Yes. In a revolution, the population is more or less united against the government. In a civil war, there are two opposing sides, both made up of the general population fighting against each other. One of the factions in a civil war can also be supported by the government, but the point is there are civilians fighting on both sides, whereas in a revolution there are civilians only on one side.
I think there is often mass support for the government during a revolution. There were Americans loyal to the crown during the American revolution, and no shortage of people at least opposed to the revolutionaries during the French revolution (War in the Vendée and so on).
I would suggest the dual of your definition: in a revolution, there are established political actors only one side, whereas in a civil war, they are on both sides. The English civil war looks very much like a revolution (people vs king and nobility), but the fact that parliament was on the people's side makes it a civil war. The American civil war pitted various states against the United States.
Or more broadly, civilians vs. people in power, whether they're a part of the government or not. (E.g. the French revolution which targeted the aristocracy.)
