Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Shiloh/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [1].

Battle of Shiloh

[edit]
Notified: Tirronan, WikiProject Military History, Wikiproject Tennessee

Review section

[edit]

This 2007 FA just doesn't meet the FA requirements, at least note anymore. Honestly, there'd be a number of things with this article that I'd require fixing before passing this through a GA review. A number of statements and paragraphs lack citations, such as "Grant's career suffered temporarily in the aftermath of Shiloh; Halleck combined and reorganized his armies, relegating Grant to the powerless position of second-in-command. Beauregard remained in command of the Army of Mississippi and led it back to Corinth. In late April and May, the Union armies, under Halleck advanced slowly toward Corinth and took it in the Siege of Corinth, while an amphibious force on the Mississippi River destroyed the Confederate River Defense Fleet and captured Memphis, Tennessee. Halleck was promoted to be general in chief of all the Union armies and with his departure to the East, Grant was restored to command. The Union forces eventually pushed down the Mississippi River to besiege Vicksburg, Mississippi. After the surrender of Vicksburg and the fall of Port Hudson in the summer of 1863, the Mississippi River came under Union control and the Confederacy was cut in two.", which needs a citation for verification, "For the remainder of the war, the Confederate armies in the West would go through a long string of commanders, much like the Union in the east, as Davis searched for a leader who was the caliber of Robert E. Lee.", and claims of which leaders were killed. There's many of these, I'll try and mark them all with CN tags later. The entire notable veterans section is uncited. 12 external links for a FA probably isn't appropriate, and some of the references are unreliable. A blogspot page is cited here, as are gems such as "lyricsinterpretation.com". There's several self-referencing popular culture things, such as the games. Additionally, there a major reference formatting issues. In the version that exists while I'm writing this, references 1, 17, 18, 28, 39, 40, 45, 49, 60, 129, and 130 are just URLS, nothing else. Other bad refs include "waymarkings.com" and "Essential Civil War Curriculum". Between the formatting, lack of citations, and bad refs, this isn't an FA, and isn't close, either. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Part of footnote 125 reads, "The other references to this article do not make this claim, perhaps due to the uncertainties of the actual casualty figures in the earlier wars," which smacks of WP:OR. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fixed up the formatting a bit, but the article clearly needs a huge amount of work to make FA status for reasons explained by Hog Farm above. For instance, the popular culture section should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. buidhe 17:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problems with this article would be easier to fix than delist. Most of the cns are to uncontroversial statements, for example, Johnston's shrugging off of his wound is easily reliably sourced (and I've done that). essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com is the site of historian Timothy B. Smith, who has written several academic treatments of the battle. Yes, the statements should have been referenced to one of his books, but the nominator should have at least examined the link before referring to the site as a "bad source." Having gone through the concerns raised by the nominator, it appears most of them could simply being resolved by being bold, for example the external links may be excessive but they can simply be removed if necessary and are not a reason for delisting. Several of the uncited paragraphs are mere chronological recitations of subsequent events, such as Lew Wallace's lack of further military advancement and the summary of the Mississippi River campaign up to the fall of Vicksburg - these can be easily cited from the books found at their main articles. As for notable veterans, while the section may be unreferenced now, its claims can easily be verified and referenced. The popular culture section was cluttered with non-notable mentions that were rightly removed, but given the quick fix the problems mentioned do not justify the extreme remedy of delisting. Kges1901 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC) (EDIT: All of the citation needed tags have been resolved in some way, and the flagged unreliable sources removed.)[reply]
Sourcing and citation

The first citation is unformatted, and this doesn't look reliable.[2] (Quick glance only, not a comprehensive list of sourcing or citation issues, but indications that a check is needed.) And many citation formatting issues, samples:

  • The Orphan Brigade having received a few Enfields is cited to an 1898 brigade history, but I have removed the specific mention as there were also other Confederate regiments with Enfields, and there is no reason to single out the Orphan Brigade in this case. There is secondary discussion of the weapons, however, and I have added the relevant citation. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's some other sourcing issues, too. I just noticed that Ref 135 seems to be citing another Wikipedia article. That's yikes in a FA. Hog Farm (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have removed the statement in question as it is based on official casualty figures which have been questioned and it basically states that the war intensified and continued which is already known to those familiar with the Civil War, and implied later. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, numerous issues. External link and Further reading farms suggest the article may not be comprehensive or updated; multiple cite ref errors and incomplete or poorly formatted citations (samples: "The Battle of Shiloh". and [1] American Battlefield Trust "Saved Land" webpage. Accessed May 25, 2018); MOS issues (markup in section headings which are also poorly named, missing converst and NBSPs); deficient prose (as a sample, see this section); text hidden in a template; one entire paragraph is a single quote in the "Battle" April 7 section. "In his memoirs, Grant intimated that ... " followed by a direct quote ?? It looks like this was once a fine article, as the bones are there, but the disrepair is everywhere. The version that passed FAC in 2007 did not have some of these glaring issues, and was 4,500 words; the current version, at 7,900 words, has been damaged and the content should be re-reviewed by MILHIST. I doubt it would pass GA, and do not believe this article can be repaired in the course of a FAR. Sad when the original writer moves on and once fine work deteriorates. Perhaps a rewrite will involve a revert and starting over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, style and sourcing. 17:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm could you please update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: My computer is in the shop, I'll give this a close combat through once I get it back. Hog Farm Bacon 19:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Issues

Background and plans

Given that this level two heading only contains a level three heading, there's some structure issues here. Some background information before February 1862 would also be helpful, it picks up rather abruptly a year in as is.
  • I have removed the level three heading as I don't think we need a non-military context for this as Shiloh is a battle not the war in general. Thoughts on my summary of the Western Theater situation? Kges1901 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great. Thanks

Throughout the article there's some minor copy edit issues, especially with current MILHIST MOS (for instance "Shiloh Campaign" vs. "Shiloh campaign"), but these would be rather easy fixes.

File:Shiloh Battle Apr6pm.png is made by a Wikipedia user, but it's unclear what sources User:Hlj used to create the map, so the accuracy of the map is undetermined.

Several of the other maps are also Hlj creations without any sourcing where Jesperson got the information. The user seems to be very knowledgeable about the subject matter, but the maps are still user-generated without clear sourcing.

  • The argument you make about Jespersen is repeatedly made and honestly I think that his credentials should be added to map descriptions in order to clear this up so that the following does not need to be stated again. Jespersen is a professional cartographer who makes these maps for a living, unlike most other users creating maps. Jespersen created new maps that were used in William Glenn Robertson's River of Death: The Chickamauga Campaign, published in 2018 by University of North Carolina Press. In Slaughter at the Chapel: The Battle of Ezra Church, 1864 by Gary Ecelbarger (University of Oklahoma Press, 2018), Jespersen is described as a "professional cartographer" in acknowledgements for creating maps used in the book. Other works include for which he created the maps included David Powell, All Hell Can't Stop Them: The Battles for Chattanooga-Missionary Ridge and Ringgold, November 24-27, 1863 (Savas Beatie, 2018), Sean Michael Chick, The Battle of Petersburg (U of Nebraska Press, 2015), Mellott and Snell, Seventh West Virginia (UP of Kansas, 2019), Jones et al., Gateway to the Confederacy (LSU Press, 2014), Dunham, Allegany to Appomattox (Syracuse UP, 2013), Faust, Conspicuous Gallantry (Kent State UP, 2015). I think these are pretty impeccable credentials that go above the normal standard in WP. Kges1901 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The Aftermath section relies very heavily on Grant's personal memoirs, which is not really independent and is a touch biased towards Grant's viewpoint.

The Significance section could use expansion, this was a very important battle.

More structure issues: the level two sections Honors and commemoration and In popular culture are too brief to be stand-alone level two sections.

References

A total mess. Formatting is way off. A mixture of short and long citations, no real consistency. Most of the web citations are missing key things such as authors, publishers, dates, etc. A mixture of SFNs and other citation styles, no consistency whatsoever.
Not sure that "erenow.com examination prep materials" is particularly reliable, especially with the plethora of reliable sources on this topic.
See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that master's thesis is far from the best source available.
Can't tell how reliable greatamericanhistory.net is, unsure of "by Gordon Leidner of Great American History" credentials. Again, far better sources can be found for this topic.
Unsure about Scout.com, looks to be different than Scout.com
The 7th Arkansas Infantry.com is not a good source.
Waymarking is not reliable.
Grant's memoirs are cited in multiple different ways

Further reading is a formatting mess.

Several periodicals such as the Blue and Grey are cited, but need ISSN numbers.

Nevin, the Time-Life books author, is cited 8 times. Time-Life isn't a terrible source, but there are far better scholarly works to choose from. Looking at the further reading bloat, it seems pretty clear this article uses lower-quality print and online sources in several places, ignoring better available scholarship.

There's a lot of work yet here to be done. Hog Farm Bacon 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: You make some crucial points. I'll take a crack at the formatting and information of the sources and then come back to discuss reliability and the other issues further. Aza24 (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: The formatting of sources and references should be good now, although I couldn't find ISSN numbers for the two Blue and Grey articles. Some things that perhaps Tirronan could clarify: I'm confused what the "Official Records, Series I, Volume X, Part 1" refers to, is it in reference to the "U.S. War Department, The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1880–1901." – because the link for that is here rather than a specific article/book. I'm also unsure which edition of Grant's memoirs is used for citations like 28 and 112, is this the book cited in ref 106 or 94? Aza24 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Link's wrong for the ORs. The citation looks to be reasonably correct, I'll try to find the correct link over the next couple days. Basically, the ORs are original military reports organized into large books. There's fifty or sixty some volumes. Hog Farm Bacon 03:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Wondering if you might have a chance soon to look through the correct link? Also, for you and Kges1901 any thoughts on removing the In popular culture section completely? At the moment it's a just an essay about Shiloh, a poem that depicts Shiloh (but also most of the Civil war...) and a movie that depicts Shiloh but among many other events. Seems mostly trivial and containing things that are not particularly notable. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, the references to the battle in the pop culture section are tangential to the battle itself and they do not receive coverage in secondary sources about the battle itself. As a result, I would agree with removing the section as it is thus inevitably a magnet for trivia. Kges1901 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Kges. Nix it. I forgot about that OR link, I'll hunt it down tonight. Hog Farm Bacon 00:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: - I believe the correct link is [3]. In order to fit the source consistency requirement, the OR citations should probably be something like "Official Records 1884 p. xxx" with a full citation in the sources section. I'm getting 1884 for this volume from [4]. 1884 should be used, instead of the range, because a specific volume is being cited. Hog Farm Bacon 01:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as no one seems willing to take up the mantle and fix this up. Just a casual glance reveals basic issues with the source formatting etc. No comments in two months? --Laser brain (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laser brain: I meant to get back to this but I have no idea how to it took me so long. I've finished going through the formatting and the citations are considerably better than before the FARC. That being said I've compiled a list of less than ideal ones (reliability wise), including: 33, 44, 54, 77, 80, 81, 98 and 118 – Hog Farm you would be welcome to look into them but I wonder if perhaps posting on the MilHist talk page could attract some help. In my mind, if these issues are resolved the article would be in good shape. Aza24 (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24: Thanks for your work on this! The citations still wouldn't pass a basic source review at FAC. For example, fn 35 and 46 are just URLs with no other information. Some others lack a publisher, and I have questions about whether they are reliable (for example, fn 98). --Laser brain (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24 and Laser brain: - Still seeing significant issues. Several citations are only only the URL/title, I'm not sure that civilwarlandscapes.com and 7tharkansas.com are high-quality RS (or even RS), Carlson's master's thesis may not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, citations to Grant's memoirs are all over place, cited in many different ways, usually without a page number given, there are several long quotes that I'm not sure add anything (see the final paragraph of the Battle, April 7 (second day: Union counterattack) section for an example). The section comparing the two armies is a little lacking, as there's ample room to mention such things as the artillery disparity. The reactions present have uneven weight - very heavily scaled to the Union perspective, giving little about Confederate reactions. Looks like it should probably be delisted soon, unless significant work is put in place soon, as significant work is needed. Hog Farm Bacon 18:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing issues I could probably deal with but the other ones are out of my depth. Either way, I don't really have the time or motivation to address either set of issues and it doesn't look like anyone else is planning too. I would agree it should be delisted - Aza24 (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Shiloh/archive1&oldid=985443515"