Talk:Battle of Marion

Problems

There are still problems with this article as i go through copy editing. There are many points that need clarification. For example, it was stated that the commanders "wanted to appease the outspoken Union public", the exact wording from your primary source too, by the way. But appease them for what reason? This throw away line does not clarify the commanders decision if the reason for appeasement is not given.

In addition the timeline is not easy to comprehend, and your primary source is no clearer. "Burbridge was then ordered to bring his army of approximately four thousand men through the Cumberland Gap to meet in Tennessee", again, the exact same text as you primary source, but to meet whom? And where in Tennessee? I assume to meet Stoneman and General Alvan Gillem. Who is the latter, why no mention that he has an army too? So two small armies meet? This really needs to be clarified.

Do these two armies meet before or after the ambush set by General Basil Duke's? The article says "On December 13, on the march through the Cumberland Gap Stoneman's army defeated Confederate General Basil Duke's cavalry ambush at Rogersville, Tennessee." But which army is this, Burbridge's troops, Gillem's troops or both? If both was this the second trip through the cumberland gap for these soldiers?

These confusions need to be cleared up if you want to get this to a good article status. And all these plagiarised sentences need to be purged. In future I suggest you write the articles from scratch, in your own words. It is apparent that what you did here was start with the source article and tweek it here and there. That is not acceptable for two reasons, deleted material can lead to lack of context. The appeased Union public is a good example of that. Also, the order of words and key phrases is effectively identical to your source even if tweeked here and there. It is much better that an article is your own original synthesis, using the source to make sure the points you make are accurate. David D. (Talk) 22:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review - Fail

Sorry, but I went ahead and failed this article, as there are several major issues with it. It's a good start, but I doubt that the work required would be able to be completed in a week or so.

1. Lack of Sources - Anything that is not common knowledge, or in other words, about 95% of this article, needs to be sourced. As this is a GA Review, and not an FA Review, I would have been willing to let a few things slide here or there, but too much of this article is lacking citations. For instance, there is only one reference in the 'Background' section, when ideally nearly all of it would be sourced. Also, there appear to be some formatting issues with the citations that are here. The external links used as sources should be fleshed out a bit, and not simply be a URL with ref and ref/ around it.

1. Style - There are also a few issues concerning style and encyclopedic prose. For starters, Union soldiers shouldn't be referred to as 'Yankees' - in addition to some other problems with the word, it is too informal. This wasn't the only thing I found, but most of these issues are rather minor.

1. Illustrations - This isn't necessarily a make-or-break thing with me, especially as illustrations for an article of this sort are probably difficult to come by. However, adding illustrations beyond simply a dot on the battle's location in Virginia and pictures of the commanders would go a long way toward GA status if you were to re-nominate the article in the future. Modern-day pictures of the battlefield or maps showing the movement of units during the battle would be great.

Again, my primary problem with this article is the lack of sources. Better luck next time. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Still needs some clean up

This relies far too heavily on the CSA sources referenced. Even Marvel presents a more realistic depiction (although it is short and lacks a map of the action) that is more of a blend of Union and CSA reports.

• The references could use some descriptive titles and page numbers where appropriate.
• Casualties do not equal killed. ACW casualties consisted of killed, wounded, and captured/missing.

*I thought the saltworks were at Saltville, not Marion? "The salt works at Marion were later destroyed by the Union army." They were destroyed at Saltville as part of this raid and as the result of this battle.

• No mention is made of the Union strength.

*Kingsport in in Tennessee, not Kentucky or Virginia.

• The map shows Stoneman's raid coming from the North, but the expedition/raid started from Knoxville, TN (southwest) to Kingsport, TN then Bristol, VA and then hit Wytheville while the CSA tried to block the door at Marion, VA. While fighting was occurring at Marion, Stoneman succeeded in cutting the road back to Saltville and Breckinridge was forced to withdraw in the direction of Wytheville.
• Some of the description makes it sound like a Union "rout", etc. but that was not the case. The Union forces weren't able to force their way across and Burbridge seems to have gotten his command totally muddled (See Stoneman's O.R. report.) In the meantime part of Gillem's command interposed.

*The CSA experienced tactical success in repulsing the attacks, but they were beaten strategically, outflanked and out of ammo. It appears that all the major Union objectives were achieved. Red Harvest (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The tertiary source (Chaltas and Brown) that seems to form the basis for much of this article is incredibly biased and misleading and seriously damages the quality of the present wiki article. Since the source doesn't footnote (only references) it is unclear how much it is the authors' opinions and how much comes from primary or secondary sources. I'm putting up the NPOV tag until we can get this cleaned up.
• Looking at the O.R. reports, Schofield was the one Stoneman proposed the raid to and who authorized it. (Correspondence aobut this after the raid was to Halleck and Thomas.) This is yet another example of how the Chaltas & Brown article has confused previous editors.
• The "Preparations" sections are problematic because they work best for set piece battles, not cavalry raids. This was a very fluid expedition. There were several actions preceding the battle and things occurring over many miles in different directions. Some subsection paragraphs about different preceding events are probably in order, with a final paragraph about what forces were coalescing for the battle itself (that is where the Order of Battle would fit.) Red Harvest (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are many reference links that are not directly related to the point being cited. I'm removing them as I find them but am uncertain why they are present in the first place.
• There are several links that point to the wrong person or thing or need disambiguation. I'm dealing with them as I find them. Red Harvest (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A-class review

Just a note: There's a WPMILHIST A-class review going on for this article. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Unfortunately, this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. The article needs to be thoroughly sourced before it can achieve GA status. Currently, there are many uncited statements. In addition, there are multiple "citation needed" tags (one of the quick-fail criteria for a GA review). Aside from the lack of references, I believe that some copyediting is needed to improve the quality of prose and MOS compliance. I would recommend getting someone without a background in American military history, if possible, as I believe that this article would be difficult for many readers to follow. The verb tense needs to be consistent (past tense), so phrases like "Stoneman would use troops" and "As these men would attempt to retreat from their positions at the bridge, the Confederates of the would pick most of them off" should not be used. Instead, it should be "Stoneman used troops" and "As these men attempted to retreat from their positions at the bridge, the Confederates picked most of them off". The latter of these sentences also underscores the need for copyediting, as "the Confederates of the would" is awkward. The League of Copyeditors might be a good idea.

The web citations that are given need to have at least a title, publisher, url and accessdate (preferably using the {{cite web}} template. The books should list at least an author, title, publisher, date, url and page (preferably using the {{cite book}} template. There are also a few concerns from last listed above this review, and it seems as though most of them haven't been dealt with. I am going to fail this article, but I urge you to address my concerns and the ones listed above, find a copyeditor, list the article for peer review, and renominate when it's ready. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this article has been renominated. I would just like to point out that several of my previous concerns remain (notably: verb tense, lack of references, and insufficient information in the references). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out specifics? I fixed many of these things, and I will be happy to fix more if you inform me. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, lack of references is still a major problem. Every paragraph needs at least one reference. Verb tense is still inconsistent. One sentence that I specifically mentioned in the GA review was "As these men would attempt to retreat from their positions at the bridge, the Confederates of the would pick most of them off". This sentence has not been changed. In addition, the references still contain insufficient information (the minimum is title, publisher, url and accessdate). GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your other points, GCF, but it seems to me that a reference for every paragraph seems more of an aesthetics thing rather than one of veribility. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Please note, this is not a GA review, but it may help with future review processes.

Some of the internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem may hinder a GA nomination. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes GA review, and indeed this is something that a reviewer should insist you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GA hold

• Work on refs per above.
• Expand, a bit more summary of the main points, esp battle and its significance is neede.
• Optional for GA, but good practice, is to move the images that are free to WikiCommons. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

failed, little or no action taken. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick review

I have been asked to comment on the article. My comments are based on a quick read/skim only. I had difficulty maintaining interest even in the lede, and have not yet read the entire article, so these are just my early impressions. Part of my lack of interest in the article is just not being very interested in the topic of civil war battles; I am more interested in the politics. However, the main thing that would create a stir of political interest - that a former candidate for president of the USA was commanding on the side of the CSA - does not appear to be mentioned anywhere. I also think there could be a POV problem with calling Stoneman's offense a "raid into Virginia". This is not the language of the source, and "raid" can suggest a "short, rapid attack into someone else's territory to take spoils". I also found it annoying that I had to hunt the list of references to find that source - it makes it that much harder to care to check -- and not even alphabetical order could be used to shorten the search. Also, that rather short source (with barely a dozen facts in it) is referenced 10 times. I would not normally mention this last point, since it could seem overly-critical, but I am just commenting on my early impressions. I apologize that all my comments are negative, but I would need to read the entire article before committing myself to any positive comments. ;=) --JimWae (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I now see that "Stoneman's Raid" is a very common name for the battle(s). I also see there is a template in the article WITH that name attached. Is this the CSA name? Does the USA have a different name for it? "Raid" appears 7 times in the article, but only once (in the template) as an actual name for the offense. Last sentence of first paragraph & first sentence of 2nd paragraph are repetetive. --JimWae (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Stoneman conducted multiple raids, so it is not appropriate to use the generic term. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But if "stoneman's raid" is used in the template & "raid" is used so very many times in the article (overused, I'd say - esp as "Union raiders"), then some text should connect to the "raid" "by that title". I ask again, did the CSA & Union use the same names for these offensives? --JimWae (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, doesn't a raid usually imply a quick attack followed by a withdrawal? It seems the Union continued to advance after the battle --JimWae (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that since there were multiple Stoneman raids, you have to qualify which raid this was. His North Carolina raid in 1865 is arguably better known. In this particular action, as in all raids, the intent was to advance, destroy things, but not retain territory (as an invasion would). The problem here is that a single minor battle in the raid is being elevated to seem more important than the full operation. The article should probably be structured as a description of the full raid--Stoneman's Raid into Southwest Virginia--like one of our campaign articles, and the battle should be a brief article that points to the raid article for context. Or even a redirect. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense and it would also deal with the context issues that've been bothering me. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Review, October 3

I just posted some simple edits to the article as part of a general review, but there are some systemic problems that I am not able to fix (or did not feel like fixing):

• The reference to Heritage Preservation Services is, I assume, the National Park Service's CWSAC battle summary. This webpage has almost no information in it, so the wealth of footnotes citing it are probably not all valid. When you cite a webpage, it is a courtesy to put the actual URL into the footnote. By the way, the use of the name= parameter on the ref tag means that you only have to write the detailed citation text once and then you can refer to <ref name=foo/> for subsequent citations to the same place.
• Rather than saying US War Dept, it is traditional to footnote the "Official Records" or OR and put the volume number in the footnote.
• You are really overusing the term "army" for such small forces.

Fixed. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A few comments about changes I made:

• The Mason-Dixon line is nowhere near Southwest Virginia.
• I removed a number of links to simple English vocabulary words.
• The manual of style does not support the hard coding of thumbnail image sizes, which allows users' personal preferences to select sizes for all thumbnails.
• It really is not necessary to say which of your references are in English in an article that is entirely about American topics. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments for pre-GA Review

I see that this has been nominated again for Good Article status. However, you do not seem to have acted on the issues raised above by other editors. Particularly of concern is that you are still referencing a large number of citations to a website that gives an extremely brief summation of the battle, and does not support the many citations you have made in various sentences. Please fix this before the article can be reviewed. Skinny87 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Marion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GAN, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Background section, you say "The force opposing Stoneman was the forces". Please reword this so you don't use the word "force" twice within the same sentence.
   • Please either always use convert templates or never use them. For example, you use a convert template in the third paragraph of the Background section, but not in the fifth paragraph.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • For Ref #3 (Heritage Preservation Services:Battle Summary), I'm not sure which long ref this is pointing towards. It's either the first or the second listing in the References section, but I can't figure out which one. Also, whichever one it is, the other one doesn't have a corresponding short ref (as far as I can find), and so should probably be removed from the references section.
   • I have some concerns about whether the cites cover what they claim to cover. For example for ref 3, both of the possibilities that it could be (see above comment) are short summaries of the battle. Neither of them cover exact casualty and loss stats, force strength, commander approval (first paragraph of the background section), etc. This needs to be fixed. I haven't checked the other references, but as there are 11 references to Ref 3, this is something that I will be watching carefully.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • In the last sentence of the article, you say "Stoneman claimed" to have taken a bunch of prisoners. Is there something that contradicts this? Or was it just not verified by independent sources?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A couple of issues with prose, but the most serious issue is with references. I see that the issue of misrepresented references has been brought up before on the talk page, and it is something that must be taken care of. I am putting this article on hold for now. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I still don't know which reference "Heritage Preservation Services: Battle Summary" is supposed to lead to. Also, whichever one it does (if it's one of the first two in the references section) still doesn't back up what it's supposed to be referencing. There is presently a fact tag in the article, and a hidden comment about the page range of Ref 3 (Official records), which needs to be checked out. I agree with the hidden comment, as page 442 of the Official records does not cover, for example, the strength and losses of the armies, for which it is currently cited. Please make sure that all of your references currently cover all of the information for which they are being cited. Blatantly mis-using sources is a very bad habit to get into... Dana boomer (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this article's GA nom. Nothing has really been done on the article in the two weeks since my last comment, and I still have concerns about the reliability of the sourcing. Please, please, fix this (it's been pointed out in previous GA reviews and by other editors, as well as me), before you renom for GA or A class. Good luck. Dana boomer (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A-class Checklist

List of goals for A-class.

• Footnote Official Records rather than US war dept.

 Done ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 16:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do not overuse Heritage preservation dept.

 Done ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 16:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Perfect lead.

• Do not overuse raid.

 Done ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 16:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Alphabetize references.

Done. Cam ^(Chat) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Some other suggestions from User:Climie.ca

• Lead copyedit for prose

• Improve citation density

 Done ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)