Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Gettysburg/archive1

Battle of Gettysburg
An astonishing article, it presents the history of the Battle of Gettysburg in a clear manner. (The maps of how the army was positioned are pretty cool, check it out!) Chipka 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I can't find anything wrong with the article. If someone else does and i realize it, i will cross this out Lorty 20:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. The lead section is too short and there aren't enough in-line references. RyanG e rbil10 20:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral: As one of the principal authors of this article and its many subarticles, I will admit that it is very light on the requirements for footnotes. In my early days of writing Wikipedia articles, I operated under the assumption that if all assertions could be found in one of the References, that was adequate, because that is, after all, the style of printed encyclopedias. I have been including more and more footnotes in my newer articles, particularly for quotations and for controversial details. Although it would be possible for me to sprinkle a few dozen footnotes into this article, I have prioritized my time more toward the creation of new articles and the expansion of stubs about the American Civil War. Hal Jespersen 20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Chipka and Lorty, It's a very informative and thorogh article. Scienceman123 00:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Lack of references, virtually no discussion of the repercussions of the battle, and "Battleground and movement of battle" has choppy and imperfect prose. — Cuivi é  nen T, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 02:02 UTC
 * Object mainly per WP:WIAFA 2(c) and 3(a) as of now:


 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.


 * Thanks, AndyZ t 14:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. No inline citations, and looks rather short for one of the most important battles in the US history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you follow links to the subarticles and to its parent Campaign article, you will find that it's over 200K of material. Hal Jespersen 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So? Let's nominate them if they are more comprehensive, but this article is too short. Expand it with info from subarticles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not fair. They've properly followed the criteria and done a good job of summary style. You can't fault them for that. - Taxman Talk 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not faulting them for things they did right, but for the things they didn't. The article should have dozens of inline cits, which it doesn't, and also most of the FA battle articles are longer. I would like to see more details in that article. But to clarify, I am objecting on the reference grounds, the shortness is more subjective and although it may prevent me from supporting, I will not object once inline references are added.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Per LortyHezzy 18:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Mainly 2a, 2b, 2c (inline refs pls) plus some infelicitous writing and the new to me interpretation of the Gettysburg Address. Of these, lack of context is the key problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Per Piotrus and others. One of the most significant battles in American military history has only one footnote (and an explanatory one at that, not referential)? That doesn't seem right. The lead is also a big problem. On the positive side, the maps are awesome.UberCryxic 19:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)