Talk:Battle of Shiloh/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence (talk · contribs) 09:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

HI. I'll look at this one. expect 2 or 3 weeks instead of 1, though. Cheers. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think the paragraph about Buell beginning "For many years after the battle..." should be in the "Reactions and significance" subsection? I'm not insisting, just wondering aloud. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it fits under the "Beauregard's situation" section, and covers why he did not continue the attack. However, that paragraph could easily be moved to the "Reactions and significance" section between the "On April 8..." and "Halleck, a desk officer with..." paragraphs. I would probably reword the first sentence. No problems here if you think it would be best to put it there. TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that whoever added Note 25 this morning did not put a citation at the end (or anywhere). TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * In the sentence about a politician complaining to Lincoln about Grant, "there's no evidence he was inebriated" seems to be from a modern perspective. Is it? That info would clash, then, with the import of the sentence. It seems to imply that there was no evidence then that Grant was sozzled. Thoughts? &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That "there is no evidence of Grant being inebriated" was added this morning by Beyond My Ken. I am removing it because there is nothing in my citation from McPherson to directly back that up other than McPherson writing "False rumors circulated that Grant was drunk at Shiloh." TwoScars (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also already mention in the first paragraph under Reactions and significance that "false rumors circulated that Grant had been drunk." TwoScars (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The paragraph beginning "Halleck, a desk officer" was originally one long, snaky sentence. When I chopped it up, the one-mile march became a part of the move from Pittsburg Landing to Corinth that took an entire month. Originally the 1-mile march verbiage was located prior to text about the month-long journey, though it seemed a little ambiguous. If it really did take place earlier, I'll have to change that sentence. So was it...? &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * More mess made by Beyond My Ken this morning. Although it is true that Halleck was a desk officer with little field experience, I don't think one can say that without a citation. This is also where he added a Note without a citation. The battle is not about Halleck, and I have always been hesitant to use a citation that covers ten pages. Beyond My Ken removed a simple sentence "Halleck led a reinforced Union army to Corinth, and the Confederates abandoned it on May 30.", with a one-page citation, and added an entire paragraph about Halleck with an uncited note and only one citation that lists 10 pages. I will have to look into this further. TwoScars (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned this up and simplified it. I do not believe that it is necessary, in the Battle of Shiloh, to provide lots of detail about another battle—that can go in the Siege of Corinth article. (Sorry I removed your work on Beyond My Ken's writing.) The uncited note and the extra detail on Halleck are gone. They are replaced (in the last paragraph) with "Waiting until he was fully reinforced and resupplied, Halleck began a "painfully slow" movement to Corinth on April 29. Arriving on the morning of May 30, Union troops found the city abandoned." TwoScars (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. I was just copy editing. When I was doing that, I had no sense yet of whether the text was germane to the overall story. All is good. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've always thought that this was kinda ugly: [25][232][233][26]. Is there a way to merge your harvnb templates together, the way that sfnm does for sfn? &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see now. First sentence in the Casualties section has four citations because the sentence says "multiple sources". I agree that it is ugly. I also don't like citations in the middle of sentences—that is why there are none. I will see if there is a way in the Harvard style to fix that. I also have to search for citations made this morning by Beyond My Ken that do not use Harvard style.TwoScars (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking a break—back later. TwoScars (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Combined the book citations, but left the web citations separate so the web link would work. Looks better. Affects USA and CSA casualties. TwoScars (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I added a citation needed template.
 * Will work on that after a break. The lead section was changed yesterday morning by Beyond My Ken. I usually do not have any notes or citations in the Lead—and any information in the Lead is covered in the main portion of the text. Too much detail in the Lead will ruin the article for many readers. I will compare the earlier version of the Lead to the current, and probably slim it down. TwoScars (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed the Lead so that it was close to what it was a few days ago—much shorter and concise. Anything in the Lead should be covered in the main body of the article. The extra criticisms of Grant mentioned in yesterday's version of the Lead, and historian's opinions of those criticisms, could be added to the Reactions and significance section if necessary. The section could become five paragraphs instead of four. I will write that up in a sandbox in case you believe those are necessary. The criticisms of Beauregard in the old Lead, and historian's opinions of those criticisms, are already mentioned in the Beauregard's situation section. TwoScars (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Added "Among the more justified criticisms of Grant was the lack of fortifications at the camps around Pittsburg Landing, and one historian considers this a critical mistake. At least two of Grant's generals counseled against entrenching, and Grant believed that enemy troops would not leave their own entrenched position." to the end of the first paragraph under Reactions and significance. This addresses the most worthy criticism in the old Lead, and it has citations. TwoScars (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the controversy about Lew Wallace "taking the wrong road" is underdeveloped. Maybe seriously underdeveloped? But surely needs more than a little more time. Daniel has a good discussion. Winston Groom seems to have good details too. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a paragraph at the start of the "Battle, afternoon of April 6" section. Used Daniels as source. TwoScars (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For starters, I think you added "according to Reid, to "Only Buell, who saved Grant" and I was glad to see that. I was just gonna mention that but then noticed it was different than I remembered... There are controversies about several officers related to this battle: Buell, Grant, Wallace, maybe others as well. I haven't yet figured out the scope each one should be given. But for sure, Grant's alleged drinking should only be mentioned in this one and explored more in the Grant article. That was an ongoing criticism. And for sure, the Lew Wallace thing still does not make it clear that the controversy dogged his life for years. He was hours upon hours late. People were deeply pissed off at him. Grant said, "If it had been [another officer], he would have arrived at noon."  Winston Groom does have an interesting quote where Grant half-exonerates Wallace, or offers him a fig leaf. The point is that the Wallace controversy is specific to this battle, where accusations that Grant was a drunkard were ongoing. But I am also glad to see the bit you added about criticizing Grant for not fortifying enough. That is good. That is very specific to this battle. More later... BTW, this is an excellent article. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a paragraph about Lew Wallace to "Reactions and significance". TwoScars (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna get around to doing spot checks while I copy edit. So how about Eicher 2001:
 * Current notes 61 & 62, Eicher 2001, pp. 222–223: Lew Wallace's division ... guard against a Confederate attack from behind. "Guard" not found; Eicher says "prevent placement of batteries; strike out against railroads". And is downstream really north? As part of criticizing Grant's defensive measures, Eicher adds that communication networks were weak. I dunno if that's important enough for the WP article to add.
 * I will work on the "guard" part. They did their thing against the railroads pretty quickly, so they had to be staying there for a reason.
 * Fixed using Eicher and Gudmans. "Lew Wallace's division was at Crump's Landing, five miles (8.0 km) downstream (north) of the Union campsites.[9] His mid-March mission had been to damage a railroad. While on this railroad raid, his men learned that a large Confederate force was nearby. Because of this Confederate force, Wallace's division remained near Crump's Landing.[61] TwoScars (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Downsteam is really north (contrary to my brain being used to things flowing south, like the Mississippi). Eicher p.222 at the bottom of the page says "...Lew Wallace, which was left five miles downsteam at Crump's Landing". Also, look at the map in the "Evening" subsection for the first day. The arrow on the Tennessee River is pointing north. TwoScars (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Current note 9, three cites, Eicher 2001, p. 222: I don't see that Sherman and Prentiss were closest to Corinth, but maybe you have to figure that out from details given. All else found.
 * The third citation 9 - I will check to see if I can find a better source. The map under Union and Confederate plans shows the Sherman and Prentiss camps closest to Corinth, and I could do a cite map, but I would rather hunt for text. Eicher page 223 says "Johnston's army of some 44,699 was encamped only two miles away from the divisions of Sherman and Prentiss...." McPerson on page 408 says implies that the two divisions nearest Corinth were Sherman's (he says so) and Prentiss' TwoScars (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Used McPherson p.408 as a replacement for the 3rd note 9, and added the word "inexperienced" to the sentence: The inexperienced divisions of Sherman and Prentiss were the most forward (closest to Corinth) of the group. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Current note 16, two cites, Eicher 2001, p. 219: both found.
 * Current note 246, Eicher 2001, p. 428: Eh, this is simple math, which I think is safe from WP:OR. I'm too lazy to do the math, so I'll skip this one.
 * Current note 239,... Eicher 2001, p. 230: found (with some simple math).
 * Current note 165, two cites, Eicher 2001, p. 228: both found. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know I'm bangin' on poor Lew Wallace, but just a comment: grant himself later offered a figleaf to LW. Apparently Grant spent years criticizing him, but then read a letter from Wallace to his wife, and greatly softened his position. I dunno if that's too much information for this Wikipedia article. Grant said something like, if Sherman hadn't been pushed back 1 mile, Wallace's route woulda been correct. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Added more about Lew Wallace down in the Reactions and significance section—that paragraph is now rather long. Covers everything you mentioned. My own non-Wikipedia-worthy opinion is that Lew Wallace should have used his cavalry to know exactly where the battle lines were and the best route to get there. Because he did not, Grant's army was almost defeated. He wore Grant down trying to restore his reputation. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Spot check Daniel, Larry J. (1997)
 * Current note 260, Daniel 1997, p. 317: found.
 * Current note 259, Daniel 1997, p. 316:  I don't see anything about "morale".
 * Changed sentence to read: Confederate President Davis believed that loss of Albert Sidney Johnston was the "turning point of our fate" in the Western Theater. TwoScars (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Current note 258, Daniel 1997, p. 313: Yeah, OK, pretty much found.
 * Current note 252, two cites, Daniel 1997, p. 261: "a" not found, though I am sure I saw those words elsewhere; "b" found.
 * p. 261 says at top of page ...the later charge of dilatoriness proved unjustified. Even with all the delays, the division marched fifteen miles in six and a half hours, a speed comparable to Nelson's division." TwoScars (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Current note 251, Daniel 1997, p. 260: not found.
 * 2nd and 3rd paragraphs: "Rather than simply ordering an about-face...." and "troops filed off into the woods along the old path, crossing fences and traversing cornfields and pastures...." TwoScars (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * We're running into some problems here. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail: