Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Shiloh


 * 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 promoted 01:09, 3 April 2007.

Battle of Shiloh
I believe this article represents some of the best of what wiki is about. I find the style tight and communicative as well as being well footnoted and sourced. Tirronan 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The claim in the article that "this total of 23,741 men represented more than the American casualties of the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War combined" is certainly false. Casualties from those three wars, which are not precisely known, probably exceeded an estimated 90,000 men, mostly from disease (see United States casualties of war). Probably what was intended was a comparison of battle casualties rather than total casualties. —Kevin 04:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed The statement should be changed as the casualties were from a 2 day battle and most if not all of them would be combat related. Tirronan 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Completed The statement was amended to read "battle related casulties" Tirronan 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I am just a little bit concerned about the sources used in this article. I am not quite sure why Time-Life Books are being used, for example. Larry Daniel's book received excellent reviews in both The Journal of Southern History and The Journal of American History in 1998, so I am happy to see it being used. But why is James McDonough's encyclopedia entry being used rather than his book Shiloh: In Hell Before Night (1977), apparently a classic in the field, according to one of the reviews of Daniel's book that I read? Awadewit 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer While I am not the author of this article I can answer that most books fall into 2 catagories, the overview and the detailed play by play. Writing articles for Wikipedia requires a bit of both.  I know that for me when I write a article on a battle there are times that I require the 40,000 ft view of the battle and times when I have to know that Mr. Smith's brigade was at xyz location at 0000 CST and engaged abc's brigade using efg tactics.  I am sure this is why the editors used the wide ranging types for referrence.  I will note that some 11 books were used in this writing and surely the exclusion of 1 book, however worthy, should not affect this article. Tirronan 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that. But there are scholarly books that cover both categories. One does not need to stoop to Time-Life books in order to garner either perspective, is my point. Also, one should not use an encyclopedia article to write another encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles are summaries of information, therefore one should turn to sources with more information and then decide what is important to include in an encyclopedia article (which is why encyclopedia articles are inherently POV, by the way, but that is an entirely different point). I did not think that wikipedia was simply trying to copy other encyclopedias, so one should not use them as sources. One should use more detailed, specific scholarly works. And since this is supposed to be featured article, one of wikipedia's best, after all, shouldn't it reflect the best research practices? Awadewit 14:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment As the author of the article, but not the person who requested this review, let me point out that the objective of footnoting in Wikipedia is to provide verifiability. If I can do that with the books available in my library, I will do so. It should not matter whether facts and opinions of historians have been extracted from popular books for the general public (although I believe that if you take a close look at the Time-Life series and ignore the abundance of photographs and paintings, you will find that they are very well written and comprehensive, and usually have a distinguished set of prominent Civil War historians as consultants) or from other encyclopediae. (As to the concept of "copying from an encyclopedia," I find that interesting because many people in this community cite the need for making something "encyclopedic" without really knowing what that means. I would suggest that if information is summarized in a professional encyclopedia, it is by its very nature "encyclopedic" and is direct evidence that the information is being presented at an appropriate level for another encyclopedia article.) Furthermore, the more scholarly a particular reference is, the more unlikely that the average reader will be able to access that book or article if he or she is really concerned about the verifiability. (There are some Wikipedia authors who prefer online sources so that readers can merely click to verify the information, although I generally avoid those because they often do not cite their sources and almost never footnote them.) When I write a Wikipedia article that is fully footnoted, my technique is to use the more scholarly sources for analysis and for the very specific, detailed level facts of a battle. However, there are many paragraphs in most articles that are presented as background or aftermath and I think that it is perfectly reasonable that their verifiability derives from broader, more popular sources. Hal Jespersen 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I cite WP:ATT: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication." The most reliable sources on the civil war are publications by civil war historians from university presses. Manuscripts that go to university presses are peer-reviewed by other scholars in the field before they are published. Most are rejected, therefore the few that are published are known to be good.
 * You have missed my point entirely about enyclopedias. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to copy other encyclopedia articles. Even copying the structure and gist of another enyclopedia's article (without copying their wording) is plagiarism. The person who wrote that article decided what information to include and what information to exclude. That decision and his or her decision on how to structure the article and his or her words are all owned. Moreover, to write an encyclopedia article one must know more than is contained in other encyclopedia articles. One cannot write a summary after only reading a summary. But my earlier point was that McDonough has written an important book on this topic, therefore it is his book which the editors should have read, not his encyclopedia article.
 * It is the job of the editors and the writers to present the scholarly material in an accessible way. Don't sidestep the issue.
 * The wikipedia authors who prefer online sources are wrong. Online sources change; one cannot be sure if the information one referenced is there from day to day. Print sources remain stable. Also, very few scholarly sources are available online for free, so I am not sure what kinds of sources they would be advocating for.
 * Scholars also write "background" material and discuss the "aftermath" of battles; do not pretend that such information is not available. Such posturing does not lend credibility to your arguments. Awadewit 17:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems overzealous for a mere encyclopedic article. We're not an academic forum. Are there any specific problems with reliability in the sources used or are you just demanding more detail?
 * Peter Isotalo 12:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We may not be an academic forum, but we are supposed to be using academic sources. Would you read an article on string theory that had been written entirely on the basis of popular science books? No, you would not. Why? Because popular books are forced to simplify their discussions of topics to reach a larger audience. (Note that in the string theory article, in the "Further Reading" section, the popular books are separated from the scholarly books and only the scholarly works are used as references.) The same problems of popularization are true in history (though maybe to a lesser degree). In history, some of the bigger problems tend to be sensationalization and distortion. I have not yet tried to find reviews for every source here, but I did notice right off that only one source from a university press, and that source, McPhersons's one-volume history of the Civil War was specifically written for a lay audience. I have already objected to the Time-Life books (a money-making enterprise, not a scholarly enterprise) and the enyclopedia entry (the historian who wrote that has a far better book and encyclopedia entries should not rely on other encyclopedia entries when there are other sources). FAs are supposed to be wikipedia's best, as I said before, so they should also reflect the best in research. If I were a historian coming to this page to evaluate it and I saw those sources, I would be skeptical. Awadewit 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That any work of non-fiction that isn't written for academics should be disqualified as a source for FAs is unrealistic and extremely elitist. It would cause a huge problem for editors who don't have access to (or experience with) academia and would make it extremely difficult for the readers the articles are actually intended for to verify anything. And excluding any work that has "encyclopedia" in the title is just pretentious. Avoiding general encyclopedias like EB and Encarta is advisable, but not ones about specific topics. That a book intended for laypersons might not be as detailed and up-to-date as those intended for academics doesn't mean that it's unreliable and unfit for referencing encyclopedic articles.
 * I'm sure the article can be improved if new research comes to light, but it seems almost paranoid
 * Peter Isotalo 14:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not elitist. I am asking the editors of wikipedia to have high standards for the FAs. Editors and readers have access to libraries, by the way. I am not going to reiterate my point about encyclopedias because if you don't understand it, you don't understand it. I have explained it twice now. If you are content with using less reliable, less accurate information, that's your perogative, but I would not make the argument that wikipedia's FAs should rely on such sources. Awadewit 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a pretty basic historical topic. It does require some thorough research to be verifiable, but not bleeding edge academia. We're talking pretty straightforward synthesis of history writing, not convoluted or very obscure theories. Seriously, Awadewit, you're overshooting the intent of our verifiability policies by miles. What you're suggesting seems to be that we should be a... no, wait... the Shining Beacon of Ultimate and Final Attestability. It's not just high standards; it's impossibly, disproportionately and unnecessarily high standards.
 * And you still fail to produce any detailed criticism of facts; just a lot of prejudice about literature you don't appear to have read yourself.
 * Peter Isotalo 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More comments I think that this article has the potential to reach FA status, it just needs some work on its sources (see above and below) and a few other things.
 * Could the editors add some political context at the beginning of the article like that they have included the end?
 * His encampment at Pittsburg Landing displayed his most consequential lack of such concern—his army was spread out in bivouac style, many around the small log church named Shiloh (the Hebrew word that means "place of peace"),[5] spending time waiting for Buell with drills for his many raw troops, without entrenchments or other awareness of defensive measures. - convoluted sentence
 * Fix red-links or de-link.
 * He was concerned that the sounds of marching and the Confederate soldiers test-firing their rifles after two days of rain cost them the element of surprise. - "would cost"?
 * In fact, the army had spent the entire night bivouacking undetected in order of battle just two miles (3 km) away from the Union camps. - I don't understand how the "in fact" follows from the previous sentence
 * Grant telegraphed to Halleck on the night of 5 April, "I have scarcely the faintest idea of an attack (general one) being made upon us, but will be prepared should such a thing take place." - uncited quotation
 * The confusing alignment of the Confederate troops helped to reduce the effectiveness of the attack. Johnston and Beauregard had no unified battle plan. - why was it "confusing"? Although this becomes clearer later in the paragraph, this opening sentence is jarring.
 * Johnston had telegraphed Confederate President Jefferson Davis that the attack would proceed as: "Polk the left, Bragg the center, Hardee the right, Breckinridge in reserve." - uncited quotation
 * The article is undercited in general. Adding citations from scholarly sources would fix this problem.
 * Ex: The assault was nevertheless ferocious, and some of the many inexperienced Union soldiers of Grant's new army fled for safety to the Tennessee River. Others fought well but were forced to withdraw under strong pressure and attempted to form new defensive lines. Many regiments fragmented entirely; the companies and sections that remained on the field attached themselves to other commands. During this period, Sherman, who had been so negligent in preparation for the battle, became one of its most important elements, appearing everywhere along his lines and inspiring his raw recruits to resist the initial assaults, despite staggering losses on both sides.
 * The "Wallace's lost division" section has only one reference - which parts are from Daniel and which from Smith? not helpful to the curious reader or the reader looking to verify
 * "Hornet's nest" section has only citation as well. I won't keep listing them all.


 * rolling up Union positions one by one - "rolling up" is a little colloquial
 * What about photographs? I know there were photographs taken after the battle (I was once a Civil War buff myself). I know there is one of the sunken road, in particular, that is good. Are these not fair use? Awadewit 19:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * reply Most of this I can agree with, as a ex military type I am not sure that rolling up is all that colloquial as it is a action taken after a successful flanking attack and is used often. Most the more exacting military terminology might bring more problems (explaining to the expected public ear) than it is worth and very 20th century.  As for the rest, this seems to be rather easy to accomplish.  Though committing to purchase a particular book is out... dangerous precedent there.  Tirronan 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What about defining "rolling up," then? And, there are libraries, you know. Awadewit 20:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Concise, yet thorough, and overall a well-written article, but I have a few concerns that I would like to see taken care of:
 * The galleries of portraits don't seem terribly relevant to the article. All the commanders have their own article and anyone curious about what they look like can check the links for their faces.
 * The lengthy footnote about the history of Shiloh Church is not relevant to the battle nor is it military history. I think it should be removed, or at least limited to a much shorter pointer about the Hebew origins of the name.
 * What exactly does "bivouac style" mean? Is it just military lingo for "not ready for battle"? Why not just use the more recognizable "encamp(ing)" instead of "bivouac(king)?"
 * The account of Forrest's cavalry charge and his dramatic (and ruthless) escape makes one curious if he actually survived such a serious wound. Just a sub-clause whether he survived or not would be enough.
 * All that said, I am not in the least fond of footnote orgies unless there are very good reasons for them. Providing hyper-detailed directions for editors who want to be able to pick out completely random facts and demand that they be pointed to a specific page (preferably in three separate sources) is not what I call a valid reason; we have talk pages for that kind of minutiae. As long as there are good, general citations and a fair amount of general sources, the footnote counters should be the ones to provide valid reasons to demand more references. And I need to be absolutely clear about this: I am not supporting the article if it turns into something that looks like this.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Peter should refuse to support an article because he feels it is overcited. He should also note that the sources at Roman-Spartan War come from academic presses. At this point in wikipedia's history, wikipedia needs to bolster its legitimacy. Citation is one way to do that. And to be clear, I am neither demanding that the editors cite "completely random facts" nor demanding "three separate sources" for everything. That is an exaggeration as anyone who has read my posts can see. If wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a reference source, its own references have to be serious. I am asking, are there better sources out there that will make this article more accurate and appear more reliable to the world? The answer to that question is: yes.
 * Peter also accuses me of "counting sources" but that is not what I am doing. For the first paragraph of the "Hornet's Nest" section, the footnote reads" Nevin, pp. 121-29, 136-39; Esposito, map 36; Daniel, pp. 207-14; Woodworth, pp. 179-85; Eicher, p. 227." Now, how is the reader supposed to know what information the editors got from where? Such a footnote is disingenuous. No one can really use it verify the editors' work which is part of what having the footnotes is for. Also, scholars work long and hard to come up with ideas and now their ideas have been so jumbled together that you don't know whose idea is whose. If any of the ideas in this paragraph are unique to a particular scholar, that must be recognized (scholars don't get books published unless they are writing something new). Awadewit 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're being quite paranoid about the use of sources. I mean, you don't actually have concrete complaints about any fact statements, just a general distrust of non-academia.
 * I don't have a distrust of non-academia. Popular history and science books are written by academics. They are just written in a way that often distorts reality in order to sell books. Awadewit 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the multiple-source footnotes, one is very tempted to point out that the reader should actually look those sources up before complaining about them. :-p But if the problem is too many sources in one footnote, then I suggest cutting down on the amount of citations rather than upping the amount of footnotes. I mean, the sources are still there, and every single fact statement doesn't need to have it's own separate page citation to be verifiable.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already said that the Daniel book is good, it received good reviews from scholars. I have already made my point about the Time-Life books and the enyclopedia entry.

Awadewit 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Longest Night - for "nonscholars" according to Publisher's Weekly on amazon.com; the book received no scholarly reviews at all (searched JSTOR), which means it is hard to know how good it is
 *  West Point Atlas of American Wars - link is broken; reviewed well (as the only thing available) by scholars in 1959-60; Military Affairs 23.4 (1959) and The American Historical Review 65.4 (1960); there might be better things available now, who knows?
 * Ripples of Battle - no scholarly reviews (see JSTOR); according to his webpage, the author is a classics professor, so that would be his area of expertise, not the US Civil War
 * Nothing but Victor - no scholarly reviews (see JSTOR)


 * Comment: I was away for most of the weekend and returned to see this amazing display of time consumption. If you folks would like to clarify the article's language, increase the number of footnotes (versus the generally one-per-paragraph style I used, as do many historians, BTW), or improve the quality of the sources used, please be my guest, as with any article in Wikipedia. Hal Jespersen 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the ironies of this situation is that I belong to a listserv of eighteenth-century academics. They are currently discussing footnoting. The very issue I complained about here, that paragraphs use numerous citations in one note so that it is impossible to tell what information comes from where has already been complained about on that listserv. I don't think I can quote the person from the listserv since they did not intend their words to be broadcast to the web (if I can, please let me know). Such a complaint is not irrational since other academics believe that it hinders the verification process as well. Awadewit 09:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Conditional support If the galleries can go. These are at least as disruptive as random lists. Circeus 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok most of this I can support however I can't condone being forced to use a source by another editor to get an ok. If you find there are sections of this article are not to standard due to lack of completeness of the information that is one thing. Being held to another's standard on sources is a bit much. I believe that I have read most if not every source Hal has used and there wasn't much contention to be had (as opposed to Waterloo where 1/3 of the authors seem to have a slant and national honor stands to be slighted). If I find that source I will be happy to read it and the article again to ensure there are no revelations to be had might even cite and source it, but I do not wish to be in a academic argument as to what is scholarly or not. I don't have a way to evaluate sources by that status and I am not an academic publishing a concise and complete work to a specialized audience with those types of resources available to me. I feel like I am being held to a standard that I have little hope to have enough information on to properly evaluate. I think I missed something in the FA status guidelines. Tirronan 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I found a few books on Shiloh and Shiloh: In Hell Before Night (1977), was there at a dirt cheap price so its been ordered along with a few others. It will be here the 19th I'll read it and source/cite accordingly. Hopefully that will end any controversy Tirronan 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

After talking with Hal and the fact that we have gotten 2 votes in 10 days I think that the article should be pulled from consideration for FAC due to lack of interest. Tirronan 21:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should pull it, I think you should respond to the comments above (I made more than those about sources). Also, sometimes it takes awhile; there are a lot of articles here. I would be willing to support the article if my concerns were addressed in good faith. There are a lot of good aspects to this article. I think two votes is technically a consensus and, apparently, the nominators can also voice their support (although I think that is rather unethical, it is generally accepted here). Awadewit 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good, and thus worth fixing throughout. Tony 08:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments on the prose.
 * "While Beauregard's concern was well-founded, it proved not to be a factor; Union forces had not detected the advancing Confederates." I don't see the logic in the first two clauses. Change semicolon to colon.
 * Needs redundant wording weeded out throughout; for example "In fact, the army had spent the entire night bivouacking undetected in order of battle just two miles (3 km) away from the Union camps." Remove first two words and "away".
 * "The attack turned into a simple but massive frontal assault" - why "but"?


 * replies on the prose
 * General PTG Beauregard was concerned that the troops test firing rifles had given away the suprise. Brutal as it may sound, tactically it was a blunder of the 1st order for a commander to be as unaware as Grant was on an Confederate army camped on his army's doorstep.  If the Federals had sent out patrols and deployed outposts correctly then the CSA Army would have been detected and would have marched straight into prepared earthworks.  At that point you have a Battle of Franklin all over again.  General Beauregard had every reason to be concerned that his unit was walking straight into an abbator.  Perhaps that entire section should be rewriten.
 * "The attack turned into a simple but massive frontal assault" that turn of phrase has always bothered me. Again it should be reworked.Tirronan 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.