Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indiana in the American Civil War/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:11, 22 November 2008 [1].

Indiana in the American Civil War[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Bedford his Forest

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I feel it has covered ever possible ting it could covered, is interesting, is suitably referenced, and one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Gen. Bedford his Forest 02:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found a better source for Boggstown. The other dead link was to an SCV official page I found in 2003 when I originally wrote this for a term paper; I'm trying to find a better source. Civilwarindiana.com was done by Craig Dunn, who wrote the book Iron Men, Iron Will: The Nineteenth Indiana Regiment of the Iron Brigade; as a published author, he can be considered reliable. I am working on the references.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 04:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
There are a lot of typos and some inconsistent capitalization (particularly on north/North and south/South). Like Juliancolton, I am concerned about the quality of some of the sources, and there is a whole lot of inconsistent formating of references, some contained within footnotes and some in the references section.
I wonder about the accuracy of some of the text. According to some sources, for example, Indiana was the fifth largest northern state.
This is accurate. see [2] Census of 1860, Indiana was the fourth most population of all the states, not just the north. See page 2. Charles Edward 17:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using the link, Gen'l, I count 4 other Northern states with more population and 1 Southern state. Madman (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. Corrected.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 04:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed to: "the fourth-highest population in the Union, fifth-highest of all states". No, it was the fifth-highest in the Union and the sixth-highest of all. Madman (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about now?--Gen. Bedford his Forest 13:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well! I feel like a fool. You are correct indeed. I should have looked at my own source a little harder. :S Thank you for pointing that out. Charles Edward 13:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am also concerned about the inherent quality of the prose and the article itself. I'll try to pick up some examples in my next read-thru. Madman (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is aside from comments that Julian himself brought up. If North/South referred to the individual combatants, I capitalized North and South; otherwise, they are uncapitalized. (I can fix this if it's a problem). Some of the sources I will have to track down in the next day or two, as I got them back in 2003.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 05:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Which edition of Funk's Hoosiers in the Civil War are you using? Please give publisher information in the references.
  • Current ref 21 (Gore) needs a page number
  • Current ref 8 (Funk (1967) needs a page number
  • Current ref 17 (Baxter) needs a page number
  • Current ref 20 needs a page number (Weber)
  • http://www.inct.net/~german/inscv/csind.htm deadlinks
  • It is p. for a single page, and pp. for more than one page, right now you're occasionally using pp. for one page.
  • There are unsourced statements of opinion lurking... The first sentence of Conflicts, the last sentence of the second paragraph of Indiana regiments, the last sentence of politics, the last sentence of the first paragraph of republican takeover...
  • Unrelated to sourcing, but I have some concerns about how particular regiments were selected for inclusion?
    • I added most of the section . I picked the regiments rather arbitrarily. The were quite a few listed in my sources, and I choose the ones that seem most notable. Saving the army at Gettysburg was a big deal, the Iron Brigade was a big deal, and it is worth noting the only black regiment. I was looking to have a sampling of the more notable ones.Charles Edward 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section feels very skimpy. HOw many regiments in total did they raise? How many were for the south? How many fought in which armies? More in the west or more in the east? Which regiments had the most casulties? How many never saw combat? Lots of information that is left out. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I have a source for that kind of information.. But there were about 175 regiments in total, about 210,000 soldiers, the overall figures are in there. None were for the south, all for the north. That information is listed in an earlier section. I will see what I can dig up, but to cover every regiment would be lengthy and difficult, and probably better as it's own article. Charles Edward 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have expanded the section a bit to give more info on the regiments as a whole. I will look for some more info, but is what I added what you had in mind? Charles Edward 23:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All refs save for Funk's is correct, and I plan to get a copy of Funk's book from the Indiana University Southeast's library tonight. The pp vs. p should be corrected now. The deadlink was to a page created by a chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, so the info will have to be resourced, or removed.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I don't think the subject matter is as accessible as it could be; speaking as an American (born Northerner and a Floridian transplant), even I have no idea what some of these phrases/events/timelines signify. For example, both "Copperhead activity" and "western theater" in the lead need to be contextualized. I'm not sure that "Union" vs. "Confederate" is defined as well as it could be, either, but it's hard to tell because I'm of course familiar with these terms. More broadly speaking, the American Civil War, as well as its causes and effects, are not described fully. Oh, and where is Indiana even located in the US? Perhaps a map showing Indiana in regards to the Union and Confederacy would help? All of these comments are just from the lead -- it becomes more confusing as the article continues. I think perhaps the article should be read by an outsider, as I fear that non-Americans (and perhaps even some Americans) would be completely lost. María (habla conmigo) 12:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment to your comment, I don't want to burden this article with matters that are out of scope. For example, anyone interested in (or ignorant of) Copperheads could easily click the link. Similarly, where Indiana is in regards to the United States could be determined by the Indiana link. And "the American Civil War as well as its causes and effects" should not be fully described in this article. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is internally linked. Madman (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I believe that the beauty (to use your word) of a Featured Article is that it is comprehensive; just as how uncommon terms are defined within articles, certain historical events and even geographical areas must be properly summarized in order to provide context. We should not expect readers to click back and forth between an FA and various supplemental articles when all it takes is a a few words to adequately describe what a "Copperhead" is or where "Indiana" is situated in the US. The article is not too long so as to worry about getting wordy or off topic; in fact, it may be too brief. María (habla conmigo) 15:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the Simplified English Wikipedia either.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After removing the deadlink, which I have just done, what else is left to do?--Gen. Bedford his Forest 07:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments — Could you add a bit more about POW camps in the state? I saw Camp Morton was mentioned, but there were several others, too. I'd also suggest moving the linkbox about states in the Civil War up to the top, next to the Indiana flag graphic. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... doesn't look like the linkbox will fit. If there's a way to create a modified one, that could be the way to go. I'm working on copyediting the article, and once I'm finished, I'd be more than happy to offer support. If I make any changes you disagree with, let me know, and we can work it out. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problems with your edits. I moved the long linkbox to where it is in most of the series, and moved another pic to a better place. I'm not finding any more ACW POW camps in Indiana; maybe you were thinking of ones in Illinois or Ohio (easy to do). Camp Atterbury was WWII, not ACW.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 05:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was one in Lafayette, Indiana that I know of, but I'm fairly certain that there were more ... can't remember them off the top of my head, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work. I'm continuing to edit, and have dropped in [citation needed]s in a few different spots. I'd also suggest putting a bit about the construction/idea behind the Soldiers' and Sailors' Memorial in the aftermath section, as well as the rise of the Klan as an outgrowth of the Knights of the Golden Circle. That last part doesn't have to be that detailed, but most histories draw a pretty straight line from the Golden Circle to the Sons of Liberty and all those other "white power" successor groups, leading up to the Klan electing one of their own for governor in the '20s. Once those are taken care of, we should be good to go. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fact tags have been fixed, and the monument was discussed. We just did an Indiana Klan article, but as the Klan seemed to have been spawned in Indiana from the main chapter of Klan, and not particularly the Golden Circle, I simply added a link to the Indiana Klan at the See also section. That should do it.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 08:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I'll have to check out that Indiana Klan article. A friend of mine did a doctoral dissertation on that subject, and the way he presented it made it seem so darkly fascinating that I've been interested in that subject since then. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I imagine most of the book sources have ISBNs. Please record them. ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for Clarksville in Vintage Postcards, I added an ISBN for every book that had one. The Findling one was small press by a professor from my alma mater, and the rest were too old. The Clarksville one I probably saw at Green Tree Mall and noted the author, title, and pg., but all online sources for ISBN only register the Clarksville in Tennessee, not Indiana's.. Tomorrow I'll try to see if they still have that book.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All over, there were quite a few red links. That's not a big problem by itself, but it just seems red links don't add much to the article. If you know those articles will be put up shortly then perhaps keep them, but if you have no plans on them at all then perhaps taking them down would improve the article. This one could just be my opinion so think about it carefully and do what you feel is best.
  • In the Indiana Regiments section: It was the only black regiment formed in Indiana during the war and lost 212 men during the conflict. Is there a citation for this?
  • In the Southern Influence section: He was the last senator to be expelled from the Senate. Is there a citation for this?
  • In the Conflict with the Democrats: After that, said Confederate Colonel Basil W. Duke, "The Copperheads and Vallandighammers fought harder (against us) than the others."[34] Is the (against us) added by you? If it was, maybe it should be [against us], I'm not sure if that works in wikipedia.
  • In the Southern Sympathizers section: The records of the Indianapolis National Guard indicate three men decided to join the Confederacy. Do you have a citation for this? In fact, look at that whole paragraph and make sure it's cited well it seems kind of iffy.
  • The references: there's a lot of inconsistences. Some have spaces after commas, some don't, some have spaces after p. or pp.,some don't. Make them all consistent.

That's all of them for now, good job so far in the article. --Banime (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your concerns have been addressed. Two red links could be decent articles, so I left them.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 19:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After the many improvements to the article about the concerns above, both from me and other editors, and my final readthrough and copy edit of the article, I support this for featured article class according to the featured article criteria. The prose has improved a lot from the last copyedits. --Banime (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, unspaced emdashes (in the lead), and WP:ACCESS issues on image layout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have fixed the dashes in the intro. The only image that seems to violate WP:ACCESS is the map image, which forces a larger image size. But to remove that parameter would the image much to small to get anything meaningful out of it. Charles Edward 23:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the map cannot be made any smaller and still be useful within the context of the article. Madman (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just shrank the image from 350px to 300px. I've found 300px to not be problematic.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 14:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the WP:ACCESS issues. Named refs are not used for repeat citations (see WP:FN). This FAC doesn't appear to have had an image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Named refs are fixed per WP:FN.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 01:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns:
  • Image:Indiana civil war map.jpg - needs a reference. Though you may have created it in a computer program, the information about troop movements came from somewhere. You can place that in the "Source" line in parentheses. Please consider expanding the summary a bit to explain what the map means.
  • 80 Indiana Regiment.jpg - needs a source link. It's highly unlikely you scanned this image from Harper's Weekly directly. Just a link to where it was downloaded from (or the most reliable online source that shows it).
  • Image:9th Indiana Infantry Co A 05-0348a.gif - the rationale and summary information in this file is messy. Can you use the structure from Image:80 Indiania Regiment.jpg to make it neater, but fill in the proper applicable information for this image?
  • Image:JesseDBright.jpg has very little summary information. You can use the summary template from Image:Oliver Hazard Perry Morton - Brady-Handy.jpg as a guide, and fill in the applicable information for this image.
  • The PD info for Image:Soldiers Sailors Mon IN 1898.jpg is confusing. Says it was taken by the National Park Service in 1898, but since the NPS wasn't created until 1916, some fancy temporal distortion antics were abounding. You can change the permissions to {{PD US}} since the image was taken long before 1923. Please make sure the image has a summary template similar to the others in the article.
  • Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want the source for the map on the image's page, or on the IN ACW page?--Gen. Bedford his Forest 18:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image page, please. Caption would be fine, too but not as necessary as the image page. --Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool; will do after lunch. The other image problems I took care of.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 18:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't want to see this right now, but a search of "Harper's Weekly" and "H. Mosler" calls into question if that image is of the 80th Indiana. This source says its in Perryville, Kentucky and the only Indiana mentioned is the 23rd. The caption for the image itself does not mention 80th Indiana or Indiana at all. Sorry to ruin your afternoon, but I thought you might want to take care of it before it appears on the main page and Civil War buffs load up muskets to point at you for the inaccuracy. --Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with another image.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 20:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All images either fixed, or replaced with unproblematic images.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 01:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checking back: I struck two more, but Image:9th Indiana Infantry Co A 05-0348a.gif needs a source indicating where it was downloaded from. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added source.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 23:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week; any more responses?--Gen. Bedford his Forest 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may want to contact the editor who opposed the article. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did; no response, although he hasn't been on much since then.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 07:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thing I'm out of line here, but I took a peek at your article and the first sentence made my mouth drop open...

"Indiana, a state in the Midwestern United States, played an important role during the American Civil War. Despite significant anti-war activity in the state and southern Indiana's ancestral ties to the Southern Confederacy, it did not secede from the Union."

Come on. This is written as if Indiana were a slave holding border state and it was seriously considering seceding from the union. Sorry, I couldn't read the rest of the article without stopping and dropping a line. It looks good, and I guess everyone else thinks it good.

BUT I would recast it thusly:

"Indiana, a state in the Midwestern United States, played an important role for the Union during the American Civil War despite significant anti-war activity in the state, and southern Indiana's sympathetic and ancestral ties to the South."

hard to have ancestral ties to something that only existed for 4 years, when "The South" had been around a long time and sympathetic points more toward some reluctance.

Anyway. Good luck. Ismaelbobo (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did modify the intro.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 17:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Still got that danged "did not secede from the Union." It's throwaway phraseology. Despite the draft riots in New York in July 1863, it didn't secede from the Union. ;-). Once I get through my first article, you can come and give me heck too. Check my user page to see what I'm working on sometime. Cheers.Ismaelbobo (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the "secede" comment in order to help non-US readers, who might appreciate that reminder.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 18:18, 14 November 2008 (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_candidates/Indiana_in_the_American_Civil_War/archive1&oldid=1136097100"