Talk:Battle of Corydon

Question
According to this site, the battle of Corydon is one of only two battles fought on northern soil (the other being Gettysburg). If that is accurate it would be worth mentioning in the article. However, is it accurate? And if so by what definition?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other "battles", but wouldnt Battle of Buffington Island and the Battle of Salineville be northern, or do these not qualify as a battle as? Charles Edward 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Antiem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.216.103 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

battle map


I have made this map. Any suggestions for improvements? Charles Edward (Talk) 15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. Unit labels:  Defender is the Sixth Indian Legion under Colonel Lewis Jordan.  The attacking brigade was under Stovepipe Johnson according to Matthews.  The rebs first attacked the Indiana left, and were repelled by the "Spencer Guards" under Captain George Lahue (according to Terrell).  The rebs then flank both sides.  The right is defended by Major McGrain, and is armed with 16 Henry rifles (according to Wolfe).  Senour called it the "Henry Rifle Company".  Citizens and other companies in the center, with a ravine out front of them to halt any direct cavalry charge.  Really, not much of a contest.  Green farmers against seasoned cavalry with artillery support.  The cavalry flank them, the artillery fires, and the line breaks.  Senour quotes Wolfe "This shelling operation, together with the fact that our line was about to be flanked on both wings at the same time made it necessary, for the safety of our men, that they should fall back.  This they did, not with the best order, it is true, but with excellent speed".  It was over in 25 minutes, and the confederates had left Cordon after only five hours.  Hot knife through butter. -J JMesserly (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more personal accounts of the battle here. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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.✅
 * 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. ✅
 * 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.✅
 * 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 🇦🇹 for the author which will give this effect: No action required.
 * 🇦🇹, 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 Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Shouldn't some of the following be wikified :✅
 * 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'?✅
 * 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.✅
 * 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.✅
 * 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? ✅
 * 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. 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.✅
 * 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.✅
 * Removed his name Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of:✅
 * 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?✅
 * 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 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 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 inline footnoting give abbreviated references only. Pending ✅

More later...

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

Still more

 * Reference check by me. ✅
 * NPOV. ✅
 * Check image licenses. ✅
 * 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)

Reenactment
The battle reenactment will be held twice July 11 and 12, 2009 if anyone is interested in attending. I will be there, and hopefully will get some good photos for the article. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I might get to go. Who knows, we may even meet?-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  21:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be exciting! I expect it to be a couple hours long. I am going, probably even if it rains. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Corydon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927082219/http://www.bryansbush.com/hub.php?page=articles&layer=a0707extra to http://www.bryansbush.com/hub.php?page=articles&layer=a0707extra

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Horwitz & Conway
- Do you know which edition of Horwitz and Conway you were using for this? I was trying to trace The total amount taken by ransom and plunder was estimated at $26,450 back to my paper copy of Horwitz to look for any further details. It's cited to Horwitz p. 57 but p. 57 in my copy of Horwitz isn't about Corydon at all (it's about a skirmish at Pekin, Indiana and Eli Lilly. Page 67 of Horwitz details individual plunder items from Corydon, but those figures only add up to a little less than $13,000. After that, I thought I'd look at some more things:
 * " As the county commissioner exited the courthouse carrying a rifle he was shot dead, becoming the final casualty of the day" - cited on Conway p. 83. Can't find this in Conway. Horwitz p. 66 states that the county commissioner was mortally wounded (not shot dead), but doesn't mention that he was the last casualty or that he was carrying a rifle
 * "Morgan ate lunch at the Kintner House Inn where he read a newspaper and learned of the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg. The news caused him to realize his army was in serious danger; his hosts later said that upon his reading the paper he was "noticeably crestfallen."" - cited to Horwitz p. 59, is Horwitz p. 67 in my edition. As an aside, the quote looks like it should be "visibly crestfallen" instead of "noticeably crestfallen"
 * "At 11:30 a.m. on July 9, the 3rd Regiment Kentucky Cavalry, the advance element of the Confederate forces under the command of Col. Adam R. Johnson, was sighted moving north along the Mauckport Road towards Corydon" - cited to p. 65 of Conway. Conway mentions the Confederates meeting the Union forces, but neither Johnson nor the 3rd Kentucky are mentioned on that page or the several before or after. FWIW, the only 3rd Kentucky Cavalry in Horwitz's index is a Union unit.

For comparison, I'm using a paperback copy of Conway dated 1991, with the isbn listed as 0-925165-03-4. My copy of Horwitz is hardcover and dated 2001, with a listed isbn of 0-9670267-2-5. Hog Farm Talk 00:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello! I have to be honest, I am not sure its been so long ago. I do recall it was a paper copy I had at the time of Conway. I had a copy from local library in Corydon, where I also took the pictures. But if I recall, Conway is probably the most important source I used for this article. I still have the copy of Horwitz and Funk I used, I can check those later and will let you know. Important note: I recall that reviewers at the Tippecanoe FAR found an issue with Funk, and this article is also using Funk as a source - the same book. I am not sure I agree, but the reviewers believed Funk was significantly inaccurate about the battle of Tippecanoe. I will try to take a look at those sources a little later and let you know what I find. I should probably also note, that although I wrote most of this article, I did not write it all. So I would have to dig through edits to figure out what was preexisting, etc. Most of the FA's I wrote were collaborative with other editors in WikiProject Indiana back then. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 20:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, got the books I still have in my possession. Horwitz is the revised edition, its copyright is 2001.
 * Correct on the initial assessment, Horwitz p. 57 does appear to be an incorrect citation. Page 67 does appear to be the correct page, per your comment. And yes, also correct, it appears the math adding up the figures is incorrect and about $13,000 is the correct number. However, in checking other sources - in Funk p. 111, it gives another estimation of $100,00,
 * I don't see "last casualty of the day" either, but I think it is fair to say. He is the last mention of someone being killed.
 * Correct, it is page 67 in my copy too, not 59.
 * I am guessing this is a mix of Conway at also Horwitz p. 62 - however, I don't have Conway in front of my to compare. But does seem to partially be from Horwitz.

Hope that helps. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 21:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, just worth pointing this out: the standards of FA has increased alot over time. There was a point where articles got penalized for "over citing". Generally, reviewers wanted to just see citations at the end of paragraphs, and not on every sentence. And then after the article was copy edited two or three times, sometimes the citation migrated even farther away from their original position. And these articles are really old at this point, they justly deserve a review. I am fine with FAR on these articles and redoing them to the new standards.

But its not really fair to insinuate that there is some kind of nefarious thing going on. (Not that you are.) You are evaluating old articles written to different standards, to present standards. Back then (2007ish), the overwhelming majority of articles on Wikipedia did not have a single citation. And me especially, the way I tended to write back then, was to write the article all out first from personal knowledge, and go back and add citations later. For example, I live in Corydon, I am a local historian, and I have participated in the reenactment of this battle many times. I can just tell the story from memory. Hope that helps explain how this article was first wrote. I don't do that anymore, but I have been around here since 2002 when Wikipedia started.

I am the primary author of over 2000 articles in this encyclopedia under this account and anonymously. And mostly articles like this that pretty well no one even cares they exist, but they are topics that interest me personally. It is ok with me if you want to demote this article from FA. But its not really fair to suggest (not that you are) that editors with topical expertise were operating out of a place of bad faith when we wrote that way in years gone by. The same with the battle of Tippecanoe which was FARed. It also has deep historical ties to this same community, and I am likewise very familiar with that subject as a local historian. (I also disagree that Funk is a bad source, he is another locally well known (now-deceased) historian. But I understand if he don't meet the standards of an FA anymore.)

So I guess my point here is, if you want to demote these articles that is fine, but please don't be displeased with me like I have done something wrong. I am not the one who reviewed these articles and approved them to be FA to begin with. If you have an issue with these articles being an FA, your issue is with the ones who didn't review these articles to your standards. Not the one who wrote the article. And it is really unfair to insinuate one of this communities longest serving editors has gamed the system or something to get articles to FA. (Not that you are... but I definitely sense that tone in some of the other threads on this topic) That said, I am glad to work with you in good faith and try to help you improve them or find the issues to fix. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 21:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to try to help get the citations hammered out down the road. I've done a number of FAs on the Civil War recently so I have a fairly good grasp of the sourcing expectations - I've been looking at the older Civil War FAs because I had to recently completely overhaul Thomas C. Hindman because it contained errors and significant omissions as a FA.  It does look like Funk published a piece in the Indiana Magazine of History back in the 50s, which might help Funk's case.  I just won't be able to do much until after Thanksgiving at the earliest due to work and real life commitments. Hog Farm Talk 22:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * have your concerns about the article been resolved? I see that there are a lot of sources listed in Further reading, possibly indicating that this article is not comprehensive. Is work still happening on this article? If not, should this article go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the further reading except Mingus and Mowery are tangential or primary sources, so that's not a huge concern. I don't know if Mingus would meet the FA sourcing standard from first glance. Mowery is focused on a larger campaign, so I don't know that it would have too much specifically for Corydon. Hog Farm Talk 03:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)