Talk:Battle of Lewinsville

Starting expansion, improvement

I have added additional information and some references. I will be adding some more about battle details and adding more citations. It could take at least a few days from the date of this post to finish this for any further comments or actions. I plan to note when I finish working on it. I will remove the template when I make additional improvements. I think I have already made good progress toward that objective. Donner60 (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have finished my expansion of the article. Donner60 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

B class review

B class. "Griffin" is first mentioned in paragraph 9 under Battle. The Griffin link is in the infobox, but his linked name should also be in the text previous to where his name is mentioned. Please make it clear in the Battle section that Stevens led the reconnaissance and that Griffin (use link) commanded the artillery. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Added link to Griffin, as well as Terrill and Rosser, in the lead but also clarified Griffin's command of artillery in battle section, as well as the subordinate commands of Terrill and Rosser on the Confederate side. Thanks for the quick review. Donner60 (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that J. E. B. Stuart prevented John S. Mosby from shooting Union Army colonel Isaac Stevens at the Battle of Lewinsville? Source: Mosby, John S. The Memoirs of Colonel John S. Mosby. New York: Bantam Books, 1992. Edited by Charles Wells Russell. ISBN 978-0-553-29650-1. First published by Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1917. p. 69; Jones, Virgil Carrington. Ranger Mosby. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1944. ISBN 978-0-8078-0432-2. pp. 52-53.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/French destroyer Fronde

5x expanded by Donner60 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of Lewinsville; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• ALT I ... that Confederate commander J. E. B. Stuart prevented John S. Mosby, the "Gray Ghost", from shooting Union Army colonel Isaac Stevens at the Battle of Lewinsville? Source: Mosby, John S. The Memoirs of Colonel John S. Mosby. New York: Bantam Books, 1992. Edited by Charles Wells Russell. ISBN 978-0-553-29650-1. First published by Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1917. p. 69; Jones, Virgil Carrington. Ranger Mosby. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1944. ISBN 978-0-8078-0432-2. pp. 52-53.
  • ALT2 ... that after the Battle of Lewinsville John S. Mosby, the "Gray Ghost", wrote that he regretted "the glorious opportunity that I missed of winging their colonel"? Source: Mosby, John S. The Memoirs of Colonel John S. Mosby. New York: Bantam Books, 1992. Edited by Charles Wells Russell. ISBN 978-0-553-29650-1. First published by Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1917. pp. 69-70. Donner60 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
    • ALT3 ... that after the Battle of Lewinsville John S. Mosby wrote that he regretted "the glorious opportunity that I missed of winging their colonel"? Source: Mosby, John S. The Memoirs of Colonel John S. Mosby. New York: Bantam Books, 1992. Edited by Charles Wells Russell. ISBN 978-0-553-29650-1. First published by Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1917. pp. 69-70. Donner60 (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Donner60: This is not a review but more of a comment, but can a different hook be proposed here? The significance/interest of the hook isn't clear if the reader is unfamiliar with the names involved. To non-history buffs, the hook doesn't really seem eyecatching, and I say this as a history buff myself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5: I put an alternate hook above to identify Stuart as a Confederate commander (he wasn't yet a general) and Mosby as (the "Gray Ghost"), the later partisan commander well known as the Gray Ghost, which might increase interest. Much more or different on this specific hook would likely push it beyond the word limit. Unlike my last DYK which failed because the fivefold increase was not all within 7 days, I am not sure that I can come up with a curious looking hook which would not be a historical tidbit from an American Civil War battle. I might look at it again if this one were to be classified as fail. Donner60 (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the above hook is much better. Also, per DYK guidelines, the parentheses should not be there as parentheses are only added to DYK hooks if they're absolutely necessary (like "(pictured)" or if they're part of the title). The article is quite dense so no other alternative hook angles came to my attention, but I'd suggest you try since I don't think this angle is working out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Changed parentheses to commas. I do think that the hook would now be interesting at least to many Americans and others interested in the American Civil War, but I will look at if further; otherwise, I suppose it will need to be assessed as is. Donner60 (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think ALT1 is much of an improvement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• I just realized this has never been actually been given a proper review yet, so to make things clear, the article does meet DYK requirements (including 5x expansion, length, close paraphrasing) and a QPQ has been done. After almost a month since my last comment, I've had some time thinking about this and I still don't think ALT0 and ALT1 are appropriate. However, perhaps a hook about the "the glorious opportunity that I missed of winging their colonel" quote might work? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Just seeing your suggestion now. Thanks for looking at this again. I think your suggestion is a good idea since it is a direct quote. Would ALT2 that I just placed above, or something very similar, work? Donner60 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As a compromise I think you could add a version that omits the "Gray Ghost" mention then I'll let the promoter decide if it's necessary or adds to the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: That works for me. I put it up as ALT3. Please proceed. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave it to the promoter on whether to use ALT2 or ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposing a further tweak:

• ALT2a: ... that after the Battle of Lewinsville, the "Gray Ghost" wrote that he regretted "the glorious opportunity that I missed of winging their colonel"?

@Narutolovehinata5: Would you approve that as well? Cielquiparle (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the promoter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment about this engagement and this article

Early in the American Civil War, until February and March 1862, there were few engagements that would be classified as large. Some may or may not have had a large effect in retrospect. Early battles and aftermaths did have quite a large influence on morale and on the desire for bringing the war to a quick conclusion, however. They received outsized notice in the press and political circles. They also set up how and where campaigns and battles would later take place. There is more written about them in contemporary and later histories than about later smaller engagements unless, of course, those engagements had interesting details, personalities or effects not easily includible in other articles. From the details and sources that I found for this article, it seems to me it is obviously a notable engagement. It also has received extensive notice at the time and later for various reasons.

Small later actions are often notable (Mosby's Fairfax Courthouse Raid and the Greenback Raid are just a few for example) but many also can often be covered as a few paragraphs in an article about a campaign or larger battle that followed or even preceded that battle (Battle of Strasburg, a brief article with a few errors besides, probably should be in a campaign article because there is little to write about it.). A few books have even been devoted to such small battles, especially those in the first year of the war (Poland, Jr., Charles P. The Glories Of War: Small Battles And Early Heroes Of 1861. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2006. ISBN 978-1-4184-5973-4). The small cavalry battles preceding the Battle of Gettysburg covered in a book by Eric Wittenberg is also a book about small battles. (These are covered in less detail by many other sources.) There are even books about events and small engagements just in the first months of the war. The Battle of Big Bethel, very early in the war and with later notable military leaders in the battle, is one such engagement.

The context here is that after the First Battle of Bull Run, the Confederates held parts of Fairfax County and vicinity within a few miles of Washington. McClellan concentrated on building up the Union Army and adding to the defenses of Washington but did not want to take any offensive action. This helped Confederate morale and began to irritate citizens and politicians of the North. This battle was one of the tentative steps toward the Union Army taking back the Washington area. It involved a large number of soldiers but because of the way it developed, few casualties. Nonetheless, many future generals (Stuart, Terrill, Rosser, Stevens, Griffin), artillery commanders (including Griffin, Mott) and even a few soldiers who became notable officers or engineers, especially John Mosby and Orlando Poe, were engaged and came to notice in this engagement. It also has an aftermath when McClellan and W. F. Smith were initially concerned about whether a general engagement was being brought on foreshadowing McClellan's continued reluctance to take offensive action, reinforced by the Battle of Ball's Bluff two days later. He only started to move in mid-March when Lincoln forced him to do so.

I did not write this article from the start but I did expand it considerably. There are a few sentences or words that I would not have used but which, not being outright errors, are not worth the time to discuss. That's likely true of many articles worked on by several people.

The "larger" battles of 1861 and the first two months of some note other than First Bull Run and Ball's Bluff included Dranesville in Virginia (another action similar to Lewinsville), Wilson's Creek, Lexington and Belmont (Carthage being smaller) in Missouri and Port Royal in South Carolina. A few actions in what is now West Virginia that brought McClellan to notice, such as Rich Mountain, Corrick's Ford, Carnifex Ferry, Cheat Mountain, were even rather small by later standards. In January 1862 there was Mill Springs in Kentucky. Only in February and March did larger actions and campaigns begin. Later sources (Dyer, Long) give 10,455 as the number of military engagements in the American Civil War, including 76 major battles. As I note, not much along those lines from April 1861 to February (Fort Donelson) or March 1862 (Pea Ridge, Kernstown, Glorieta Pass and a few others of some note) or even April (Shiloh, start of Peninsula campaign and others).

This dissertation about this engagement and the size and importance of early engagements, (with the same being true of ending engagements in my opinion), is likely superfluous. Nonetheless I thought that I should make a note of why I have expanded the article and why it is as detailed as it is, even if this note is not seen by many or the size or importance of the article is challenged in any way by anyone. That is no doubt for the best. I thought it worth putting these thoughts down while they were fresh rather than try to recall them later if needed. I hope this note on the context is of some value even to a few. Thanks for indulging me on this if you have read it. Donner60 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)