Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 October 2022 [1].

4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment edit

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Pennsylvania's first American Civil War units which received notoriety for insisting upon its discharge before the First Battle of Bull Run. Although the unit was mocked in the press for this action, its troops went on to serve in many of the major battles of the war in the east. This article recently passed a MILHIST A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:National_color_of_the_4th_Pennsylvania_Infantry_and_the_51st_Pennsylvania_Infantry.jpg: the source site indicates that all content is copyright protected and explicitly allows only fair use
  • Corrected tag to PD US since the flag itself is public domain and the photograph falls under PD-art
  • File:GenJFHartranft.jpg is tagged as lacking description and author, and needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added desc

Support from Gog the Mild edit

  • Recusing to review,
  • Strongly suggest dumping the one-sentence paragraph opening the lead. If you want two paragraphs there are better places to break.
  • Done
  • Any chance of working the date of Bull Run into the lead?
  • Done
  • "went on to serve in later Pennsylvania regiments during the war". What's a "later regiment"?
  • Reworded
  • "In response to President Abraham Lincoln's call for 75,000 men to service in the army for three months after Confederate forces began the American Civil War by firing on Fort Sumter, a mass meeting was held at the Odd Fellows Hall in Norristown on 16 April, during which resolutions promising assistance to the families of men who volunteered were passed." A bit long. Optional: Split after "16 April".
  • Split
  • "The men of the militia regiment volunteered for a three month term of service". Every single one of them? If so, say so. (If not, say so.) Is it known, even approximately, how many men were in the militia regiment?
  • Reworded. The militia regiment would have been much more understrength since relatively few men would have been willing to commit to military activities in peacetime.
  • "volunteered for a three month term of service on the next day". Delete "on".
  • Done
  • "he men of the militia regiment volunteered for a three month term of service on the next day and were accepted" and "The officers of the militia regiment began enlisting recruits, and by 20 April there were about 600 men from Montgomery County in the regiment" seem to be in contradiction to me.
  • Rephrased
  • "The officers of the militia regiment began enlisting recruits, and by 20 April there were about 600 men from Montgomery County in the regiment." The militia regiment?
  • Resolved
  • "the regiment moved to Harrisburg". The only "regiment" mentioned so far is the militia, which I am guessing is not what you mean?
  • Clarified
  • ""On the next day, Patterson ordered". Delete "On".
  • Done
  • "to obtain a steamer to bring the regiment to Annapolis". Do you mean 'to take'?
  • Rephrased
  • "but the latter only allowed half of the regiment". "the latter" → 'he'.
  • Done
  • "The 4th Pennsylvania would not receive new uniforms from the state until June, after it arrived at the capital on 8 May". I don't think this works. Perhaps a new sentence after "June"?
  • Done, details added.
  • "three pickets of the regiment". A "picket" can be either an individual or group. Is it known if this was one group of three soldiers, three separate individuals, or three separate groups? Similarly in the next sentence.
  • Bates suggests that the pickets were stationed together or in close proximity with the statement that: On Sunday, June 30th, at two o'clock in the morning, the pickets of the reginent, stationed-on the old Fairfax road, under command of Lieutenant M. R. M'Clennan, were attacked by about thirty of the enemy. They were repulsed by our pickets, only three in number, who killed Sergeant Haines, previously a clerk in the Treasury Department, at Washington. Three other of our pickets on the outer post, intending to go to the rescue of their comrades, came in contact with the enemy's force, in which Thomas Murray was killed, and Llewelyn Rhumer was severely wounded. The third, dropping upon the ground, escaped without injury, the enemy, in the excitement and darkness, passing over him.
  • There is a lot of "on the next day" usage. Is "on" a USvar thing?
  • No, it's just how I instinctively write since I tend to be more wordy than necessary.
  • "The appeals of McDowell and Hartranft to patriotic duty fell on deaf ears: many in the regiment were willing to stay". Does the second clause here not contradict the second?
  • Reworded. This shifts the emphasis but demonstrates that there was split opinion.
  • "and others felt similarly." Is this on the testimony of Corporal Corson? If so → 'and that others felt similarly.'
  • Done
  • "after the end of the war". Optional: → 'after the war'.
  • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just checking that day-month format is acceptable in an article on a US topic. But no need for that query to hold up my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because there are sources that use military date format. However, this is also because I instinctively type in day-month format. If there is a date conversion bot the dates should probably be switched.
  • A picky point I have just noticed: The lead says it is an infantry regiment, the article doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done

Comments by PM edit

Interesting unit. Will be back to take closer look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will start now as Mike has finished. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to make this a source review given it has three content reviews and an image review. No need for overkill. Let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much appreciated. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • "The 4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment was formed from the 1st Regiment of the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Division of the Pennsylvania State Militia, which was organized under the Militia Act of 1858. The latter included six companies based in Norristown, Pennsylvania." I can't tell what "the latter" refers to.
    • Clarified after reading through the sources. I've also tweaked the ref placement. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response to President Abraham Lincoln's call for 75,000 men to service in the army for three months": shouldn't this be "to serve in the army"?
    • It makes sense if I read it the right way, but "serve" is definitely the clearer word to use so I've substituted that. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When it was mustered in on that day": we haven't said what day this is; if that's because it's not known, I would just make this "When it was mustered in,".
    • It's April 20 - mustering in was accomplished via "With this order, the regiment became a volunteer unit in federal service". Any ideas on how to make this clearer, Mike Christie? Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Reading through again I see the information is there, but I didn't pick it up first time so I wonder if we can make it easier. How about changing the first and last sentences of that paragraph to "The officers of the militia regiment began enlisting recruits, and by the time the regiment mustered in, on 20 April, about 600 men from Montgomery County had joined...When it was mustered in, the regiment numbered 39 officers and 756 men."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mike Christie: - Done. Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Headquarters and Headquarters Company of the 1st Battalion": I'm not clear how I'm supposed to read this -- are these two separate things?
    • I've changed to "The Headquarters Company of the 1st Battalion, 111th Infantry Regiment of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard" which seems to be the clearest reading of the source, although I do find trying to parse through official lineages difficult. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor points; this is a clearly written and straightforward account. I particularly like the quote box giving Russell's newspaper account. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a look at these comments above after work to help Kges out, since they haven't edited since 12 August. I reviewed at both GAN and ACR, so I don't intend to review here as well. Hog Farm Talk 14:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kges1901 - I hope I didn't step on any toes here, but I don't want to see this archived for stalling out. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • " In response to President Abraham Lincoln's call for 75,000 men to serve in the army for three months after Confederate forces began the American Civil War by firing on Fort Sumter, a mass meeting was held at the Odd Fellows Hall in Norristown on 16 April." This sentence loses its way. You need a semicolon or a new sentence after"Sumter".
    • I don't think the current phrasing would work well with a break here, as the "in response" needs to tie to the "a mass meeting was held". Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next day, Patterson ordered the regiment sent to Washington immediately." I would say "The next day, Patterson ordered that the regiment be sent to Washington immediately." But maybe this is AmerEng.
    • I think this works in AmEng; the phrasing seems okay to me (although I was raised in the backwoods) Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would agree that hte original is fine.
  • "Both distinguished themselves". Presumably Hartranft and Cooke but you should say so.
  • Is it known what happened to Cooke later?
    • Nothing really worth mentioning, the CMOH was the only major event in the rest of his life. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's correct, and Cooke would not see action again during the war. Kges1901 (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine. Just minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: - brief replies above. Kges hasn't edited since August 12, so I'm trying to keep this from falling behind, but due to computer issues I'm not going to be very active either because I'm having to borrow a computer for brief bits. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Real life got in the way, but I'm able to address any other suggestions going forward. Kges1901 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian Rose Yes I have completed my review but I am not clear about the position on replies. Hog Farm has helpfully chipped in but the nominator has not replied. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, it doesn't look like Kges1901 has edited since 20 September -- Hog Farm, no problem with you assuming command here but if you don't feel you can then I think we'll have to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose and Dudley Miles: - Dudley, are you okay with my replies? If not, agree it may have to be archived if Kges isn't back soon. I recently acquired the Davis book cited, and can access the public domain sources, but won't be able to do anything that requires Bolton, Field, Longacre, or Sauers. Hog Farm Talk 20:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked over the review and addressed the points raised. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources edit

  • Formatting of sources is fine.
  • Are the ELs RS per WP:ELNO?
  • Yes, the regimental roster is an accurate transcription of the unit muster rolls and the compilation of newspaper clippings is an accurate transcription of the originals.
  • Some of the sources are ancient (Auge, Bates and Russell in particular), but I have examined what they are being used for, and do not consider that anything they support is in any way controversial or likely to be challenged. The controversial aspects of the unit history (the lead-up to First Bull Run) are cited to Davis, which although getting a bit long in the tooth itself, is a university press book. It would be good to have something more recent on First Bull Run that corroborates what the 4th Penn did. Does Longacre repeat the same version of events as Davis? If so, perhaps use him to support fn 10?

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Kges1901, not sure if you've seen this source-related query. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that addresses what I'm trying to get at. Does anyone else provide a similar account of what the soldiers discussed, McDowell's intent and promises, the factor of lack of equipment in the decisions of soldiers, and their sense of entitlement to a rest? ie, does anyone corroborate Davis? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Longacre corroborates Davis and I have added the appropriate ref. Kges1901 (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the citation added only covers the words “decided to send the entire regiment to be mustered out.”? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the location of the citation. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, all good. Passed source review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/4th_Pennsylvania_Infantry_Regiment/archive1&oldid=1114025675"