J. H. Hobart Ward has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 7, 2023 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 4, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that former Union brigadier general J. H. Hobart Ward was struck and killed by a train while on vacation?
	A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 17, 2023.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Biography / North America / United States / American Civil War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force

I was just editing the bio of Bishop John Henry Hobart of New York and wondered if this was his grandson. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do the research, and this article does not list his mother's name (nor does the bishop's bio list any marriage or offspring).Jweaver28 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article says Gen. Ward was mustered out for misconduct at the Battle of the Wilderness, but the extensive entry does not mention him at all. This article says he received a head wound at the subsequent battle at Spottsylvania. Did the discharge reflect his head wound (was the Spottsylvania battle then considered merely a part of the Wilderness battle?). I doubt he would have been allowed to continue as general if he were already shown cowardly, etc. PTSD was probably common enough at the time but head injuries weren't that well understood.Jweaver28 (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just redone this article. Spotsylvania and the Wilderness are considered separate battles, and even were back then. Ward was still in command two days after his head wound, when he was caught drunk in action (there'd also been a prior running away from battle incident the prior year). Ezra J. Warner (historian) speculates that the decision to relieve him may have been decided after the Wilderness action and before Spotsylvania, and that the axe just didn't fall until later. Hog Farm _Talk 02:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:J. H. Hobart Ward/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • I suggest just dropping "in either 1847 or 1851" as we can go into the details in the body of the article
    • Done
  • "he served as both the assistant commissary general and the main role itself for the state of New York." is massively confusing - I can't even begin to figure out what it is supposed to mean...
    • I've applied your suggestion for rephrasing from below
  • "He was elevated to brigade command after" ... most non-specialists aren't going to have a clue what this rank would be - even a link would help
    • Rephrased and linked
• Early life:
  • Private to sergeant major in three years seems a bit ... fast? Do we know why it was so quick?
    • I haven't found anything so far in RS that says why. Powell 1893 says it made him the youngest sergeant-major in the army, but the more modern sources aren't repeating that, and I'd rather have a stronger source for such an extraordinary claim.
      • @Ealdgyth: @Hog Farm: Both Eicher, cited below, at p. 553, and Warner, cited in the references, at p. 587, state that Ward served successively as private, corporal, sergeant and sergeant-major between his enlistment in April 1842 and his discharge in 1847. Neither source gives dates for the promotions or a reason for them. If Powell, the cited source, is correct that Ward made the advancement to sergeant-major by 1845, Ward's promotions would not have resulted from vacancies or expansion of positions as a consequence of the Mexican-American War. It might be surmised that vacancies developed at the higher grades in the 7th U.S. Infantry Regiment between 1842 and 1845 and either through political influence or ability and performance, Ward was considered the right person to move into the job. The Army was not in the habit of creating supernumeraries at higher grades during this period. For example, if there were no vacancies in the existing regiments for new second lieutenants during this time, West Point graduates were commissioned as brevet second lieutenants until a slot opened up for a second lieutenant. Considering Ward's service in Mexico and the early years of the Civil War, Ward's ability and performance would not be a bad guess as the reason for the promotions, in my opinion. There are sufficient sources for the promotions having been made, but I think that with no further information being given by Warner or Eicher, there is little likelihood that the exact reasons for them could be found in any accessible source, if at all. In addition, there is no further information about his early service in the Army in the entry for Ward in Sifakis, Stewart. Who Was Who in the Civil War. New York: Facts On File, 1988. ISBN 978-0-8160-1055-4. P. 690. There are no entries at all about Ward in Faust, Patricia L., ed. Historical Times Illustrated History of the Civil War. New York: Harper & Row, 1986. ISBN 978-0-06-273116-6 or Heidler, David S., and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000. ISBN 978-0-393-04758-5. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is fort brown?
    • Added
  • Oh, I see our confusion in the commissary general is sorted out in the body. Perhaps the above could be "he served successively as the assistant comissary general and comissary general for the state of New York"?
    • I've rephrased this
• Civil war service:
  • Perhaps mention that the 38th was a volunteer regiment and was raised by NY state, thus why the political connections were a help?
    • I've added a bit about this
  • "The unit lay prone to shelter from Confederate fire." was confusing at first - I think you mean "The soldiers of the unit lay on the ground to shelter from Confederate fire."? But .. unless Ward ordered this ... why is this bit of detail useful to our knowledge of Ward?
  • Again - is this level of detail needed "Later in the battle, Ward led the regiment in a charge against Confederate positions on Henry House Hill, along with the 69th New York Infantry Regiment. Pushing back the 5th Virginia Infantry Regiment and the Hampton Legion, the two Union regiments took a foothold on the hill." Wouldn't "Later in the battle, Ward led the regiment in a charge against Confederate positions on Henry House Hill, along with another Union regiment. Pushing back two Confederate regiments, the two Union regiments took a foothold on the hill."? The exact regiments can be specified in the article on the battle...
  • "Not long afterwards, two fresh Confederate regiments from Philip St. George Cocke's brigade arrived and counterattacked, driving the two New York regiments from the hill." Again too much detail - suggest "Not long afterwards, two fresh Confederate regiments from arrived and counterattacked, driving the Union forces from the hill."
  • "further adulation from Kearny, III Corps commander Samuel P. Heintzelman, and Brigadier General Joseph Hooker for" why not give Heintzelman's rank here like the others?
    • @Donner60: - would you be able to look at your copy of Eicher's Civil War High Commands for Heintzelman's promotion dates? Warner only gives the date of rank of May 5 1862 for MG, but I assume that's a backdating like always. Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Hog Farm: -This is an odd one. Originally nominated major general USV July 5, 1862 to rank from July 4, 1862, confirmed July 14, 1862, appointed July 16, 1862. But: on January 16, 1863, commission changed to rank from May 5, 1862. Same appointment date of July 16, 1862. Nominated (for change of rank date) March 12, 1863, Confirmed March 13, 1863. Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8047-3641-1. Page 703. Thus, Heintzelman's grade at the Battle of Seven Pines would have been brigadier general. (Brig. Gen. USV appointed May 27, 1861 to rank from May 17, 1861, nominated July 31, 1861, confirmed August 3, 1861. Eicher, page 723.) Donner60 (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a lot of unneeded detailing of specific regiments/brigades when that information is not really needed. I've detailed a few examples above, but there are many others - suggest a good look through to remove more instances. This detracts from the focus on the subject of the article
    • I've taken a general trimming, including the examples of bloat identified above. Hog Farm _Talk 04:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another staff officer claimed to have later encountered Ward on the caisson and to have directed him to leave the conveyance and attempt to rally his men." reads very stilted to me - perhaps "Another staff officer claimed to have seen Ward on the caisson and to have suggested he dismount and attempt to rally his men."
    • Done
  • "A Confederate shell fragment gave Ward a head wound not long before the attack began, and his men succeeded in temporarily breaking the Confederate line, but were not sufficiently supported and were forced to withdraw." the first part of this sentence is ... not at all connected to the second part. Suggest rephrasing
    • Done. I personally wonder if modern medicine would have drawn a connection between this head injury and Ward's erratic behavior a few days later, but of course the sources don't speculate about that. Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
• Spot checks:
  • "He was promoted to sergeant major in 1845." is sourced to this source which supports the information
  • "Ward saw further action in an engagement at Kelly's Ford and in the Battle of Wapping Heights after Gettysburg." is sourced to tha above source which it supports.
  • "Ward was never brought to trial; historian Harry W. Pfanz suggests that this was due to his multiple wounds and long military career." is sourced to Pfanz p. 492 footnote 9 - where it actually is pp. 491-492 footnote 9, as footnote 9 spans two pages (quibble, I know) but the source supports the information.
    • Corrected. Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: - Thanks for the review! I think this one is ready for a second look now. Hog Farm _Talk 01:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These all work. Promoting this article now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]