 600 men for Rosser. TwoScars (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "...from the September battles, almost made up..." No need for the comma

Dropped comma. TwoScars (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Back tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Opposing forces
  • A disclaimer: I'm not familiar with the style guide for how these look, so if my impression doesn't jive with the MOS please feel free to just completely disregard this section
  • "...totaling to about 31,610 effectives..."

Dropped "to". TwoScars (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Wright's fighters were considered reliable veterans." Probably unnecessary, but my first thought was 'by whom'?

This sentence does a little foreshadowing of Getty and his division during the battle. Changed to: At least one historian says Wright's fighters had a reputation for "steadfastness and reliability". TwoScars (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Including over 3,000 men from Kershaw's infantry division, 2,206 men from Rosser's cavalry division after the addition of the Laurel Brigade, and 1,101 artillerists, Early had an estimated 21,102 effectives." I would put the total count first as that is the more important figure and what I'd want to know before the composition

Changed to "Early had an estimated 21,102 effectives when including over 3,000 men from Kershaw's infantry division, 2,206 men from Rosser's cavalry division after the addition of the Laurel Brigade, and 1,101 artillerists." [A hidden meaning of this sentence is this: some estimates (see the footnote) say he had only 14 or 15 thousand men—but if you add all the forces loaned to him (+3,000 + 600 + 1,101), you get closer to 21,000—especially if you use the total for Rosser's entire cavalry division (2,206 instead of 600). Coincidence? We all know generals tended to understate the size of their force and overestimate the size of the enemy force. I prefer the US Army center of Military History's method of estimating Early's effectives mentioned in the footnote.] TwoScars (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Reworded again: Early had an estimated 21,102 effectives.[Note] In addition to his troops originally from Army of Northern Virginia's Second Corps, this figure includes over 3,000 men from Kershaw's infantry division, 2,206 men from Rosser's cavalry division after the addition of the Laurel Brigade, and 1,101 artillerists.[citation] TwoScars (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Infantry consisted of five divisions." I'm not sure what the fix would be, or if there needs to be one, but this sentence and the one about the cavalry just seem a touch clunky, and also aren't in the same style as the opening sentences for the Union forces.

I agree, but I do not have any alternatives. Early's army did not consist of multiple corps like Sheridan's army. He simply had four divisions of infantry plus another division loaned to him. He did not like cavalry but had two divisions. TwoScars (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• • This is just a question because I'm curious, but are bullet points usually used for orders of battle in this type of article? I quite like the way you've done it, but I also feel like the same information could be conveyed without the bullet points in pure paragraph form.

I believe bullet points are normally frowned upon, but I used them in the Battle of the Wilderness and the Third Battle of Winchester—both became Good Articles. I think they are easier on the eyes, and easier to refer back to, in cases where there are large armies. TwoScars (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Disposition of forces and movement to battle
  • I felt like everything up to the last paragraph of Hupp's Hill and Stanton was very clear and easy to follow. I feel like the chronology gets a little bit harder to follow in the last paragraph though. It's probably just because there's a lot of moving pieces, but perhaps spending a little bit more time laying out that particular section could be good.

Expanded that paragraph to explain why Sheridan went to Washington, adding that the trip was made after Hupp's Hill. TwoScars (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Gordon makes a plan is excellently written. It sets the stage for the battle very well. Kudos to you for getting even a numbnuts like me to understand what the Confederate plan was.
• Battle
  • This is just personal preference, but a few reminders about which units/commanders are Union or Confederate would help immensely. I'm not familiar with any of these names or units, and especially in these early sections am finding myself having to stop reading to look back at the article and remind myself which side this guy or that brigade is on. At least in my opinion, whether the Union or Confederacy is doing something is the most important bit of info, and the commander or unit that does it is very useful and important, but secondary to the former.

I agree, and will start working on that tomorrow. I will use the rule-of-thumb that if the leader has his portrait in the article, the reader knows which side he was on—otherwise, I will try to add Union and Confederate to a few more places. I also sneak in the leader's rank in a few cases, although that is usually frowned upon after the first time. TwoScars (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In the Confederate attacks, made over 20 changes where units were additionally identified as Confederate or Union. Also made one in the Union cavalry and Sheridan's ride section. TwoScars (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Alright I have to say that the maps help immensely. They greatly add to the article and having almost an image in each section of the battle is honestly very nice.
  • Under XIX Corps: "with the bulk of his men behind fortifications" I'm intrigued, what kind of fortifications? Are there any more specific articles on period-appropriate fortifications which could be linked to?

I will have to do more research on that. I suspect shallow trenches with fence rails and trees, not anything too difficult to construct in a short period of time. Here is an American Battlefield Trust video TwoScars (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Added a footnote. One source says earthworks, while another says breastworks. The footnote wikilinks to Breastwork (fortification), which has a better description than Wikipedia's Fortification. TwoScars (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "less than one hour from after the start of the battle"

Made change. TwoScars (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Corps Commander Emory received assistance from Wildes' partial brigade from Crook's army, which was unable to get back to Crook." Maybe just me but this is a tad difficult to parse

Reworded: XIX Corps Commander Emory received unexpected assistance from Wildes' partial brigade from Crook's Army of West Virginia. In the confusion of battle, Wildes' two regiments had been unable to reunite with Crook and the retreating men from the Army of West Virginia—so they offered assistance to Emory and Wright. When the partial brigade reported, Emory ordered it to attack—which would enable his men to have more time for reorienting the Union lines. TwoScars (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Their action enabled most of the Union headquarters units and supply trains were able to withdraw to safety" Might want to check the grammar here? Sounds a bit funny

Dropped "were able". TwoScars (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Early had driven back five Union divisions, captured over 1,300 prisoners, and took possession of 18 artillery pieces" I think "taken" would be proper tense here

Made change. TwoScars (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Early, Gordon, and the VI Corps For the second paragraph of this section, are there any indications of unit strength? Specifically, I was left wondering whether Getty's 2nd Division is fighting an even battle or if they are greatly outnumbered by the combined Confederate units which were attacking

They should have been overwhelmed by five Confederate divisions. Getty was the best infantry commander, and his men were the best infantry soldiers. I added something noting that as a footnote. The mistake the Confederates made, also in the footnote, was attacking with one brigade at a time instead of all at once. Getty was pretty good. In the Battle of the Wilderness, his division stopped a Confederate Corps and prevented a Union Corps from being cut off from the rest of the Union army. This also rescued a Union cavalry regiment that was slowing down the Confederate Corps advance. The Cedar Creek text now mentions that Getty pulled back because two Confederate divisions were beyond his right. It also mentions the Confederate frontal assaults from the divisions of Ramseur, Pegram, and Wharton. TwoScars (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "By 10:00 am, Jubal Early had a Confederate victory" maybe "believed he had a Confederate victory"?

Made change. TwoScars (talk)

• • What is the blue box off to the right? I'm not sure exactly where it fits into the narrative.

I changed the section header to "Early's fatal halt". The purpose of the blue box is to explain why Sheridan took so long (10:30 am to 3:30 pm) to counterattack. I changed the header on the blue box to "Did Sheridan halt too? If you can think of better headers for the section and blue box, please let me know. TwoScars (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "The Union counterattack began at almost 4:00 pm." maybe "...just before 4:00 pm"?

Made change. TwoScars (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • For the casualties section, it would probably be easier to read if it were split into two paragraphs, one Union and one Confederate

Made change. Much better. TwoScars (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Aftermath
  • "Second, the terrain and poor placement of the Union infantry units created a vulnerability" Wording is just a bit vague here, especially "created a vulnerability" in my opinion

Changed to "Second, the terrain and poor placement of the Union infantry units created a vulnerability that allowed the Confederates to surprise, flank, and outnumber segments of the Union army." TwoScars (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Cavalry accounted for nearly half (ten of twenty-one) of the medal of honor winners at Cedar Creek, while it had about one fourth of the men present." Maybe "even though" or "despite" instead of "while"?

Changed to "Cavalry accounted for nearly half (ten of twenty-one) of the medal of honor winners at Cedar Creek, even though it had only about one fourth of the men present. TwoScars (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "Many historians say..." is a bit weaselly

Changed that sentence to "Many people gave Sheridan credit for the Union victory, and he was featured on the cover of Harper's Weekly.[2 citations] It is "beyond dispute" that Sheridan had an electrifying effect on his men when he arrived at the battlefield.[2 citations]. [Once of the citations links to the Harper's cover.]

• • I'm not sure how much other information is out there, but a bit more on exactly how the victory helped Lincoln win re-election would be welcome. I know I was intrigued by that claim in the lead, and it could be elaborated upon in the body of the article more, possibly even with a small paragraph of its own.

Will work on this Saturday. I have McPherson's book and Eicher's, in addition to the sources already used. Maybe even the National Park Service or American Battlefield Trust could be sources too. TwoScars (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Redid the third paragraph under Performance and impact. Added several sentences about Lincoln's situation, and added a big footnote that discusses the Union manpower shortage, McClellan and peace negotiations, and the Confederate awareness of those issues. TwoScars (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Specific Miscellany
  • In response to "1)" in the review request: I'm not particularly a fan of that specific image. However, I do think a different image which illustrates the geography of the Shenandoah Valley and surrounding areas would be helpful, if one exists. If not, I think the image of Grant is fine.
  • In response to "2)" No, I don't think that newspaper scan really helps. It isn't of very high quality and would be tough to read in image form, plus the information isn't central to the account of the battle in my opinion.
  • In general, the images are superbly helpful and I think there is a pretty good balance of them at the moment.

I will leave the images as they are. I can make simple images by modifying maps from the Library of Congress such as the "After Rosser's October 9 defeat at Tom's Brook, most of Sheridan's army camped near Cedar Creek" map, but I cannot duplicate Hal's maps (such as "Army of West Virginia was surprised") other than modifying what he already made. TwoScars (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In summary, this article is very well written. I can tell you know your stuff because you've been able to make a niche and often convoluted subject very accessible and easy to understand. I saw no glaring issues with the article and it flowed very well. Your writing style is very nice, for lack of better words, and I hope to emulate it. I think that if the referencing is as solid as the prose then this article is a shoe-in for GA.

If any of my comments were confusing or need clarification, I'll be keeping an eye on this page so just let me know. If you've got other articles you'd like peer review in the future as well, please don't hesitate to drop me a line; it was a pleasure to give my input on such well made content. Best wishes and good luck in taking this to GA! Very respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 02:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: I believe I have cleaned everything up now. The article size is now 81,549 bytes. I had hoped to keep it under 80,000 because the larger size can sometimes scare away reviewers—but I think it is vastly improved. Thank you for looking this over. This is one of the most useful Peer Reviews I have had. TwoScars (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@TwoScars: the changes look great! All those last little nitpicky things have been sorted out beautifully. I'm excited to see this go to GAN (...and then maybe FAC??), so keep me in the loop! If I could, I'd review the GAN, but I feel there might be a bit of bias there so I'll leave that to someone else. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors, and please let me know if there is any future collaboration you could use a hand with - it has been a pleasure working with someone so responsive, knowledgeable, and cordial as yourself. Very respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 20:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)