Talk:Union (American Civil War)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 07:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Couple points to start off:

1. It has a citation needed tag, which, of course, needs fixed. In addition:
   1. The section Union (American Civil War)#Size and strength is uncited for most of its last paragraph
   2. Ditto the last paragraph of Union (American Civil War)#Copperheads

       Done I found a good source in the main article and added it to two places. It didn't look so bad to me anyway. Felixphew (Ar! Ar! Ar!) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

   3. Union (American Civil War)#Recruiting volunteers needs more explicit citations. There should always be, at the minimum, a cite at the end of each paragraph, even if you're still using the same source.
   4. Last paragraph of Union (American Civil War)#Financing the war - uncited again.
   5. There's a few other uncited paragraphs here and there in the article.
2. It seems under-illustrated. I'm pretty sure we have a lot of illustrations available, if you're having trouble, just ask!

    Done I have sourced some images from commons:American Civil War, as well as replacing the lead image with one of higher quality. More to come! Felixphew (Ar! Ar! Ar!) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

3. Union (American Civil War)#Motivations of soldiers quotes one historian. It would be good to include more than one view, even if that viewpoint is trying to summarize views.
4. Union (American Civil War)#Religion seems to rely very, very heavily on a single doctoral dissertation. Is there nothing more peer-reviewed and published to reference?
5. The article seems a little light on basic history. Obviously, you can direct people elsewhere for the bulk of it, but I think we need, at a minimum:
   1. A brief discussion of how the Union came to be - that is, a brief discussion of the lead-in to the Civil War.
   2. I can understand wanting to avoid the War itself too much, but I'd consider maybe a little bit.
   3. I think we need to cover the end of the Civil War, and, ideally, the aftermath of the Union. For example, Reconstruction and Ulysses S. Grant's rise to the presidency, perhaps. The effect of the Union/Confederate divide didn't end right away, after all, and it's probably worth going into the legacy to a greater extent.

This is kind of a first skim review. There might be other things, but let's start off here. Good luck, this is a very important article, so it'll be good to push it up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Felixphew, Adam Cuerden, what's the status of this review? There's been no activity here or on the article since October. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)