Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of White Sulphur Springs/archive1

Battle of White Sulphur Springs

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to a Good Article.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 Doing... – It's been a while since I've done a Peer Review, but I'm in the mood today (plus I teach history) so this should be fun. Here are some of my thoughts on peer reviews so you know where I'm coming from. Runfellow (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Runfellow, Part 1 I find it interesting that there are so few featured articles on Civil War battles. Given the number of people interested in the topic, you'd think there would be all sorts of high-level stuff out there. Anyway, here we go:

Lead

• The second paragraph contains a fair amount of specific information regarding the objectives of the Union army. The third paragraph seems as though it will contain the same information regarding the Confederate forces, but it seems to cover a much broader scope. Regarding the actions during the battle itself, there is only a terse description: "Patton stopped Averell near White Sulphur Springs—about 10 miles (16 km) east of Lewisburg." I suggest that you shorten the description of the plans and goals here, and add a very brief summary of the actions of the battle, following with your article structure.
• The article begins very early (more on that later) with the successive secessions (language is fun) of Virginia from the Union and West Virginia from the Confederacy. There is no mention of this in the lead, though.
• After I get through the entire article, I will probably add or modify some things here.

Background and plans

• West Virginia
  • As mentioned above, this section goes pretty far back for context. Given West Virginia's complicated situation in the article, I think I'm okay with that. However, it would be a good idea to look at this section from the perspective of someone who knows little to nothing about this context already. For the most part, this does an excellent job. Here are some further suggestions:
  • Change "Many people in the northwestern portion of the state preferred to remain loyal to the United States, and delegates from that portion of the state met in June at the Second Wheeling Convention." to "In June of that year, residents of the northwest part of the state who remained loyal to the United States met at the Second Wheeling Convention." This also removes the vague phrase "many people."
  • The sentence "Although loyal Virginians approved their own statehood on October 24, 1861, West Virginia did not become a state in the United States until June 20, 1863." introduces a mild bias by suggesting that the delay was longer than was reasonable. I suggest rephrasing to "Virginians loyal to the United States declared their own statehood on October 24, 1861, and it officially became the state of West Virginia on June 20, 1863."
  • Suggested rephrase: "and its people were poor" to "and far fewer financial resources than neighboring Virginia."
  • Suggested rephrase: "Residents were not all loyal to the union, and the state continued to be plagued by bushwhackers and Partisan rangers practicing guerrilla warfare." to "Not all residents were loyal to the Union; bushwhackers and partisan rangers practiced guerilla warfare tactics to gain control of the state."
  • Is there any way to be more specific than "Many of the people"? Perhaps not, but it's worth a try.
  • "Historians" is not an official term; you might want to mention which groups.
  • Suggested rephrase: "was one of the communities that supported the Confederacy" to "supported the Confederacy."
  • The last sentence of this section should be moved to earlier in the paragraph, so that it fits chronologically, or to the section on Kelly's orders.

• Railroads
  • What about a link to Confederate railroads in the American Civil War?
  • Change "entering/exiting" to "entering and exiting"
  • Link to Shenandoah Valley?
  • It's okay to split sentences a bit more. For example, the sentences beginning "Another important" and "It had" could easily be split in half.
  • "one of the best–trained and best–disciplined" should have an attribution in text, if you're quoting directly from a source.
  • "Historians debate on if Averell was sent to West Virginia as a punishment, or because he could train Union Army units in cavalry tactics." Is this debate covered in the source from the next sentence? It's a little unclear.
  • "promptly" is a subjective term. I suggest clarifying or omitting entirely.
  • "youngest colonel in the Union Army" Hey I'm curious... who was it? Does he have an article you can link to?
  • Regarding the use of phrases like "would destroy," "would seize," etc., I suggest caution. This could be interpreted as "He was ordered to destroy" but it also could be read as "he destroyed." I suggest rephrasing to make this clearer.
  • Can you be any clearer than "users"?
  • I suggest deleting "currently" before "detached".

Opposing forces

Hmmmm, it seems as though I've been reading about the opposing forces in this article already. I'm not entirely sure if there should be some things moved around, but it might be worth looking into.

• Confederate army
  • I think it's clear that Lewisberg is in West Virginia, at this point.
  • Suggest moving the sentence about Imboden somewhere else, as the two sentences surrounding it are about Jackson (whom I had never heard of, by the way! I love learning.)
  • The sentence "Jackson was a target..." contains some awkward syntax. I'm not entirely sure how to rephrase it, yet, but there are many bits of information you're trying to convey in one sentence.
  • "grandfather of the future World War II tank commander also named George S. Patton" I was wondering if this would end up in here. I'm not denying that it's interesting, but I don't think it's particularly relevant. I suggest deleting, but I wouldn't blame you for keeping it in there.
  • Suggest changing "had" to "commanded"
  • Is there any information about the weapons used by the Confederate forces?

• Union Army
  • Awkward syntax: "split among multiple places." Suggest changing to "split into multiple units"? Not sure.
  • Suggest changing "had" to "commanded" here, too.
  • Suggest changing "Gibson's Cavalry Battalion (six companies)" to "six companies of Gibson's Cavalry Battalion"
  • Suggest changing "Ewing's Battery. Ewing's Battery had six guns." to "the six guns of Ewing's Battery." This would also remove the redundant source (36) at the end of the second sentence.
  • Suggest adding a comma after "At the battle" since you have it in the sentence in the Confederate military.

I'll update this later today with the next part. In the meantime, let me know if you have any questions. My apologies for anything I wasn't clear about. I am working fast, and no doubt missed some things and/or made some goofy mistakes in my suggestions above. Runfellow (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)