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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
move link to West Virginia to first mention in the lead
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.
"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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
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)reply
"In this battle, brigade commander Colonel William H. Powell rode with Colonel Capehart and the 1st West Virginia Cavalry"
"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)reply
suggest "part of a cavalry brigade (Powell's)"→"part of Powell's cavalry brigade"
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)reply
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."
"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)reply
"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,"
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)reply
suggest "As Henry Capehart, commander of Custer's 3rd Brigade,"
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)
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Given it's Brady's image, this looks like another one for PD-old-100.
Peacemaker67
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Added category PD files for review to
file. If it ever gets reviewed and confirmed as OK, I will add it back in.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
move link to West Virginia to first mention in the lead
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.
"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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
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)reply
"In this battle, brigade commander Colonel William H. Powell rode with Colonel Capehart and the 1st West Virginia Cavalry"
"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)reply
suggest "part of a cavalry brigade (Powell's)"→"part of Powell's cavalry brigade"
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)reply
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."
"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)reply
"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,"
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)reply
suggest "As Henry Capehart, commander of Custer's 3rd Brigade,"
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)
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Given it's Brady's image, this looks like another one for PD-old-100.
Peacemaker67
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Added category PD files for review to
file. If it ever gets reviewed and confirmed as OK, I will add it back in.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply