Talk:George Meade/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Hog Farm _Talk 03:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 00:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this over the weekend. I'm moderately familiar with Meade and own print copies of a few of the sources, so I figured I'd go ahead and review this. Hog Farm _Talk 00:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For starters:

rootsweb is not a reliable source
history.com is no longer considered a reliable source
hmdb is not RS
" "10 Things You Didn't Know About the Cast of Lost". www.thethings.com. www.thethings.com. Retrieved February 8, 2023." - probably not a reliable source
the in popular culture section should almost certainly be removed - these are all trivial things that don't warrant a mention in an article of this form
the notable relatives should be worked into the prose somewhere, not just thrown in as a list (this would probably best be done by mentioning his wife/children briefly and then stating that those folks are descended from him)
In 1869, following Grant's inauguration as president, Sherman succeeded him to the rank of General of the Army, opening up the Lieutenant General rank. At the time, the senior-most Major Generals were Halleck (who, by then, was an outcast), and then Meade. Before the inauguration, Meade met with Grant and intimated that he felt most deserving of the rank, by virtue of merit and seniority; nevertheless, Grant nominated Sheridan to the rank over the senior Meade, and the latter effectively served in semi-retirement as the commander of the Military Division of the Atlantic from his home in Philadelphia - this entire paragraph is sourced only to a one-page book review, which doesn't support this content
There's a couple CN tags that should have been resolved before taking this to GAN
Meade, despite his aggressive performance in lesser commands in 1862, had become a more cautious general - While Rhea p. 259 does discuss Meade not wanting to attack fortifications, it doesn't make this contrast that I'm seeing
"although the aggressive maneuvering that eventually cornered Lee in the trenches around Petersburg were Grant's initiative as well" - Rhea p. 14 is discussing mid-May performances and makes no mention of Petersburg
"The four generals, Reynolds, John Sedgwick, Henry Slocum, and Winfield Hancock, recommended him for command of the army and agreed to serve under him despite outranking him" - not seeing how this is entirely support by Tagg pp. 2-3, which references Reynolds, Slocum, and Darius Couch as the three generals who recommended Meade and indicated willingness to serve under him
"and was brevetted to first lieutenant for gallant conduct at the Battle of Monterrey" - Warner p. 316 doesn't state why he received this brevet
"At the Battle of Antietam, Meade assumed command of the I Corps after Hooker was wounded and the ranking division commander, James B. Ricketts, was injured when his horse was shot from underneath him" - while Eicher does mention Meade taking command of the I Corps, Eicher doesn't have the detail about the injuries to Hooker and Ricketts. The other cited source, Warner, doesn't have those details either
Several instances of opinions needing inline attribution to the authors who stated these things: In all of these cases, Grant bears some of the responsibility for approving Meade's plans, but Meade's performance was not at the same level of competence he displayed on other occasions and He has been accused of not being aggressive enough in pursuit of Confederate forces,

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to quick-fail this one. With uncited text, unreliable sources, and spots where not all of the content is supported by the sources, these needs a fair bit of work before it's close to GA status. If you disagree with my decision to quick-fail, you can ask for a second hearing at WT:GAN. Hog Farm _Talk 03:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.