Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Army of the Tennessee

Army of the Tennessee
This AOT article was started and given its basic organization by others (with most prior edits by Jeremy Bentham and Hal Jespersen). It was rated "start class" until recently (with about 17,000 bytes). I have substantially expanded (and in some cases corrected) the article, adding discusson, references, footnotes, and images (now 54,000 bytes); the info box was modeled on the Army of the Cumberland page. During this process the article was upgraded to B class by The ed17; then a fair amount of additional work was done. The ed17 then assisted with some format matters. I believe the article is on a worthy subject and is now in pretty good shape and should have a higher rating. However, before requesting a rating upgrade, I would welcome input on the article. FWIW, this is my first request for a peer review. Thank you in advance for any input. Hartfelt (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have continued to refine the AOT article over the last week, but hope to have reached a resting point now. Many thanks to PKKloeppel for his various efforts on the article.  Also, due to Yellow Monkey's comments, I have introduced some additional cites at various places.  Especially after the addition of those citations, I believe that the substantive reliance on the memoirs of Grant and Sherman is really quite limited; the memoirs are cited mostly for reasons of color or simple facts like who led which column.  (I might add that on detail points they are often more accurate than the historians who sometimes don't seem to have done their homework on such details.) Would appreciate any further comments, and thanks in advance.   Hartfelt (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PKKloeppel

 * Very thorough. My only negative criticism concerns a rather minor point of literary style. I think there are too many parenthetical insertions that should either be converted into subordinate phrases or dropped altogether. I will change some of them myself, but I do not have time to do a thorough job. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You did most of what I thought necessary, and I have now taken care of a few that remained, so I think this issue is laid to rest. What is left to do now is cosmetic (but note that cosmetic issues are important to the gatekeepers for GA, A, and FA approval). (You see that I, too, can use parentheses. Tee-hee.)
 * 1. Most dashes should be replaced by either  or  . I have started on this and will get back to it and hope to complete it later. You may wish to check my work.
 * 2. The citations and references are not handled uniformly. You may, if you wish, use the cite template, which can be found here. It produces a form that I personally dislike, but at least it is consistent.
 * By the way, you can reply to my messages here rather than on my user page. Then other possible editors will be able to see that you are responding. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pkk: Thanks again.  I have tried to be attentive to consistency, but you are doubtless correct that there is not perfect uniformity, and I will look at your link and try to spiff things up.  What is your reaction to the comment below by YM?  Hartfelt (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pkk, Thank you for the work you have done so far. Like you, I'm not thrilled by that format for references -- with dates taking priority over title.  However, now that you have taken the trouble to change them all, we may as well stick with that format.  (After you had changed only the first four or five I suggested that we restore the prior form for those references and find another approach to render them consistent.  But developments have overtaken that suggestion.)  BTW, may I ask the background for the alternative format you adopted to citations for the Official Records?  Hartfelt (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

{PKK: Thanks again for your work on the references section for AOT. Now that the references are in order, is it OK just to use a short form for the notes -- like Woodworth, p. x, without more? That seems to be suggested by the article citations for beginners, also by something written in the peer review list by Yellow Dog. The reader can then refer to the reference list to get the title. Or do you recommend something else? Hartfelt (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)} -- I have copied this message here from my User:Talk page so that other editors will know what I am talking about. PKK.
 * A short form is adequate, so long as the identification is unique. Wikipedia policy is given here. The "unique" requirement means, in the present case, that you will have to be careful when citing either Cox or Marszalek, as each of them is author of more than one book. Also remember that other editors may add additional material, including other books by your authors; what is identified uniquely today may not be uniquely identified tomorrow. Properly, that should be their concern, not yours, but keep in mind the varied backgrounds of our editors and be tolerant.
 * For what it is worth, I always include a short title. Because I prepare my notes by copying and pasting from a bibliography that I maintain away from Wikipedia, it is no more difficult than writing a minimal reference (for example, {Cox, Atlanta} is as easy to copy and paste as {Cox}). Although the likelihood that later editors will add material affecting the citations adversely may be small, I am paranoid or delusional or whatever enough to include short titles in all my footnotes; in other words, all citations are treated as if they have to stand alone. This is a price we pay at Wikipedia for our policy of never having a truly final manuscript.
 * Note that I do not wish to impose my system on you. I am merely telling you why I do what I do. Wikipedia policy is quite loose, and you can choose the truly minimal form if you wish; it would not be a deal-breaker in your effort to raise the article to GA-class. Have I answered your question? PKKloeppel (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey
I have ot say that I am concerned by the usage of the memoirs of the involved parties, especially as this means that in some parts, entire paragraphs are cited to officers invovled, as bald fact. Involved parties have a vested interest in making htemselves look good.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yellow Monkey: Thank you for looking at the piece and raising this issue. In my view, your comment overstates the case about reliance on memoirs.  I wrote having in mind the issue you raise and seeking to avoid falling into the category of original research.  There are selected citations or quotations from the memoirs of Grant, Sherman, Lew Wallace, Howard, and Cox (I believe).  These bring color and feeling to the piece, or else supply otherwise hard-to-find info like troop totals.  I don't think puffing is involved (except possibly in Sherman's praise for the AOT and saying that the Carolinas march was very impt and more impt than the march to the sea).  Moreover, professional historians are liberally cited, usually in addition to memoirs.  Further, evaluative judgments (like the significance of various campaigns) have very much been left to historians of the caliber of Jean Edward Smith, John Marszalek, Jim McPherson, Steve Woodworth, and Albert Castel.  So, in my view, the article does not deserve to be marked down on the ground you raise.  However, if there are particular points or paragraphs of concern to you on this score, please identify them for special attn.  Thanks again.  Hartfelt (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the objection. The material that is taken from memoirs is mostly simply matters of fact, and when opinion appears, it is surrounded by quotation marks (unless I missed some). To be sure, the authors of the memoirs are biased, but so are the historians, and it is easier to spot the bias of the former. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ain't that the truth! Also, much as I respect the effort that goes in to writing a history book, the more I know about the CW, the more errors of fact I notice, including items of conventional wisdom repeated as gospel when the CW is simply not supported by the underlying facts.  Still, the article as written tries to avoid the formulation of original or contrarian opinions and relies on well respetced professional historians for the evaluative conclusions.  Hartfelt (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)