Talk:Peninsula campaign

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

edits of November 3, 2008
Massive mods are in progress here. I have cleaned up the first half of today's edits and will return later today or tomorrow to get the rest--linking problems, citations, date formats, and encyclopedic style. I intend to remove the Seven Days descriptions. There is another full article on that subject and there is no need to duplicate it here. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I finished the cleanup. Unfortunately, because there were so many changes it is difficult to see all the details in Wikipedia's diff software display. I encourage you to study the formats used, particularly for generating multiple footnotes; we don't use "Ibid." here. There remain some factual problems that I will attend to in future edits. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It took me a while, but I have completed the cleanup mentioned above with a significant rewrite of the article, synchronizing with the text and references used in the subordinate battle articles. I have written a number of campaign articles that briefly summarize the constituent battles using lightly edited text from the public domain CWSAC articles, but after the November 3 expansion, and after achieving some good results in the articles Battle of Chickamauga and Chattanooga Campaign, I decided to abandon that summary approach here. I may do the same on other selected campaign articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

edits of June 6, 2010
I have reverted some large-scale additions to the article because none of them are cited. Please provide citations in the form used by the article. However, I do not think it is appropriate to have a lot of background material about Winfield Scott. His disagreements with McClellan are covered in detail in the McClellan biography article and he departed the scene two months before McClellan revealed his first strategy for the spring campaign. One of the reasons that citations would be necessary in such material are assertions such as that the Anaconda plan was rejected by the administration -- it was only a reply to a letter from McClellan and was never put up for acceptance or rejection specifically, and the main tenets of the plan were actually adopted anyway. The assertion that Scott objected to McClellan's corps organization is somewhat off-topic, but is also incorrect because McClellan specifically did not want to have corps in his army, and Lincoln created them over his head in 1862. The material on Jackson's campaign and its relationship to the Peninsula is legitimate; ample citations are available for copying from Jackson's Valley Campaign. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:William McIlvaine - The Chickahominy - Sumners Upper Bridge.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:William McIlvaine - The Chickahominy - Sumners Upper Bridge.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 14, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-06-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Verdict of history.
Clearly, the campaign wasn't a Union victory, but how is the campaign viewed today, overall, and how was it regarded at the time? As a layman, I'd have to say that the basic strategic idea of using the Navy to outflank the Confederate defenses to attack Richmond was sound, as was the idea to use the Navy in the James River to attack the flanks of any defensive lines. And, even with all of the tactical mistakes on both sides and McClellan's constant overestimating his opponent's numbers, it was a close-run thing with the Union Army getting closer to Richmond than they would until almost the end of the war. But again, I'm not a professional historian and have not citations to back up my opinions. If anybody here knows enough to write a small section on how the campaign's viewed today, I think that it would be a great addition to the article and help put the events into proper perspective. JDZeff (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fitz John Porter.jpg