# Talk:William Henry Powell (soldier)

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Henry Powell (soldier)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 05:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, thank you so much for reviewing this article. Very impressive—you work very fast and the article was so long. I'm sorry you found so many things. I have some family visiting right now, but still hope to work on this over the next few days. TwoScars (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is in pretty good shape. Despite my pretty limited knowledge of the ACW, I have a few comments/queries:

the lead needs a bit of work:
link Union (American Civil War) and captain (armed forces), and consider linking regiment, brigade and division
Linked all of them. TwoScars (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
to be fair, he didn't capture a 500-man camp, he attacked such a camp, scattered it and captured 124. Something along those lines. And the lack of friendly casualties isn't explicitly in the body of the article. I assume some Confederates were killed and/or wounded, although that also isn't in the body?
Reworded using "Powell was awarded his country's highest award for bravery during combat, the Medal of Honor, for heroism at Sinking Creek, Virginia, when, as leader of a group of 22 men, he captured an enemy camp and took over 100 prisoners. This was accomplished without the loss of any of his men on November 26, 1862. He was honored with the award on July 22, 1890." In the main body, which now mentions casualties, I have added a note that explains the Medal of Honor and why some were awarded much later after the war. The note also has Powell's citation linked. TwoScars (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
a short sentence fragment to explain what he did before the war might be in order
Added "He was a leader in the iron and nail business before the war, and his leadership abilities proved useful in the military." to the lead. TwoScars (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
the bit about surgeons on both sides isn't supported by the body
That was in Walker's book. Added that to the note after "...and Powell believed to be mortally wounded."
I like the quote, works well. If you want to use the whole quote in the lead, I suggest using the whole quote in the body and dropping the fn from the lead
I want to make sure I have this right. I can drop the footnote in the lead (footnote 1), and repeat the whole quote in the body (under Division Commander)—do I have that right? TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEADCITE, the verification policy requires you to footnote something in the lead if it might realistically be challenged. But, as everything in the lead should be reflected in the body, and you've now cited the quote in the body, it is a bit redundant. Others may disagree of course. IMO footnoting in the lead is more of a pre-emptive action to forestall arguments, as many people just read the lead. Alternatively you could summarise the quote and the other praise he received rather than use the quote verbatim in the lead. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
"workeding in a rolling mill"?
Changed from worked to working (too many earlier edits!) TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"large iron works in Ironton" a bit repetitive
Agree. Changed to "When the American Civil War began in 1861, Powell was general superintendent and financial agent of this large iron works."
could you add a sentence about why the southern states seceded? and link secession
Will do later—that can be controversial. TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it is critical background to the fighting, and a properly balanced explanation will serve you well for use in other articles. As an unschooled Australian, I rely on the Oxford Companion to Military History, which says it was basically about chattel slavery, with "states rights" as a cover for that, but there were obviously also other factors I'm not across. All you have to do is present the academic consensus and use a few sources to support it. It doesn't have to be an essay. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Added a note on the cause. TwoScars (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
"normally operated apartindependently from Cox"?
Changed  to "Crook's brigade normally operated independently from the other portion of Cox's division." TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
drop the parentheses here (and to fill a vacancy caused by the Bolles resignation)
Dropped parentheses TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"was driven southward up"
Made change. TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd drop the rank if it hasn't changed since last mention, for example, with Colonel Paxton
Dropped "Colonel" from "Thus, Powell's advance guard for Colonel Paxton...." Left it in the quoted report in the next paragraph. TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
after he's been introduced, George Crook should just be Crook per WP:SURNAME, with the addition of a new rank as appropriate ie "Brigadier General Crook"
Removed ranks from front of Paxton and Crook in Sinking Creek section. TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"the cavalry's Colonel Paxton"
Fixed TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"Colonel Paxton ended..." see earlier
Already fixed TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"During March 1863, Lieutenant Colonel Powell"
Dropped LC although that is the first time it had been used. His promotion had been discussed earlier. TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Who was Scammon? In terms of his command.
Changed sentence to say "General Eliakim P. Scammon, the division commander after Crook had been sent elsewhere, dismissed Paxton after the regiment returned to camp." TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
link Parole#Prisoners of war
Linked TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I know there are other Charleston's, but I think once you've linked it, you can get away with just Charleston unless another Charleston comes up
Dropped West Virginia. TwoScars (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"On April 30, now General Crook"
Fixed and added a sentence explaining Crook's return and the arrival of Averell. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"General Averell's forehead"
Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"so command fell to Colonel Powell"
Fixed through Cove Mountain (except quoted material) TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"General Crook's infantry" there are several instances of this
Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"General Averell's 2nd Cavalry Division" there are multiple instances of "General Averell" after he is introduced
Fixed through Hunter's Lynchburg Campaign TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"Hunger's Lynchburg Campaign was organized" who was Hunger? Or is that Hunter?
Fixed to Hunter. Autocorrect can sometimes be a bad thing. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
should it just be "Powell's Bbrigade"? Several instances of this. Unless of course that was its proper name
more to come. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed to brigade. Different reviewers have different opinions on this. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
link Potomac River at first mention
Wiki linked under Rutherford's Farm and Kernstown II section. TwoScars (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
"to escape from a"
Fixed by dropping "a". TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"Confederate General McCausland's cavalry"
Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
suggest "1st, 2nd, and 3rd West Virginia cavalriesCavalry Regiments"
Made changes TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"President Abraham Lincoln"
Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"General Sheridan" now he's been introduced, there is another example or two
Fixed multiple instances TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
just to dispense with parentheses, suggest "On September 24, shortly after assuming command of the division,..."
Made change TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"Generals John D. Imboden, Bradley Johnson, and John McCausland"
Made change TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"Powell's Division" was this its formal name? If not, drop the D
Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"who temporarily took command"?
Reworded to say "...where he met with General George Armstrong Custer. At that time, Custer assumed command of the 2nd Cavalry Division."
"2nd Division" should that be 2nd Cavalry Division? Same with 3rd Division?
Yes and No. Sheridan had no infantry operating in the Shenandoah Valley at that time. Made changes to add Cavalry to titles. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
link Bushwhacker
Linked TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
link Luray, Virginia, Front Royal, Virginia, Sperryville, Virginia, and Chester Gap, Virginia at first mention
Wiki linked Luray, Front Royal, Sperryville, and Chester Gap. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
the sentence beginning "Because all but one person from Averell's staff..." seems out of place. Shouldn't it be where he first took command?
Agree. Moved it. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"put temporarily under the command"
changed to "detached to"
Merrit→Merritt
Fixed (in Nineveh) TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"General McCausland"
Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"(infamous for the burning of Chambersburg)." needs a closing quotation mark. Also, is that bit in parentheses part of the quote?
Fixed it up a bit. There are two quotes from the newspaper article, and a part that mentions what was in the article but does not quote. (The article is in the Library of Congress.) TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"General Torbert"
Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
in the "Animosity with Confederacy" section, it mentions that the 2nd Virginia Cavalry were heavily engaged with bushwhackers early on, but this isn't reflected very well in the chronology. I'm not sure whether much of this section could have been included as it arose in the chronology.
I'm open to shortening it. The point here is to add the opposing viewpoint (which I think is interesting)—he was disliked in the South, unpopular in the pro-Confederate newspapers, had a war of words with Mosby, and the circumstances for his exit of the army are not perfectly clear. Suggestions? TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
All I'd do at this stage is move the mention of his early work against bushwhackers up to the appropriate part of the chronology.
Moved portions to Kanawha Valley and Wytheville raid, "bushwhacker" wiki linked in Kanawha Valley section instead of later section. Some rewording for flow of text. TwoScars (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
on second mention, "Confederate General Sam Jones"
Changed to Jones TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"Confederate Colonel Mosby to write an open letter to General Sheridan"
FixedTwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"buggy accident" link Horse and buggy, as many readers will not know what that was
Linked TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
"President Rutherford B. Hayes" already introduced
Fixed with reword TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
explain what the Grand Army of the Republic was
Reworded to "Powell was a strong participant in a fraternal organization of Civil War veterans that fought for the Union, the Grand Army of the Republic. He was the Illinois department commander for that organization in 1895 and 1896." TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
one thing that bugs me is that he was awarded the MoH years after the war? Some explanation of how that came about would be in order.
There is now a note that explains the time lag and has examples. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
image licensing is all fine
Good, thanks. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
there is a footnote to Magid without a full citation
Added Magid to References section TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Wallace 1887 fn's should probably be 1897 or vice versa
It is 1897. Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Rolston 2015 and 2017 fn's and citations don't match either
It is 2017. Fixed one that was 2015. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Cox, Ohio Roster Commission 1895, Patchan 2013, Scott 1887, Scott et al 1893 all don't have footnotes pointing to them, if not used, maybe put them in a Further reading section?
Commented them out.  They were used in research, but sometimes I had multiple sources for citations. They could still be useful if the article ever gets upgraded. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Otherwise, that's me done, placing on hold for a bit for these to be addressed. Really interesting article, I think you've captured him well. Has been a nice distraction from the usual Christmas drama in the RW. Don't bust a gut responding, it's Christmas! As a Milhist member, you might like to consider submitting this and other articles you work on for the monthly article writing contest. It is great to see new names submitting entries, and you'll get more interest from reviewers if your user name is better known to others. Merry Christmas! Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Done for today. For tomorrow: cause of Civil War sentence and grammar suggestions from Factotem, plus any suggestions for the Animosity with Confederacy" section. TwoScars (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The Beyer & Keydel 1907 footnote doesn't link to a full citation. If you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');  to your common.js page, it will run a script that allows you to see when there are harv errors like this. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Fixed Beyer & Keydel TwoScars (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe I have things cleaned up. I'm open to any other suggestions. One Peer Reviewer did not like the section headings. TwoScars (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Great job. I personally think the headings are ok. This article is quite impressive. In addition to perhaps listing it for the monthly article writing contest, I recommend you put it up for Milhist A-Class review next, as I think it has the potential to get to FA, and ACR is a great way to get some more eyes on it and make sure it is ready. 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. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help and patience TwoScars (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)