Talk:Battle of Corydon/GA1

Good Article Review for 'Battle of Corydon'

Hi,

• Lead - You need to develop the lead some more. Most leads are two to three paragraphs or say 15 to 25 lines deep. While the length is not the official criteria, this criteria does show that you can lengthen this lead without fear of it being too long. The present lead is interesting to read and tantalising to a reader by giving a good setting for plunging into the article, but it does not summarise the battle well. What is the test for this? Place a sheet of paper over your screen and read the lead. If having done this you get a broad, concise, accurate and relevant idea of the subject matter in the rest of the article (which is hidden by your paper), then your lead passes. If you don't get such an idea, there is need to develop it further. Done
• Referencing - I favour this alternative method of general referencing as it gives a neater and more methodical presentation than the simple referencing style followed herein. This would be a good style improvement thing to do.  Done
• Images - The images present seem inadequate to me. They don't seem to illustrate the wiki very well. It's a subjective feeling, if you understand what I mean. Just Image Googling on 'Battle of Corydon' turned up this, amongst many others:

• Bragg's image.
• Image of Battle of Corydon.
• Also Wikimedia Commons suggested this as a good source for free (as in freedom of speech) Civil War photos.

Now since these are most likely to be public domain images due to age of images, it would be well worth your effort to locate a few images, check that they are public domain, place them on WM Commons or WP (fair use)((last resort only)) and use a few images to spruce up the article.

Morgan's existing photo can also be used without hassle. Done

Would it be possible to get a 'rogue's gallery' with Morgan, Lewis, Morton etc?

Is Corydon near where you stay? Sometimes one can go on a wiki-image errand.No action required for GA review.

Any chance of more images? AshLin (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Often I find 'cite' template clunky, instead I use {{aut|Morgan, Col JH}} for the author which will give this effect: No action required.

Morgan, Col JH, An account of the Great Confederate Raid in Indiana (2009). Hoosier Books, Indianapolis.

More Later,

Good editing and bon chance, AshLin (talk)

I do live near the battlesite, but the only thing there of interest is the cabin and memorial already pictured. Intend to take some photos at the reenactment later this year. We could probably fit another image, but because of the short length of the article, I think additional images might look cluttered. I have also reformatted the references to look neater. Charles Edward (Talk) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. My view is that a wiki should have the images needed for it to satisfy the reader . What would a reader want to see if he is reading only a plain-vanilla text wiki of the Battle?

• Maps - Two maps are already present in this case, one of the Raid and one of the Battle. Nice ones clearly illustrating the wiki.
• Personalities - We have only one person's image. Preferably we should have Col Jordan's image and perhaps Richard Morgan's image too.
• Image of Battlefield, memorial, etc.
• Images of Indiana Legion and Morgan's elite light cavalry.
• Historical images of Morgan's cavalry raid if possible with caption marrying the image suitably to our text.
• Image of some of the weapons or equipment playing an important role (gunboats, 10 pounder Parrot's Rifles, Henry rifles.

Since the wiki is small, images may be more than the text; in that case it is appropriate to have them organised in a gallery or galleries.

More

• Shouldn't the the first mention of Corydon, Indiana come in the lead itself rather than halfway down the article at the end of first section?  Done
  • done Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Split the large central paragraph of Prelude into smaller ones.  Done
  • done Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is the Prelude a mite oversized & detailed? You could thin down details of the crossing at Maukport as it would IMHO be more relevant to the article on Morgan's Raid. You take the judgment call.  Done
  • done Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Shouldn't some of the following be wikified : Done
  • Union.
    • The first instance of the word is wikified Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Indiana Legion.
    • The first instance of the word is wikified Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 6th Regiment of the Indiana Legion.
    • The only notable thing about this unit is what is already in this article, it is likely an article by that name will never be wrote. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Col. Lewis Jordan.
    • The only notable thing about Col. Jordan is what is in this article, he is not notable enough to warrent his own article. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Maj. McGrain.
    • Same as Jordan, Sources do not even mention his first name. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Capt. George Lahue.
    • Same as previous two. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 2nd Kentucky & 9th Tennessee regiments.
    • No article exists for either of those two units, red links would not be of any value to the reader. Those links could be added when such an article exists. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is 'cannon' an appropriate wikilink for an 'artillery section'? Done
  • The "artillery" were four small cannons of the 1860s time period. Cannon is the most accurate article. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• What happened to the Indiana legion and Col Jordan after the Battle? I think this is something that the reader may want to know. Done
  • The legion went on to later become the Indiana Guard Reserve as several other name changes. That information is available on the Indiana Legion article. None of my sources give any information about what happened to Col. Jordan. The people just went back to their farms after the battle. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• You may also like to mention about the ultimate futility of Morgan's raid, despite his tactical victory at Corydon, in a closing sentence about Morgan and his Confederates. Done
  • The article describes how is army was later defeated and captured in the aftermath section. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• In Prelude, you may like to add a little information about state of Indiana's preparedness before the raid and whether they expected operations to extend onto Hoosier territory.Your response to this one?  Done
  • I have included a little information from the Indiana in the American Civil War article that explains Indiana's military situation and ability to handle the raid. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is mention of Cedar Glade required? If so, then qualify it with a defining clause so that a person understands what it is., e.g. Cedar Glade, a large residence to the northwest of Corydon, still in existence today and which is a declared National Heritage building. Done
  • Done. Is notable because they actually have the spot were the shot landed marked. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• You need to add details of composition of the 6th Regiment at the beginning of the section 'The attack'. The reader gets confused when he hears at the end that cavalry and mounted infantry of the Legion were also present and were/were not captured. This raises questions - Were these part of the 6th Regt? Attached? Regular Union detachments? Did they have artillery? etc. Done
  • Clarified. A small calvary group arrived before the battle, no information on how many. The infantry that escaped on horses were those who rode away on whatever horses they could grab or had rode into town to join the militia. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Who is Larry Steepleton? What is the significance of his death that he is mentioned by name, especially as his name does not appear before or after? If he is notable, he should be introduced into the text. If not, don't mention his name but just mention that the Confederates had a casualty. Done
  • Removed his name Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Instead of: Done

On the east wing of the works, the men were equipped with Henry rifles capable of firing 14 rounds before reloading. The effects of their superior rate of fire allowed the company of the thirty men on the far eastern end of the works to hold back the Confederates for twenty minutes, preventing an easy flanking maneuver.

this may work better:

The initial attempts of the Confederates to outflank the Legion positions at the far eastern end of the works from the East were delayed for twenty minutes principally due to the superior rate of fire of the thirty Legion soldiers, who were equipped with Henry rifles capable of firing 14 rounds before reloading.

• • done Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Any Congressional Medals of Honour? Other medals? Public Commendations by the President or Governor? Done
  • None are mentioned in my sources. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't Corydon part of the Indiana state's John Hunt Morgan Heritage Trails? You could mention this in addition to the factoid about Battlefield being a memorial. A link to the website be added in external links. Done
  • Done Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please order the references alphabetically as per surnames. The Terell reference needs to trail its initials. Done
  • done Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please move the full form of the Bush, Jenkins and Wolfe links to the references section. In the <ref>..</ref> inline footnoting give abbreviated references only.Pending Done

More later...

AshLin (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Still more

• Reference check by me.  Done
• NPOV.  Done
• Check image licenses.  Done
• Stable. Checked.

* OK, just kill that pending point of texts mentioned in footnotes to be shifted to references so that I can wrap up the assessment. Additional images may be added later. GA is only a step forward to FA so please keep up the good work.

AshLin (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a GA!

Congrats, please bring it up to A class soon! AshLin (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Charles Edward (Talk) 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)