# Talk:1st West Virginia Cavalry Regiment

G'day. Just wanted to mention that this article is over 10,000 words, probably 30% over what is considered the maximum "readable prose size" for an article. Readability is a key criterion. This may be contributing to its time on the GAN list awaiting someone willing to review it. I have personally looked at it several times, but blanched at its size. I strongly suggest getting it down to 7,000 words maximum, preferably close to half of its current size. If it was down to that, I would personally take a look at it for sure. This is, after all, one regiment of many, and despite its seemingly illustrious career during the ACW, I'm sure it could be condensed considerably. All the best, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Per your advice, will try to get 1st West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment down to 100,000 bytes. Sandbox4 version is down to 115 (from almost 134), but still working on it. Thanks for your interest.TwoScars (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Reduced it from 133,660 bytes to 92,687. TwoScars (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1st West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Just finishing up another review and will start on this in the next few days. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! Appreciate your interest. I work full time, so I cannot always respond immediately, but I check my watchlist 4 or 5 times each week. TwoScars (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is in great shape, though perhaps still a little long. Mostly the issues I have identified relate to prose and the Manual of Style.

I am left wondering how many companies the regiment had, can this be added to the lead and Formation and organization sections?
Added to sentence in intro: "The regiment was organized in northwestern Virginia (now West Virginia) during 1861, and consisted of 13 companies plus an additional company that was attached for most of the war." Also added "A total of 14 companies fought as part of the regiment." to the Formation section. The George Tyler Moore web source says 14. Lange lists companies A through N without a Company J. Adding Gilmore's Company makes 14. I doubt that there were 14 by the end of the war, and at least one source (not good enough for Wikipedia) claims there was a reorganization and Company A became Company I. TwoScars (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
In general, throughout the article there is a tendency to re-state ranks and first names when the individual has already been introduced. Per WP:SURNAME, unless there is a likelihood of confusion (for example the two Capehart's and the two Lee's), first name (and ranks) should be dispensed with after being first introduced in full. The only exception to this is if an officer is promoted, when you might use something like "Now promoted to colonel, Capehart..." Could you go through and do this?
Fixed Custer, Sheridan, Averell, and Powell. Will look for more soon. (I think Wikipedia should allow repeating ranks and full names after large sections—it would be easier for the reader.) TwoScars (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Also Capehart, Richmond, Anisansel, and McCausland. TwoScars (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
there is inconsistency in how some formations and units are described. For example, we have Second Cavalry Division and 2nd Cavalry Division. Choose whatever is most common in reliable sources and use that one.
I always try to spell out the divisions but use numbers for regiments and brigades—unless inside a quote. Fixed the inconsistencies. TwoScars (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
There are several examples of main templates used for battles when the battle title is given in full in the section below it. This is redundant, and I suggest just linking the battle in the body of the section rather than in a main template, as that is where the reader will be looking for it.
Changed Monterey Pass, Lynchburg, Second Battle of Kernstown, Battle of Moorefield, Third Battle of Winchester, Battle of Fisher's Hill, Battle of Cedar Creek, Battle of Dinwiddie Court House, Battle of Five Forks, and Battle of Sailor's Creek. Left Battle of Appomattox Court House and List of Medal of Honor Winners. TwoScars (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
More to come. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

the two links to wvhistoryonview.org don't resolve, I'm getting 404 errors.
Removed the WVU link to a picture of Rowland - not essential. (Why would WVU take that down?) Also fixed several redirects: The Civil War Trust recently changed its name to American Battlefield Trust. TwoScars (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
move link to West Virginia to first mention in the lead
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
in the lead, suggest "during the second half of 1864"
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "as a West Virginia cavalry regiment"
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
"commissioned on September 7, 1861"
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
link bushwhackers at first mention in the body
Linked. TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
link Frederick W. Lander
Linked. TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
"the 1st West Virginia Cavalry's Colonel Anisansel"
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
redlink 5th New York Cavalry Regiment
Redlinked 5th Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry. TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "the regiment was armed with"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
link Edwin Stanton
Linked TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Down to Gettysburg campaign. More to come. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

link Army of the Potomac
Linked. TwoScars (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "The Union Army of the Potomac, commanded by General George G. Meade, defeated the invading Confederate Army of Northern Virginia commanded by General Robert E. Lee." also link Army of Northern Virginia at its first mention (and delink the later one.
Made change, wiki link, and un wiki link TwoScars (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
"The following day, the 1st West Virginia's ColonelRichmond assumed command of the 3rd Brigade."
Made change. Also fixed issue with brigades. The 1st West Virginia started in the 3rd Brigade, but after the reorganization they were in the 1st Brigade, Custer was in charge of the 2nd (all Michigan regiments), and there was no 3rd Brigade. However, adding to the confusion -- Custer was in charge of a 3rd Brigade (and the 1WV Cavalry was in it) four months later at the Battle of Mine Run. TwoScars (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
which brigade was Custer's?
Fixed - 2nd. TwoScars (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest " Major Charles Capehart to distinguish him from his brother the surgeon"
I believe that is now fixed everywhere. TwoScars (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "A total of 200 officers and 1,100 men were captured"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Given Farnsworth is dead, perhaps it would be better to stick to the ordinal of 3rd Brigade rather than calling it Farnsworth's Brigade?
Agreed, although I have corrected it to 1st Brigade. TwoScars (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
"on the November 11"
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
was Farabee's command of the regiment temporary? I query this as it then says that Capehart replaced Richmond, whereas it appears he really replaced Farabee, unless it was a temporary arrangement
Clarified. Charles Capehart was temporary commander of the 1st WVA. After Richmond was relieved of brigade command, he went back to regiment commander. Capehart had a shot-up ankle, so when Richmond got hurt (actually permanently disabled) Farabee had temporary command. I believe it was temporary because the source on Henry Capehart's promotion to commander says he replaced the injured Richmond. TwoScars (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Down to Army of West Virginia. More to come. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

link Army of West Virginia
Unlinked Department of West Virginia, which wiki linked to Army of West Virginia. Moved link to Army of West Virginia. TwoScars (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
when you mention Averell's Raid, give Averell's rank and name and link him
Done. TwoScars (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
for Dublin (New Bern), Virginia, link as Dublin, Virginia which seems to be the right target?
Clarified it. The link is to Dublin, Virginia, which has the railroad depot. It originally was called the New Bern railroad station even though New Bern, Virginia is two miles south of the railroad track. It was changed in the 1850s to Dublin, but some of the old maps or  old railroad maps still said New Bern or Newbern. Now says (Newbern on old maps) and Dublin is linked to Dublin. TwoScars (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
"1st and 2nd West Virginia Cavalry rRegiments"
Made change to capitalize "regiments". I thought that "1st West Virginia Cavalry Regiment" should definitely be capitalized, but am not so certain about a plural phrase. TwoScars (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
link George Crook at first mention in full
Fixed yesterday. TwoScars (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "forward to Liberty"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Down to Shenandoah Valley. More to come. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Once you've started using B&O, use it each time
Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
link Winchester, Virginia
Linked it to Winchester, Virginia in the American Civil War—more informative for this purpose. TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "still arriving atin the Martinsburg area"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
"sent General Averell from the Martinsburg"
Must have fixed yesterday. Says "...Hunter sent Averell from Martinsburg toward Winchester to meet a perceived..." TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
"Early's Army of the Valley" give Early's rank and name in full and link at first mention
Fixed after you mentioned restating ranks and linked Early and Army of the Valley. TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "1st and 3rd West Virginia Cavalriesy Regiments"
Made change.TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "He also had another 1,350 infantrymen."
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

the section header Battle of Kernstown II should probably be Second Battle of Kernstown
Made change (and it matches Wikipedia). As info, National Park Service calls it Kernstown II.
"cold hard rain" hard? heavy?
Changed it to "cold rain". Already mentioned they were soaked, so I can live without "hard" or "heavy". In West Virginia, a "hard rain" is a rain that is coming down with some strong force.  However, I know the audience is not only West Virginia. TwoScars (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"In this battle, brigade commander Colonel William H. Powell rode with Colonel Capehart and the 1st West Virginia Cavalry"
Now says "In this battle, Powell rode with Henry Capehart and the 1st West Virginia Cavalry. TwoScars (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Despite Averell's successes" why despite? Averell was only a divisional commander at this point, wasn't he? Was there some expectation he would take over the army command?
At that time, Averell was the only Union cavalry leader in the east with a major victory (Droop Mountain, Moorefield, Rutherford's Farm) over Confederate cavalry. (Gettysburg had plenty of infantry.) Union cavalry in the east was so bad that they finally brought in a westerner—Sheridan. That being said, I have no problem dropping the "Despite Averell's successes" part if you think it should be dropped. TwoScars (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "part of a cavalry brigade (Powell's)"→"part of Powell's cavalry brigade"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "On September 23, Sheridan became impatient with Averell, who he considered too cautious. Sheridan replaced Averell with Powell."
Made similar change: Sheridan became impatient with Averell, who he considered too cautious. On September 23, Sheridan replaced Averell with Powell. TwoScars (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "Henry Capehart was designated commander of Powell's old brigade, and Capehart's brother, Charles, became commander of the 1st West Virginia Cavalry Regiment."
Done. TwoScars (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "The 1st West Virginia Cavalry Regiment remained in the 2nd Brigade of Powell's Second/2nd Division."
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Lomax's Ccavalry"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "his 2nd Brigade (Capehart's, including the 1st West Virginia Cavalry),"→"Capehart's 2nd Brigade, including the 1st West Virginia Cavalry,"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
mi→miles at first mention
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Down to Third Division. More to come. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

link Wesley Merritt
Linked. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"and 3rd West Virginia Cavalry rRegiments"
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
link 1st Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry, although this strikes me as a strange unit name, with Regiment positioned where it is.
Linked, used odd name, left "(Lincoln)" in. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Early's Confederate army" was this the Army of the Valley? If so, suggest using the name, there are other examples of this
Changed to Early's Army of the Valley. The south liked to use leader's names in the units, and they are found that way in many of the sources. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"General Jeb Stuart"
Dropped General Jeb. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Rosser filled a covered bridge with rails on the middle fork of the Shenandoah River" is confusing, Perhaps "Rosser used rails to fill a covered bridge over the middle fork of the Shenandoah River,"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"The 1st West Virginia cCavalry"
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "captured 50 men and all of Rosser's artillery."
Changed to The brigade drove off Rosser's cavalry, capturing 50 men and all of his artillery. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

suggest "The two Union cavalry divisions" if that is what is meant? Unles there were another two divisions of cavalry?
Changed to Sheridan's cavalry. It was his two divisions, although only one did the fighting. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "then Capehart's 3rd Brigade, including the 1st West Virginia Cavalry,"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Down to Sheridan leaves... More to come. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

link Virginia Central Railroad
Linked. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"toward the Confederate capital city of Richmond", you already said that
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
move Grant link up to "from Sheridan to General Grant"
Moved link up. TwoScars (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Note 10 appears to misspell Rowland's name
Fixed "Roland" in text. It is Rowand, autocorrect trys to change it to Rowland. TwoScars (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
delete "(not to be confused with the "White House" in Washington, D.C.)" as it is obvious, as it is in Virginia
Deleted. TwoScars (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
link George Meade
Already linked in Gettysburg. TwoScars (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Battle of Dinwiddie Court House and Battle of Five Forks need more info on the formations and units engaged on the Confederate side
Added info - Pickett and Fitzhugh Lee. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "to face two three enemy divisions; two infantry and one cavalry."
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Company H of the 1st West Virginia cCavalry"
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"(without waiting for the rest of the brigade)" doesn't need the parens
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
for Blackmar's promotion, link Battlefield promotion
Linked. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
link Namozine, Virginia for Namozine Church
Linked. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
there is a disconnect between Saylor's Creek and Sailor's Creek, which is correct?
There are four spellings. I have added a note. The National Park Service uses the spelling Sailor's Creek. The historic name is Sayler's Creek. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "As Henry Capehart, commander of Custer's 3rd Brigade,"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "and requested permission for his 3rd Brigade to attack immediately"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
drop the parens from "(including the 1st West Virginia)"
Dropped. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
link 10th Georgia Infantry, 12th Virginia Infantry, redlink 76th Georgia Infantry, 18th Florida Infantry
Linked 10th Georgia Infantry and 12th Virginia Infantry. Would rather not redline 76th Georgia Infantry or 18th Florida Infantry. I can find no evidence that they existed, and I suspect that the MOH citation cites a unit that did not exist or has the wrong state. That's why I quote the citation. TwoScars (talk)

Down to War's end. More to come. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"to join General William Tecumseh Sherman's army"
Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
suggest "The parade was led by Custer's Third Division,[151] which was led by Capehart's brigade."
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
there is another example of B&O
B&O.TwoScars (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That's me done with the prose. References look fine. A few points on image licensing:

Will check on images. Many were simply images I found in Wikimedia, and I did no work on them. TwoScars (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Henrycapehart.jpg needs a US-PD tag and a year of death for Lang
No info on death for Lang. He was a major (and brevet colonel) in the 6th West Virginia Cavalry during the Civil War, and originally published his book in 1895. Fixed name and added US-PD tag. TwoScars (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done This one is now OK for PD-1923. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
File:William W. Averell.jpg how do we know that Milhollen and Mugridge were US Govt employees? And given their work was published in 1977, they cannot have been the authors of the work?
The Library of Congress web site that has this picture says "No known restrictions on publication". Although Hirst D. Milhollen and Donald H. Mugridge compiled the photo for the Library of Congress, the photo is from 1861-1865. The creator is listed as Brady's National Photographic Portrait Galleries, so the photographer is probably Mathew Brady or someone working for him (while he gets the credit).  I have updated the Wiki media file. TwoScars (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
That may well be right, but firstly, was Brady an employee of the US Govt, secondly the second license is unnecessary as you need a separate US-PD licence anyway, and finally the date of publication is 1977, so not before 1923. So there isn't sufficient information for any of the three licenses. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Given it's Brady's image, this looks like another one for PD-old-100. Peacemaker67
(click to talk to me) 03:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Updated Author with date of death. Added "Brady's National Photographic Portrait Galleries" to source that already has a link to LOC. Added PD-100 and PD-US tags. TwoScars (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, this one can't be PD-1923, as there is no publication info except the 1977 one. PD-US-no notice is a possibility given the year of publication. Do we know whether this image had a copyright notice when it was published by the LOC in 1977? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I found a book that used the same photo. The photo of Averell is near the front of History of the Third Pennsylvania Cavalry, Sixtieth Regiment. I have modified the Wikimedia photo to mention this book, the author, and the publishing date, which was 1905. TwoScars (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
As info, Donald H. Mugridge was a Specialist in American History in the General Reference and Bibliography Division of the Library of Congress. He died in 1964 and had no immediate survivors.  There are several versions of Civil war photographs 1861-1865 : a catalog of copy negatives made from originals selected from the Mathew B. Brady Collection in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress, and OCLC WorldCat lists a copy released in 1961.
 Done This one is now ok for PD-1923, per publishing in 1905. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Charles E. Capehart LOC.jpg when was it published (required for the existing tag)
It has a date of 1864 on it. It is from the U.S. Library of Congress, which says "No known restrictions on publication.". TwoScars (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
That might have been when it was taken, but the licence used requires that it was published before 1923. In what book was it published and when? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, it looks like I have a lot to learn about Wiki media. I have changed the Charles E. Capehart photo to have the same information as the featured Admiral Farragut photo] in WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FP—and I added license information. Both photos came from collections owned by the Library of Congress. They own the negatives. This particular collection was purchased by the Library of Congress in 1943. The images represent the original glass plate negatives made under the supervision of Mathew Brady (who died in 1896) and Alexander Gardner (died 1882). It is possible that this particular photo was never published in a book. The Library of Congress has a header that says "Created / Published", and it says "[between 1860 and 1870]". Under the header "Rights Advisory", the Library of Congress says "No known restrictions on publication." I don't know what else to do. If I must remove the photo, I will. TwoScars (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Believe me, you are not the only one to be confused by image licensing issues. I still struggle with them at times, which is why I ask guru's like Nikkimaria to help out occasionally when I'm not sure. Even US ones can be convoluted. Given what you've said, as long as you state the two men's years of death in the description, this seems like a job for {{PD-old-100}}. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Added more info in source, including the name of the collection, that Brady & Gardner made the originals, and the years Brady and Gardner died.
This is another one where it one can't be PD-1923, as there is no publishing info. If we assume it was never published in a book or similar, I wonder when it was digitised (and therefore published)? If after 1 January 2003, then PD-US-unpublished is a possibility. You might need to establish when these images were digitised by LOC. Are there no images of him in the various books concentrating on West Virginia and the regiment that were published before 1923? Like Rhodes? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Submitted a question to the Library of Congress - Digital Reference Team. Mentioned Wikipedia and asked about copyright issues and if the Capehart photo was ever published. They have a holiday today, but the automated response says they will respond in 5 working days. Have not found any books with that photo in it such as Rhodes or Lang.
Here is what Library of Congress said: "Thank you for visiting the Library of Congress Web site. As a publicly supported institution the Library generally does not own rights to material in its collections. Therefore, it does not charge permission fees for use of such material and cannot give or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections. It is the patron's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections. The nature of historical archival collections means that copyright or other information about restrictions may be difficult or even impossible to determine. Whenever possible, the Library provides information about copyright owners and other restrictions in the catalog records or other texts that accompany collections. The Library provides such information as a service to aid patrons in determining the appropriate use of an item, but that determination ultimately rests with the patron. The Library of Congress is eager to hear from any copyright owners who are not properly identified so that appropriate information may be provided in the future. You can find the rights and restrictions for the Civil War Photographs (Anthony-Taylor-Rand-Ordway-Eaton Collection and Selected Civil War Photographs) collection at link For further information, see the Prints & Photographs Division "Rights and Restrictions Information" page at link." It appears to me, especially after reading the first link, that it is OK to use the Charles Capehart photo from the LOC point of view—I just need to put the correct tag on it to satisfy Wikimedia.  Same for anything from the Anthony-Taylor-Rand-Ordway-Eaton Collection.  For now, I have removed it from the article, but I think it is important to get it in because the only photos of people who were actually in the regiment are the two Capehart photos. TwoScars (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Added category PD files for review to file. If it ever gets reviewed and confirmed as OK, I will add it back in. TwoScars (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done Image has been removed from the article. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Custer Bvt MG Geo A 1865 LC-BH831-365-crop.jpg licence isn't right, as it doesn't have a author identified (and year of death)
Updated file. Added direct link to photo at Library of Congress, which does not list an author.  Says "No known restrictions on publication."
There are lots of pictures of Custer in various collections at the LOC. If necessary, I can find another one. TwoScars (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Replaced Custer photo with another. TwoScars (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Like one above, do we know whether this image had a copyright notice when it was published by the LOC in 1977? Because it could be PD-US-no notice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Based on what LOC said in the email concerning Capehart, it is highly unlikely that they had a copyright notice when they "published" a catalog of their photo collection. The first Custer photo is from the same collection (Anthony-Taylor-Rand-Ordway-Eaton Collection and Selected Civil War Photographs). Right now, I have it out. However, it would be great to get it back in. The 2nd West Virginia Cavalry was very proud to have served under Custer—probably the 1st too. They all wore red neckties in his honor in the Grand Review. TwoScars (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Added category PD files for review to file. If it ever gets reviewed and confirmed as OK, I will add it back in.
 Done Image has been removed from the article. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Early, jubal anderson 1816-1894.jpg needs a date of publication
I will replace this photo later today using a photo from the LOC collections. TwoScars (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Downloaded another photo from LOC and replaced. TwoScars (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Still needs a year of publication before 1923 for PD-1923. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Will drop this photo. It is from the Brady-Handy Collection, and the LOC says it is in the public domain. Perhaps PD-old? TwoScars (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done Image has been removed from the article. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Ulysses S. Grant - NARA - 531118.jpg I'm not sure about this one, would you mind taking a look Nikkimaria?
Claimed as DoD image so shouldn't be a problem, although the date's a bit odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This one is really weird. The NARA data is singularly unhelpful and indicates an earliest date of 1900, but Grant died in 1885 and this is clearly a ACW-era image circa 1865, so that date is clearly some sort of NARA internal guff, and doesn't relate to the actual original image. I would amend the description to state that it is assumed that the image was taken during or immediately at the end of the ACW and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the photographer died before 1917, so PD-old-100 is assumed to apply. That approach is a bit tenuous frankly, and it would be good to contact NARA about its provenance if this is going to FAC eventually. Does that sound reasonable, Nikkimaria? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It's iffy - I'd go with the contact NARA option right off, especially if the intention is FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Like the Custer photo, there are lots of photos of Grant. I will replace this photo later today using a photo from the LOC collections. TwoScars (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Replaced Grant photo and added more info to new photo. TwoScars (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
If necessary to use, this photo of Grant was published in a book in 1901. TwoScars (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The new one has the same problem for PD-1923, no date of publication. Swap it out for the 1901 one. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Put in Grant photo from 1901 book. TwoScars (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done New image is PD-1923. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
File:From 1800 to 1900. The wonderful story of the century; its progress and achievements (1899) (14593729959).jpg seems a bit of a hotchpotch. Is there a US-PD tag that could be used here? What about where this was first published? Could the details of the book be added to the description to assist in determining the right tag?
Added PD-1923 tag. It was published in 1899 in Chicago. Cleaned up text appearing before and after image. Added OCLC is 20917051 with link to to its OCLC WorldCat web page. TwoScars (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done This one is now good for PD-1923. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Grand Review of the Army Cavalry.jpg needs a US-PD tag
Added tag. TwoScars (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, this one also doesn't have any publication data. It is possible that it could be PD-US-unpublished if it wasn't published (including made available online after 1 January 2003). Wayback Machine is showing no captures of the page prior to 14 May 2015, but it may have been at a different web address prior to that. So you'll need to establish with LOC when they put these photographs online, and even then we'd have to assume they were not published elsewhere before that date, which is drawing a pretty long bow. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done This one has been removed from the article. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Added category PD files for review to file. If it ever gets reviewed and confirmed as OK, I will add it back in. TwoScars (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
That's me done. Placing on hold. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm just flagging that without more data, quite a few of these photographs won't have suitable licenses. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
OK. We are done here. I suggest nominating this for Milhist A-Class review, as it is now very close to that mark IMO. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

While the Dept. of Archives is usually a reliable source they made a serious error on the page of MOH recipients. Sgt. James Burns was not in the 1st Cavalry, he was 1st Infantry. This is the official citation  Dubyavee (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Well the first problem here, other than reverting an edit against references without a consensus, lies with the references themselves. The ones actually used in the article, "," do not actually list a, "Sgt. James Burns" as a Medal of Honor recipient for the 1st West Virginia Infantry because, while attached to the regiment, he was still enlisted in the 1st Cavalry. Which is why there are clearly 15 confirmable recipients listed under the 1st Cavalry's roster. MarkMcCain (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The West Virginia Dept. of Archives has corrected their list of recipients of the MOH, Sgt. Burns is listed correctly as "Infantry". West Virginia Medal of Honor Recipients Dubyavee (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
You're making claims that aren't supported–essentially telling me information to the contrary of confirmed sources with nothing else to convince anyone of this argument but your written word. There is also no correction on this, what you've highlighted shows the same listing. Unless you can find a credible source to support these claims (and I've tried), the only logical move is to keep the content supported by the references. MarkMcCain (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Scratch that. Given that another Wikipedian has agreed with your stance, I'll leave it as is. Only with one addition, making note of the regiment being the most highly-decorated single cavalry regiment; this would align with the 47th Ohio Infantry, also 14 Medals of Honor, listing it as the most highly-decorated single infantry regiment on its article. MarkMcCain (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
MarkMcCain—I appreciate you wanting to give the 1st West Virginia Cavalry credit where credit is due. However, we need a citation from a university, newspaper article or book that says the regiment's 14 Medal of Honor recipients are the most of any single cavalry regiment during the war. Right now, the only thing close that I can find is the GTM Center (Shepard University) article that says "Almost all of the regiment’s 14 Medals of Honor – the most for any West Virginia regiment – were earned for valor displayed during the 1864 Valley, Petersburg, and Appomattox Campaigns." TwoScars (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. As I've also had the same difficulty finding one that properly supports this content, I'll leave as is. Given that I can't find a reference to support the 47th Ohio Infantry being the most highly-decorated Infantry regiment either; I'll make the change to similar context in accordance with this discussion. A pleasure to have collaborated with you. MarkMcCain (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)