Jump to content

User talk:TwoScars/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Third Battle of Winchester, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Army of the Shenandoah and Newtown, Virginia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Droop Mountain

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Droop Mountain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Droop Mountain

The article Battle of Droop Mountain you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of Droop Mountain for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Droop Mountain

The article Battle of Droop Mountain you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Droop Mountain for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review of Battle of White Sulphur Springs updated

Just letting you know that I have added notes to the peer review you requested for Battle of White Sulphur Springs. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything clarified. Runfellow (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Third Battle of Winchester

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Third Battle of Winchester you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Darnestown, Maryland

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Darnestown, Maryland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Darnestown, Maryland

The article Darnestown, Maryland you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Darnestown, Maryland for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Darnestown, Maryland

The article Darnestown, Maryland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Darnestown, Maryland for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Third Battle of Winchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seneca, Maryland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seneca Creek.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Third Battle of Winchester

The article Third Battle of Winchester you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Third Battle of Winchester for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of White Sulphur Springs

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of White Sulphur Springs you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of White Sulphur Springs

The article Battle of White Sulphur Springs you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of White Sulphur Springs for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of White Sulphur Springs

The article Battle of White Sulphur Springs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of White Sulphur Springs for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Cove Mountain

Actually I upgraded the assessments on the various WikiProjects. Thanks for your comments and work. – S. Rich (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Gordon C. Rhea's The Battle of the Wilderness

I've been thinking about trying to get this book used off of Amazon for awhile for some light reading, and was wondering if you were familiar with this work. If you are, is it something that you'd recommend? Online and EBSCO-searchable reviews look positive. Hog Farm Talk 18:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: - It is the best and most thorough book on the battle—I have a hard copy. I recommend. It is 452 pages plus another 60 pages of Appendices and a good index. Unlike the current Wikipedia article, Rhea covers the cavalry (my favorite) and discusses the mistakes. The second best book I have found on that battle is called The Wilderness Campaign, edited by Gary W. Gallagher. The cavalry section in that book is also written by Gordon C. Rhea. I am redoing the Battle of the Wilderness in my sandbox4 right now. Buidhe deleted some of the junk it had accumulated—something I was afraid to do. So far, I have used the Rhea book too much as a source, so I am waiting on the arrival of The Longest Night - A Military History of the Civil War by David Eicher (Hal J seemed to use it often in his version of the Battle of the Wilderness). I recently finished List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of the Wilderness. So yes, I recommend that book. TwoScars (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle of the Wilderness

I left a reply to your message of 9 days ago on my talk page at 2:43 and after a quick glance at the draft and original article I could see that my message wasn't relevant or useful. So at 2:53, I amended it to a brief comment. Your approach to this article is about the same as mine would be, I think (when I am at my best, I might add). The only point that I should have made is that I was offline would would look at it promptly. I should be able to give any comments that I think could be useful within the next day or two, as I add to this that the draft is excellent. Thanks for undertaking this. Donner60 (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you mentioned the dates of the battle specifically as a question, I thought I would send along some thoughts and quotations about May 7 as the last day of the battle before moving on to the entire draft in a later post. There are also a couple of mentions of May 4 in the references below as well. I am going to assume you haven't read this and add here that you have covered all or about all that there is to be written about May 4 and May 7 so whether the battle is described as May 5-6 or May 5-7 as your draft remains as of now seems to be a minor matter, since sources aren't uniform. You have some but not all the quotes below but I leave them here to show some of the diverse descriptions.
I think some writers have included May 7 in the Battle of the Wilderness dates because the armies were still in line near each other and the Union disengagement came in the evening. The only fighting seems to have been some skirmishing but some of it along the Brock Road was described as sharp by one source. Maybe some more late night cavalry skirmishing on the Brock Road south toward Spotsylvania Court House could count as well but most of the skirmishing that night and into the next day may just as well relate to the beginning of the Battle of Spotsylvania. The most detail I have seen about the skirmishing in looking at some references tonight is in Matter, William D. If It Takes All Summer: The Battle of Spotsylvania. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988. ISBN 978-0-8078-1781-0.
It is correct that in terms of significant fighting, the battle only occurred on May 5-6 as Rhea notes in the title of his book. I suppose whether May 7 should be included depends on how one views the status of the armies remaining on the field opposite each other and engaging in a little skirmishing, most or all of it to the south on the Brock Road. It's certainly "aftermath" that needs to be mentioned in concluding the article in any event, which you do.
You may find some quotes from some references about the dates of the battle/end of the battle of some interest. I included all this mainly to get myself to pull out some sources for further reference as I look at the draft but also to show that some writers include May 7 and even May 4. I have Rhea's book and a few other sources but you have taken those into account in revising the article so I won't include any quotes from Rhea.
Since it is mentioned in some of the quotes, I should say that your analysis of the casualty figures is good and the best sources seem to be on the upper end as you have stated.
* McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford History of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ISBN 978-0-19-503863-7.
* Page 726 "Grant soon showed that he meant what he said. Both flanks had been badly bruised, and his 17,500 casualties in two days exceeded the Confederate total by at least 7,000....While the armies skirmished warily on May 7, Grant prepared to march around Lee's right during the nigh to seize the crossroads village of Spotsylvania a dozen miles to the south."
* Eicher, David J. The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. ISBN 978-0-684-84944-7. After mentioning some action occurring on the afternoon of May 6, Eicher wrote on page 671:
* "The two-day battle of the Wilderness thus drew to a close. Both armies were badly hurt and substantially depleted of resources....On May 7, they dug in and were separated in many positions by only half a mile. The Wilderness had been a terribly costly ordeal as well as an inhuman place to fight." Text continued about the casualties and Grant attempting to turn Lee's right.
* Dunkerly, Robert M., Donald C. Pfanz and David R. Ruth. No Turning Back: A Guide to the 1864 Overland Campaign from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, May 4–June 13, 1864. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beatie LLC, 2014. ISBN 978-1-61121-193-1. Page 1. Chapter Heading: "The Wilderness. Chapter One. May 3-7, 1864)."
* Page 3: "At dawn, May 4, Brig. Gen. James H. Wilson's Union cavalry division splashed across the ford [Germanna Ford across the Rapidan River], scattering the small number of Confederate pickets standing guard here. Union engineers quickly threw two pontoon bridges across the river, and Maj. Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren's V Corps began to cross....May 4 ended with the Army of the Potomac safely across the Rapidan River."
*Page 8: "The first combat in the Wilderness took place here, at Saunders field, a small clearing astride the Orange Turnpike. The V Corps was preparing to resume its march through the Wilderness on May 5, when Confederates led by Lt. Gen. Richard S. Ewell appeared at Saunders field. Grant and Meade ordered Warren to attack. The V Corps commander went forward at 1 p.m."
*Page 23: "With Lee's army firmly entrenched in his front, Grant saw no chance for a successful attack. On May 7, he determined to leave the Wilderness."
* Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123. Page 495. One paragraph under May 7, Saturday for the Battle of the Wilderness.
"In Virginia the great armies paused in the Wilderness. Grant had long since decided to continue toward Richmond, and Lee, anxious not to face superior numbers of Federals out in the open, preferred to fight in the scraggling woods. By midevening Grant's troops were on their way toward Spotsylvania Court House to the southeast. Lee, aware of his opponent's move, ordered Maj. Gen. Richard Heron Anderson, commanding in place of the wounded Longstreet, to march by night for the same place. Spotsylvania Court House was important only because roads went through it to Chancellorsville, Wilderness Tavern, and Fredericksburg. Confederate cavalry slowed the Federal advance by cutting down trees and harassing the columns."
* Weigley, Russell F. A Great Civil War: A Military and Political History, 1861–1865. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-253-33738-2. covers the battle briefly. On page 330, Weigley writes that "On May 5, Lee struck Grant's columns around Wilderness Tavern, and for two days the rival armies grappled amidst the trees and brush in one of the most horrifying battles of the war....After three days of it, the Federals had lost 17,666 (2,246 killed, 12,037 wounded, 3,383 missing) to about 7,750 Confederate casualties...Held to at best a deadlock, Grant began to draw his army away during the night of May 7-8....Grant nullified the setback in the Wilderness by refusing to acknowledge it as a setback."
* Kagan, Neil, and Stephen G. Hyslop. Eyewitness to the Civil War: The Complete History From Secession to Reconstruction. Washington D.C.: National Geographic, 2006. ISBN 978-07922-5280-1. Page 300: "Fighting continued until nighfall, but neither side could dislodge the other, and the two-day battle ended in a draw. "There lay both armies," one [Page 301] Union officer recalled, "each behind its breastworks, panting and exhausted, and scowling at each other."
* Also adding May 4 to the dates of the battle, Ragan, Edward, Wilderness, Battle of the (4-6 May 1864) pages 2108-2113 In Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History, edited by David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000. ISBN 978-0-393-04758-5.
At Page 2110 "On the morning of 4 May 1864, the Army of the Potomac moved south out of its winter encampment and crossed the Rapidan River.... [Page 2111] Grant crossed the Rapidan around noon....The vast wagon train that kept Grant supplied over land slowed the army's movement south, and by early afternoon on 4 May, the Army of the Potomac had to stop. The Confederate and Union armies bivouacked within five miles of each other. Neither side realized how close the other was." Note, however, that no fighting on May 4 other than a skirmish at the ford is mentioned.
* Dyer, Frederick H. A compendium of the War of the Rebellion. Des Moines, IA: The Dyer Publishing Company, 1908. OCLC 181358316. Retrieved May 24, 2011. Page 893 shows May 5-7. Battle of the Wilderness. Page 933 shows May 5-7 with the Union units and casualties. There is no text or other explanation in this source.
I deleted the minor comment at the end of this because you obviously have taken the differing casualty figures into account. Original comments. 06:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the revised, piecemeal and incomplete comments. I will use as my excuse that I was a little chagrined by not having replied sooner, though due to being offline, and wanted to get a start and some message back to you. If you have not had to read a couple of versions of these too lengthy comments, I suppose the revisions are not too bothersome.
Great work. Not only better organized but important, well written points added. I have no problem with leaving out the long quote from McPherson and analyzing the casualty numbers without reciting all of them in a table. I think another sentence in the text about the very positive effect on the Union soldiers of heading south would be useful. I should have at least a few small suggestions still to make. I will go through the articles one more time but I didn't notice anything significant missing on first reading. Donner60 (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Donner60: - Thank you so much for looking at this. Do not be afraid to be too harsh—I've been through a few GA reviews. Also, my style in my real world job is to anticipate questions and already have answers, so anything that you think might be questioned is good for me to know. (This is the reason I typically have too many footnotes.)
After reading your quotes about the date of the battle, I had a thought. The battle must be kept as May 5-7 because that aligns with the casualty figures reported by Grant in the Official Record. I will probably make a few changes to the footnote under "Fighting ends". Also, I agree that another sentence about the very positive effect on the Union soldiers of heading south should be added. Maybe in the paragraph under "Fighting ends" or in the third paragraph under "Performance and impact"—your thoughts? TwoScars (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
My writing shows that I think there can never be too many footnotes. There are a few reasons for this, including a few early experiences on Wikipedia, but it would probably take me three paragraphs to go through them and this note will be long enough.
I think that I would put the effect on the troops under performance and impact although it would not be out of place under fighting ends so I think it is a close call.
Sometimes I have found that the facts mentioned in the background and aftermath in articles, often somewhat minor to the article, can present nettlesome problems on how to describe them best. I haven't gotten as far as I wanted to in looking at the article tonight. You will no doubt realize why when you see the second of my two points of discussion. So I will mention one suggestion and consider another item at length. That being said, my further quick look suggests to me I will not find many more such points.
I know I am lengthening these posts with long direct excerpts from sources. I want to show the basis for comments or suggestions and let you decide whether I have interpreted the sources correctly. I also would guess that you do not have all of them available so you shouldn't have to guess that I am describing them accurately.
I'll start by saying I like your change of the casualty numbers in the introduction. The 5,000 killed in total number in the existing article does not give as true a picture of the casualties that foreshadowed the attrition to come.
The first point is that I think that the first three sentences of the background could be omitted and the next sentence started with something like: "In the three years since fighting in the American Civil War began at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the United States Army...." In my mind this would have the coincidental benefit of eliminating footnote 1 on the causes of the war, an unnecessary possible source of debate or contention in writing about a battle that occurred in 1864. I agree that the footnote is an accurate and concise summary, but I would still suggest omitting it.
Second is the point that I have spent some time on tonight and perhaps might even add a source or two later for reference if you think it would be helpful. Even though it is a background point, I think it needs some analysis because some readers might find that the draft contains a change that does not coincide with Grant's intended strategy even though it ended up being the actual unwanted end result.
The existing Wilderness article mentions a plan for an attack on Mobile as part of Grant's strategy. The draft omits that and adds in a footnote "Major General Nathaniel P. Banks would fight for the Union in the west (Texas and Louisiana).[10] citing Chernow." Unfortunately, I do not have Chernow's book. So I am not sure of the context. But I think that most historians look at the Red River campaign as contrary to what Grant wanted to do and that Mobile was a key part of his overall plan. Due to the timing and circumstances of the Red River campaign, which got started the day after Grant took overall command, Grant was stuck with it to some extent. Bruce Catton's description of Grant's messages to Banks himself and to Sherman stated below bear out that Grant wanted the Red River campaign over and the campaign against Mobile to start as soon as possible.
I'll start by quoting McPherson's text on the Red River campaign's part in the "peripheral campaigns", at pages 722-3:
"On the periphery of the main theaters stood three northern armies commanded by political generals whose influence prevented even Grant from getting rid of them....Grant directed Banks to plan a campaign to capture Mobile after which he was to push northward and prevent rebel forces in Alabama from reinforcing Johnston...."
"The first to fail was Banks. The administration shared responsibility for this outcome for it diverted Banks from the attack on Mobile to a drive up the Red River in Louisiana to seize cotton and expand the area of Union control. Only after achieving these objectives was he to turn eastward against Mobile. As it turned out, Banks achieved none of these goals except the seizure of a little cotton...."
Page 723: "The dispirited army did not get back until May 26, a month too late to begin the aborted Mobile campaign. As a consequence Joseph Johnston received 15,000 reinforcements from Alabama. Moreover, 10,000 soldiers that Banks had borrowed from Sherman for the Red River campaign never rejoined the Union army in Georgia...."
I think similar sources can be found but for now, I will just mention Bruce Catton's comprehensive treatment. Grant came up with the idea of the Mobile campaign as early as November 29, 1863 after the Union forces won the Battle of Chattanooga, as noted at page 93 of Catton, Bruce. Grant Takes Command. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1968. ISBN 978-0-316-13210-7. Assistant Secretary of War Charles Anderson Dana presented the idea to Lincoln, Stanton and Halleck for Grant. While they liked it, they also wanted Longstreet out of east Tennessee and wanted to pursue "Texas," first, which became the Red River campaign. Catton returns to this a few times and then has an entire chapter titled "Campaign Plans and Politics."
On page 141, when explaining Grant's plan as he began his new job as general-in-chief, Catton wrote: "The most important thing, of course was to cut down on manpower wastage, and when Grant started looking for waste his eye fell immediately on the expedition which General Banks was taking up the Red River toward Texas. This expedition was a strategic absurdity, leading 40,000 veteran soldiers directly away from the scene of effective action, but it had been formally blessed by the War Department, the Department of State and the White House itself and there was no way to cancel it. It might be possible to keep the venture within bounds, however, and while he was still in Nashville, on March 15, 1864, [Page 142] Grant tried to define these bounds in an urgent telegram to Banks....Grant warned Banks that he had better move fast, because Smith's men had to go back on time even if that meant calling off the entire Red River expedition. If Banks took Shreveport, Grant continued, he was to forget about any further advance, garrison the place, trust the navy to defend the line of the river, and get everybody but the Shreveport garrison back to New Orleans for the long-talked about thrust at Mobile."
To summarize Catton at this point, Grant told Banks he could strengthen the Mobile column with 8,000 men from Frederick Steele's command in Arkansas and men from Rosecrans in Missouri and even from Sherman. Of course, Steele's men were also wasted in the useless Camden Expedition which was connected to the Red River campaign and never got to Shreveport or New Orleans or to Sherman.
At page 152, Catton notes that Grant sent a general summary of his plans to Sherman, also on March 15. "Banks was to conclude his Red River campaign as quickly as possible, turn over that territory to Steele and the navy, abandon all of Texas except for an outpost on the Rio Grande, reduce the number of troops on the lower Mississippi to the smallest possible total, and in all of these ways to collect at New Orleans at least 25,000 men, to which force Grant would add 5,000 more from Rosecrans's force in Missouri. Banks then was to move and against Mobile, and 'it will be impossible for him to commence too early.'"
So without thinking of exact language now, I would suggest a restoration of the planned Mobile campaign as part of Grant's overall plan, even though it did not happen, and delete the sentence and reference to the Red River campaign which Grant thought was a wasted effort and wanted ended in time for Banks to proceed against Mobile at the time of the other campaigns. For all I know without the book, Chernow may have missed the point set out by Catton and others altogether or he may have had some further explanation for including the Red River campaign as part of the overall simultaneous effort. If the sentence about the Red River campaign was retained in any way, perhaps to note this further campaign was occurring at the same time, I think it would need some further context since Grant really did not want it going on at the same time as the other campaigns and did want the Mobile campaign to take its place.
That's all for now. I'll return to it promptly to see if I have any other suggestions. I'll try to be concise. Donner60 (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that I think the description of the overall plan would fit a little better in the previous subsection. Donner60 (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Should get on this Sunday or Monday. It looks like the background can be three paragraphs without the "Grant's plan for Lee" as a subsection. Most of the current first paragraph can be dropped, and Chernow mentions Mobile—so I can easily use it as part of Grant's plan for Banks and drop the mention of Louisiana and Texas (which were really where Banks went, not want Grant wanted). What about the maps? Is the U.S. in 1864 map necessary? TwoScars (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I am glad you mentioned the U.S. in 1864 map. I suggest eliminating it as well. The map shows the alignment of the states at the beginning of the war. It does not really show the situation in 1864 and how that might have affected Grant's plan.
The other map shows the plan for Virginia so it is a helpful picture of Grant's plan for the Virginia campaign although the other two commanders let him down. Also, this prompted me to look at the military situation/background section in the Overland Campaign article. It is much the same text as the existing Wilderness article section without the totally out of context paragraph about the April 27 dispatch and disposition of forces, which you properly eliminated. It has two period maps which are so light that they cannot be read even when increased in size. I suggest that after you have a final version of the section for the Wilderness article, you substitute that for the corresponding section in the Overland Campaign article with perhaps a few tweaks if appropriate and delete the two existing maps, which I view as unreadable, unless you see any purpose in retaining them.
As background, I should have mentioned that Catton cites the Official Records for his paragraphs on Grant's plan but does not have a repeat citation for the message to Sherman. He cites two entries in the footnote on the plan so that covers them both. He cites Adam Badeau's book occasionally but not for the plans. His text, however, is quite similar to what Badeau wrote at pages 36-37 of Volume II of Badeau, Adam. Military History of Ulysses S. Grant, From April, 1861 to April, 1865. New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1881. OCLC 793448890. I won't copy the entire quote but note that on page 36 Badeau wrote with respect to Steele's campaign: "Grant had opposed this whole campaign from the beginning, but it was ordered in spite of him; and before his elevation to supreme command...." He goes on with the language from Grant's message to Banks to finish it quickly and get on with the Mobile campaign.
I haven't done much more today. It may take me at least a day, maybe a few days to read through the rest of the article more thoroughly. As I noted from my first read, I don't expect to come up with much more. I think I can at least add a few citations. It may be well to start a new thread after this post. My last save was a little balky. Donner60 (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle of the Wilderness continued

Made changes to draft: cut back on Background and eliminated first image—did not put Fort Sumter or date in first sentence since source does not; added sentence about Crook and Averell (mostly because the image has Crook in it); and changed the Note, now Note 1, Banks and Mobile including a new citation that covers the importance of Mobile. In Fighting ends, changed Note (now Note 17) that discusses the date of the battle. Added two sentences in third paragraph under Aftermath's performance and impact that discusses the non-retreat and its impact on morale. TwoScars (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I like the changes. I suggest, without proposing exact language, adding to footnote 2 that the separate command of Burnside lasted until May 24. A citation is Rhea, Gordon C. To the North Anna River: Grant and Lee, May 13–25, 1864. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-8071-2535-9 page 352-353.
On page 352 in continuing a description of Grant's actions on May 24, Rhea wrote: "Grant also took a long-overdue step toward creating a unified command. 'To secure the greatest attainable unanimity in cooperative movements, and greater efficiency in the administration of the army,' Grant announced, 'the Ninth Army Corps, Major General A. E. Burnside commanding, is assigned to the Army of the Potomac, Major General G. G. Meade commanding, and will report accordingly.' Burnside seemed relieved. He was 'glad to get the [Page 353] order assigning the corps to the Army of the Potomac,' he wrote to Grant, 'because I think good will result from it.'"
I think the preferred style for citing articles in a compilation or encyclopedia of any sort would be to cite the article individually, such as Simpson, Brooks D. Great Expectations in Ulysses S. Grant, The Northern Press, and the Opening of the Wilderness Campaign in Gallagher, Gary W., ed. The Wilderness Campaign. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0-8078-2552-5. Simpson is the actual author of the article or section. Gallagher is only the editor, except for the introduction and the article Our Hearts Are Full of Hope, The Army of Northern Virginia in the Spring of 1864."
I am reasonably sure converting this from Chicago Manual of Style form to a Wikipedia template would be to use the following:
{{Citation | last = Simpson | first = Brooks D. | author-link = Brooks D. Simpson | contribution = Great Expectations: Ulysses S. Grant, the Northern Press, and the Opening of the Wilderness Campaign | editor-last = Gallagher | editor-first = Gary D. | title = The Wilderness Campaign | volume = | pages = 1-35 | publisher = The University of North Carolina Press | place = Chapel Hill | date = 1997 | isbn = 978-0-8078-5785-4 }}.
Though I did not notice the need for a change to the template for any citation in this article from an online journal or magazine, the "isbn" parameter would be "contribution-url" for an online journal/magazine article. I think access date can be added as a parameter within the template. I think adding the middle initial to "first" is the way to add that if desired. I have done that in the example.
I think this has the added benefit of showing more sources for the article.
I use the Chicago Manual of Style when starting an article and use the Wikipedia style only when it seems I am obliged to do so because of prior use in the article. I used it in my previous posts. I also have the books in my library and some of my downloaded old books set out in sub-pages in this style in so that I can pull up a workable citation immediately. Many or even most users don't prefer this but the policy supported it when I followed the lead of many Civil War articles, at least, in using it over 10 years ago and as far as I know it is still acceptable if uniformly used in an article.
I'll be looking at more of the text later tonight or tomorrow. Donner60 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll fix the IX Corps note today. The Gallagher book has a different historian doing each chapter. I will fix that today or tomorrow, make sure it works, then put the References in order. That will make things more accurate. I used Gallagher for maybe 30% of the citations. The only drawback is that it increases the article size to over 90,000 (although "artificially"), which upsets some people. TwoScars (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Will also work on all of the author links. TwoScars (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Fixed footnote using the Rhea North Anna book as a source—used your info since I do not have a copy of that book. (I have hard copies of most of the other sources. My wife bought me the McPherson book used for $1.00!) Also fixed the references to the author of each chapter in Gallagher's book. Article is up to 93,082 bytes. TwoScars (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I put in the correct pages from the North Anna book above rather than 353-353. I used the correct pages in the quotes and the typo was obvious.
I haven't seen as much complaint or comment about article size recently. Improvements in storage capacity and computer speed have reduced the need to keep articles short. Another reason given for this is that people could not read the articles easily on their phones. I don't think that is a good reason to leave out important facts or citations that the article needs to be fully informative and accurate. I think that some articles need to be long to give the facts in any detail and necessary footnotes and citations. Some details can be split off into "main articles" such as into various days for a battle, but I don't think that is necessary here. I wrote what I think is a good article (rated B) a few years ago that has over 105,000 bytes without complaint. I think I had a good reason for doing it that way. I would have needed a second article to reduce the size but keep important details. I didn't want to write that extra article at the time. Then again, I have never put an article up for good article, A class or featured article so I don't know if I would have run into that complaint then or today.
I think I won't further quote, at length anyway, McPherson or the books you cited unless you need the full quote. I will just refer to the page numbers and maybe a few words.
I often buy used books. Good prices can be found on Amazon for books that are in very good condition, which makes it less expensive to add to a library. I have been collecting books on US military history for a long time, so my costs have been spread out, but I view it better to buy more books for reference purposes than to put fewer pristine new ones on a shelf. I have downloaded all but a few of the pre-1923 books from Google Books or the Internet Archive.
That brings me to the section on the Wilderness. It is necessary to an understanding of the conditions of the battlefield, the reasons the battle developed the way it did and the reason that Lee wanted to fight there and Grant didn't. I would split off the last two sentences about artillery and cavalry into a new paragraph and add the infantry problems. McPherson writes at 724 that Grant wanted to fight south of the Wilderness while Lee wanted to hit the Union force in the Wilderness where their superiority in numbers would count for less. You have already mentioned these plans or intentions elsewhere in the draft. On page 725, McPherson notes that the Confederates knew the terrain, the preponderance of Union men would lead to immobility, that it was difficult to see very far, which was exacerbated by the smoke, and that gaps in the line could not be exploited and friendly troops could not always be identified at any distance. Large unit maneuvers weren't possible. I had a good citation taking all of this in but I neglected to write it down and have spent a little too much time trying to find it again. I'll let you know if I come across it, although it probably isn't necessary since other citations cover it. More later, I think. Donner60 (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the Battle May 5 section is excellent. I have only one comment/question. Is it important enough to restore any mention about the Iron Brigade having many new men who broke first while the veterans tried to hold? Also, will anyone really miss its omission? I am indifferent about it. If restored, I think it could be adequately covered by a phrase such as "which lost many of its veterans at Gettysburg" or "which had many new men who broke first" or something along these lines. Donner60 (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I have re-read the rest of the draft and compared it to the existing article. It is a great improvement. It is more comprehensive and the additional citations more appropriately support points in the text. I don't see any errors or apparent omissions except one typo: "Longstreet, surly aware that Jackson...." in the performance and impact section.
The practice of putting all the citations for every point in a paragraph at the end of the paragraph may save some bytes and may be good academic practice (not sure about that) and in line with Wikipedia policy on enough citations. On the other hand, I saw a few sentences that I might have tagged for citation needed if I didn't recognize the pattern. One cannot easily tell whether all the citations for a paragraph in one citation at the end support everything in the paragraph or, if not, which one applies to a particular point. Many people probably wouldn't care but some reviewers might, and in my experience, do.
I think there are enough sources to avoid an objection that there is too much reliance on too few sources, an offshoot of the reliance mainly or entire on one source objection. I likely could find a few places to add a source or an extra source but I think that is unnecessary so I won't look at that further unless you think it would be helpful. I appreciate the opportunity to have commented on the article. I should do a little more of it. It reminds one to pay a little more attention to what needs to be added to Wikipedia and that it is rewarding to work on writing and supporting articles. Donner60 (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I want to make sure - the pages for the footnote about Burnside and IX Corps are 352-353, correct? TwoScars (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Updated the Wilderness section. First paragraph discusses where it is and how big, second paragraph describes it and tells why it was that way, and third paragraph discusses its impact on the soldiers. Cavalry, infantry, and artillery are all mentioned in the third paragraph—and Grant's and Lee's preferences are still in. Starr, McPherson, and Chernow are the sources used in the third paragraph. Also made sure the first sentence in each paragraph had citations in addition to the last sentences. TwoScars (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Did not mention that the Iron Brigade had been depleted at Gettysburg because Rhea makes no mention of it and I do not have Welcher's book. I could not find any mention of the depletion in any of the other sources I have. TwoScars (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
"Surly" was fixed to "Surely". MS-Word would not catch that.TwoScars (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I went to a few of the paragraphs that had few citations and added a citation or two—usually to the first sentence. TwoScars (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the quote starts on page 352 and finishes on page 353.
I think you are justified in taking out the reference to the losses of the Iron Brigade at Gettysburg as having some effect on how the Iron Brigade fought at the Wilderness. But I think you might mention, even in a footnote, that the brigade re-formed and held after retreating about a half mile, which Bruce Catton noted in the quotation I give below. That is mentioned in more than one source which I can identify and may be more important enough in providing context. Also William Swinton notes the context of the actions of Wadsworth's division as a whole in greatest detail, which I will cite first.
I don't have the Welcher book but I do have several others that also make no mention of the veteran versus new recruit composition of the Iron Brigade as a factor in the retreat of the brigade after originally advancing on May 5. These include period accounts by Humphreys, Andrew A., The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865: The Army of the Potomac and the Army of the James. New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1883. OCLC 38203003. And: Swinton, William. Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac: A Critical History of Operations in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania from the Commencement to the Close of the War 1861-1865. Revision and Re-Issue. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1882. OCLC 2128002. Both could, and perhaps still can, be downloaded from the internet.
Rhea may be giving a somewhat exaggerated view of the elite status of the unit by May 5, 1864. Even if that may be a bit misleading, I think it is not clear that the veteran status of the men in the unit had much to do with what happened on May 5 in any event. Cutler's Brigade (the Iron Brigade) was a unit of Wadsworth's division. Here is an excerpt from Swinton which obviously refers to the Iron Brigade's actions as part of the division:
Page 422: "On the left of Griffin, Wadsworth's division advanced simultaneous with it to the attack; but there was no connection between the two, and the troops of the latter in their passage through the dense thicket, having taken a somewhat false direction, unwittingly exposed their left flank to a destructive fire from the enemy, which thew them back in some confusion. (Footnote)"
The footnote starts on page 422 as follows: "The cause of Wadsworth's repulse affords a curious illustration of the difficulties that beset the movement of troops in such a region as the Wilderness. General Warren gave Wadsworth his direction by a point of the compass, there being no other guide in such a thicket. His course was to be due west from the Lacy House, which would have brought him to the left of Griffin and on a prolongation of his line. But Wadsworth started facing northwest..."
The footnote finishes on page 423: "...instead of going due west. Now Ewell's line was at right angles with the turnpike so that by the time Wadsworth's line of battle passed the Higerson House [see map] it had come almost to face the turnpike directly, and the fire of the enemy came square upon its flank. The thick woods prevented any change on the spot, and by running back, the men did about the best they could."
Perhaps Welcher thought it was unfair to the unit not to mention the loss of veterans and the original writer picked this up. Rhea certainly takes note of the elite status of the unit which perhaps could use some of the additional context from Swinton and Catton.
In Catton, Bruce. A Stillness at Appomattox. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1953. ISBN 978-0-385-04451-6 at page 70 Catton wrote "The Iron Brigade went forward and was routed, and for once in their history the men of this famous command ran for the rear, all organization lost - to be rallied, somehow, half a mile back, just it time to fix bayonets and check the rout of another brigade which came streaming back over them."
Based on Jeffrey Wert's account at page 337, in Wert, Jeffry D. The Sword of Lincoln: The Army of the Potomac. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005. ISBN 978-0-7432-2506-9, the line continued to retreat and was re-fomed further back near the Lacy house. Wert wrote: "When a Rebel counterattack splintered Wadsworth's ranks, the entire Federal line collapsed. For the first time in its history, the Union Iron Brigade broke and fled. The Yankees retreated two miles to the Lacy house, where they re-formed and began digging fieldworks." This account obviously does not include all the details and context of Swinton's account. I suppose it shows that sometimes summarizing and leaving out points do not give a complete and fully accurate account of what happened.
The Iron Brigade did suffer many casualties at Gettysburg and at least one regiment's term of enlistment had come up and it was now a veteran unit, meaning some additional men may have left the unit. But some of the wounded at Gettysburg may have been back. In any event, it is important also to note that the brigade steadied and held after retreating about a half mile and probably not to consider how many were veterans.
For what it is worth in this context, here is a source for Iron Brigade casualties at Gettysburg: Herdegen, Lance J. Those Damned Black Hats! The Iron Brigade in the Gettysburg Campaign. New York: Savas Beatie LLC, 2008. ISBN 978-1-932714-83-8. Page 235.
"The official numbers of Gettysburg, as expected, vary from account to account, but do not hide the horrific details of the fighting. In the 2nd Wisconsin, for example, the toll was three of four men in the ranks; the 6th Wisconsin and 7th Wisconsin lost one of every two; the 19th Indiana lost three of four, and the largest and newest regiment - the 24th Michigan - lost four of every five - the highest toll of any Federal regiment in the three days of Gettysburg. The Iron Brigade of the West carried 1,883 men into the battle and by the end of July 1, 1863, only 671 were reported in the ranks - a percentage loss of more than 64.3. In fact, the final tally of 671 survivors may be too high. The brigade quartermaster reported later that he issued rations to only 500 men that grim night on Culp's Hill."
"On December 28, 1878, William Dudley of the 19th Indiana, who lost a leg at Gettysburg, sent a belated report to Adjutant General E. D. Townsend on 'the part borne by General Meredith's brigade at Gettysburg.'"
In a footnote on page 297, Herdegen cites Dudley, Iron Brigade, 13-15. He adds "The Brigade Guard carried 102 officers and men into the fight and lost 22. One brigade general and two staff officers were also wounded." On page 298, Herdegen has a table showing the loss for each regiment, the brigade guard and staff and the total. The bottom line total is Total in ranks 1,883, Killed 189, Wounded 774, Missing 249, Loss 1,212, Balance 671.
In the absence of a direct source or connection to the engagement on May 5, I suppose it would be in the nature of original research to make much, if anything, of the heavy casualties of the brigade at Gettysburg. Again, I think it may not have been much of a factor in the retreat anyway.
The account for a detail or two got rather long, unfortunately, but I think it might be useful. I do think it gives some information for consideration in deciding whether to make any further change with respect to the Iron Brigade mention, which does appear in multiple sources, but without complete context. It also provides some information to use if there is any controversy about how you choose to handle it.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to comment and your thoughtful consideration of some long-winded remarks. Donner60 (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I added a long footnote: The famed Iron Brigade, sometimes called the Iron Brigade of the West (today's Midwest) to differentiate it from other units that claimed the same name, was formerly one of the elite fighting units in the Union army, earning its reputation at battles such as the Battle of South Mountain, the Battle of Antietam, and the Battle of Gettysburg. At Gettysburg, it suffered over 60 percent casualties.[79] By then, losses were so heavy that the brigade was never again as effective as it was earlier, despite replacements.[80] I checked the Wikipedia articles for those three battles, and the Iron Brigade is mentioned in all three (the source mentions those three too). The info on the Iron Brigade is one of those cool little facts that readers like me enjoy reading, but it diverts a little from the actual Battle of the Wilderness—that's why I put it in a footnote. TwoScars (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I think I'm about ready to move the draft to the article. I did not add to the text about the Iron Brigade moving back about half a mile because I could not find a source. Most of the men that retreated from Wadsworth's Division either did not go too far back or they went to the Lacy House. I don't know if that adds to understanding the battle. TwoScars (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate all your help with this. It is much more than I expected or hoped for. I feel much more confident about making the change. On a different topic, I checked out the Overland Campaign Wikipedia article, and got rid of the ugly faded maps. That article is too long. Two paragraphs for each battle should suffice. I prefer Hal's colorful maps to the others. I have a backlog of five articles, excluding The Battle of the Wilderness, that I want to get to GA or have a Peer Review for GA—so don't hesitate to update the Wilderness Campaign because of me—it is not high on my list of things to do. TwoScars (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you that interesting info should be included but if it is a little off the flow of the article, it should be in a footnote. The footnote is very good. You're right about the source not specifically singling out the Iron Brigade. I suppose that is an example of getting caught up in synthesis if one is not careful. I think the draft is ready. Best of luck on your GAs. I don't see any reason to keep this one from going through rather easily. I was glad to help. I promised to do an article on Mosby's Greenback Raid and related Skirmish at Adamstown which should not have a separate article as it does now. That and a little of my usual gnome/patrolling work and a military history presentation to a local group, along with real life, are on my immediate agenda. If you think I can be helpful in looking at other articles, please let me know and I will look into them as promptly as possible. Donner60 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple PRs open at the same time

Hi, I noticed that you have multiple peer reviews open at the same time: Seneca, Maryland, 14th Pennsylvania Cavalry Regiment, and Battle of Cove Mountain. As per peer review's instructions, users can only have one open nomination at a time. This helps control the flow of PRs and allows users to focus on one article at a time. Can you close two of these PRs? Thanks, and please ping me if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks for noticing. I will remove two of the articles. Notice that Battle of Cove Mountain has been waiting since July 10. Seneca, Maryland, an article rated as of High Importance, has been waiting since July 21. The 14th Pennsylvania Cavalry Regiment has been waiting since September 24. I also have two more articles that have not been put in the que for a review yet. They are Battle of the Wilderness, which is High Importance and has about 9000 views per month, and Violette's Lock. I think all of these could become Good Articles, but shouldn't they have a Peer Review first? My plan, if you insist I remove two, is to remove the Battle of Cove Mountain and the 14th Pennsylvania Cavalry. If I get nothing on Seneca by the end of the month, it is out too. TwoScars (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Articles do not have to go through PR before they are nominated for GAN. If you are looking for comments in the PRs I suggest that you post on Wikiproject talk pages or ask for help on an editor's talk page that has written in the same field. I also suggest that you review some more GANs: your list of GAs on your user page is impressive and it shows that you have lots of knowledge of the GA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TwoScars/Archive_3&oldid=1074535587"