Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Battle of Gettysburg/1

Additional pings[edit]

Just wanted to make sure the whole ACW editing group sees this - I may not have the capacity to take this on by myself. @Donner60, BusterD, TwoScars, GELongstreet, Kges1901, Djmaschek, and Vami IV: and apologies to anyone active lately that I missed. I'd like to at least take a stab at saving this, and a multi-editor effort may be more effective (although if there's a multiple effort, we'll probably need someone to run point on this). Hog Farm _Talk 03:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have Eicher and McPherson. Also have Jeff Shaara's "Civil War Battlefields" that has a 33-page chapter Gettysburg. Also have the e-book "One Continuous Fight" by Wittenberg, Petruzzi, and Nugent. It does not have page numbers—I have had to use chapter and location in the citations. I could buy the Coddington and Sears books, used, for under $20 total. Ordering and reading two books, plus my slow work pace, would mean probably 6 months to fix this up. Might be best if I only helped, or worked on a section or two—but I still would need to order and read books. I think it took me about 6 months to redo Shiloh. TwoScars (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm and TwoScars:; I put a comment about my intention to help on the article talk page topic. For the time being, the easier approach to begin with for me would be to replace weak citations and add citations. Significant additions or rewriting will need to come later for reasons you know and I stated in my intention to help comment. I have the Wittenberg, et al. book and can provide page numbers if directed generally where to look. I have Coddington and Sears among many others. I have modified my comment here twice already. This is because I am obviously confused at this time of night so maybe this won't appear on the talk page. See my additional comment on the article talk for a sentence that I think should be removed from the article and reasons. Donner60 (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should be back in action on Wednesday or Thursday. If there's anything specific that I'd be most useful in working on, please let me know. Hog Farm _Talk 02:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

@Hog Farm and Donner60:; Perhaps the article could be handled this way:

Put a copy of the article in a sandbox somewhere. This would enable a comparison of the improved article vs. the original. If someone thought it would be useful to copy a revised section back to the original, no problems.
Give Hog Farm final say on everything. We all have enough accomplishments that our feelings will not be hurt by anyone overriding anything—be ruthless!
Have Donner60 work on the bad citations, but remember that it is possible that some of the sentences may be removed.
I am a little familiar with the cavalry—see 1st West Virginia Cavalry Regiment#Gettysburg Campaign, 5th New York Cavalry Regiment#Gettysburg Campaign, and 18th Pennsylvania Cavalry Regiment#Gettysburg Campaign. I like to make sure cavalry is not neglected, although infantry is more important here.
Some of the article simply needs to be rewritten. It has probably had small additions for many years (I call people that add a sentence or two that have no impact "snipers".) Having a sandbox page allows for rewriting that can be partially rejected, changed, etc...
I will go ahead and order a few used books already used as sources.
Others may volunteer to help, but Hog Farm will have control of the draft. Maybe people can work on certain sections etc.....

Any thoughts? TwoScars (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Except for the fact that I am hesitant to ask Hog Farm to take on a presumably big task right now because he has a lot on his plate, I am ok with that if he is willing to do it. As Hog Farm noted, this isn't likely to be a quick fix. So it could be viewed as not needing immediate or prolonged attention from him in the near future. Some of the article definitely needs to be rewritten and reformatted. So a sandbox version to work on is a good idea.
- I am interested in helping with editing/rewriting as well as citations but I don't know how much time I will have to do it in the near future. I will be somewhat restricted by the eye surgery next Monday for a week or two just to start with.
- Note that I have already proposed removal of sentence which is not supported by the citation or any other source I can find on the article talk page. I think it is even beyond misleading as written and is simply inaccurate in context. So there is an example of a change absent some reasoned disagreement. I found that because it was the first weak citation I looked at to change - and it didn't sound right to me especially due to the dates of the draft riots and movement of troops to New York.
- Even with a sandbox, I might want to do some citation changes or additions and minor editing. I will put any changes into the sandbox draft in order not to complicate the project. I think such changes are not likely to be controversial but can always be reverted or changed in the final draft. There won't be many, if any, such instances very soon. If you think I should confine my work to the sandbox version, I am ok with that too. Donner60 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, we can kick it to a sandbox, sort of like what I'm trying to do with Vicksburg (which I'm worried will end up here, too, unless I can speed up the process there). I'm also juggling getting ready to take the CPA exam and helping out at Wikipedia:Featured article review/1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash/archive1. If there's anything you want me to look at, please ping me, and things settle down for me I'll help with improving the weaker references. I've got Busey & Martin, so if there's any questions about casualty numbers and probably strengths, that's probably the gold standard source for that topic. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just ordered Coddington, Sears, and Stephen Z Starr's Volume I on Union cavalry (I have Volume II) -- all used and cheap. The sandbox will allow us to take our time and not abandon other projects. CPA exam should have highest priority. I always wished I had taken the CFA exam, but got to the point where it would not help me to have it on my resume. TwoScars (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I endorse TwoScars suggestion that the CPA exam should take priority. Also, if I may be bold, get enough sleep and try to get at least a little exercise. Otherwise, you will be run down and not able to do as much productively as you will want to do. I am not an MD but experience leads me to make the remark as I wish you all the best. Donner60 (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I shouldn't be on here much until the exam (first week of March). I'll check back every day or so to see if there's anything I can quickly help with, but my wikitime will be limited until then. Hog Farm _Talk 16:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I have started some work in a sandbox (User:TwoScars/sandbox8) on the Intro and Background, which I hope to have cleaned up in a few weeks. Then I'll turn it over to you guys to modify or do whatever. My citation style might be different, but it can be changed. TwoScars (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @TwoScars: I wrote a long post which I have just removed in order to replace with a shorter post, which may be less problematic. I tried to rush my comments to get offline quickly due to my eye surgery. Now I see that the potential conflict between the sandbox version and my changes or additions already in the article may not create quite as much as I thought in my less than thorough look. I am posting this quickly after the last post, with a further revision, in case you look at it quickly. I will be back in a short time, after giving my eye a rest, with a little more detail. Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @TwoScars: I posted changes to the article up to 11:15, 19 February 2023. You were already working with an earlier version of part of the article in the sandbox. In an unsuccessful effort to write a quick post, I was not thorough and my post was muddled. Maybe it still is but here goes.
        
        Some reconcilitation appears to be needed in the work on the initial contact by Buford's men. In short, I changed the text a little but mainly I wrote a lengthy substantive footnote. Reliable sources (Longacre, at least) show that although most of his men had breech loading Sharp's carbines, squadrons in Gamble's brigade of Buford's division (and some troopers in a West Virginia regiment elsewhere) had about 600 Spencer repeating rifles, So the use of repeating rifles is not a total myth. There may be a few other changes in that section but I don't see them quickly.
        
        I removed all the citation needed tags and the unreferenced section template and added citations. I made a few other edits here and there, mostly with respect to Pickett's charge. I summarized the long excerpt from Longstreet about Pickett's charge and added a footnote about the number of men involved with estimates from various sources. It appears to me that you may not have been working on that. I moved an existing footnote to the new Notes section.
        
        The citation style was used by Hlj who influenced me to use the same. I use the template style if it already exists in an article and may use it more in the future since it has a few advantages, though it is a little harder to put together. He also put only one footnote at the end of each paragraph, sometimes with multiple citations, for some stylistic reason that I don't recall.
        
        I hope there is not too much in conflict which needs to be reconciled. I am willing to do it to spare you the time and trouble but I can't get to it for a week or two. I have spent too much time on line for my eye tonight. If you do not wish to wait or to just move on to other revisions for the time being, please be aware of the possible conflicts between the article as it now reads and what you have done and are doing in the sandbox. Sorry for the confusion. Donner60 (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Relax! I'm really only working on the Intro and Background for now. I can go back and add your changes to those sections. We can use any citation style we want—whatever we are comfortable with—I don't think we need to be locked in to any style already used since we are rewriting. I don't work very fast, and I'm also working on a raid by Albert Jenkins. Right now, the Gettysburg article is too long. I think the following images are a waste of time and should be removed: all three War Department maps, the oval-shaped map, the Harper's Magazine illustration, and the John L. Burns picture. I'm pretty sure Custer's brigade had Spencers. The 1st West Virginia Cavalry Regiment got their Spencers in Spring 1863. The 18th Pennsylvania Cavalry Regiment got their Spencers in August. The 5th New York Cavalry Regiment got theirs in the latter half of 1863. I don't know about Buford's division. It would not surprise me if the two companies from the 3rd West Virginia Cavalry had Spencers. The only drawback with the Spencer carbine is that its range is not as far as the single-shot infantry weapons. My experience with eye surgeries is that recovery is longer than they say. Rest your eye—no worries here. TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Gave a look to see if you had replied. Thanks very much for your understanding reply and further info. I agree that the maps and photos should be removed. I am not sure where the idea that repeaters at Gettysburg is a myth given what I found. The Sharp's were breech loading single-shot carbines. Sharp's repeaters were not there, but some troopers had Spencer rifles. I thought the myth sentence(s) should be removed and a thorough note added so that the "myth" does not reappear. Donner60 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In Stephen Z. Starr's "The Union Cavalry in the Civil War, Volume I, From Fort Sumpter to Gettysburg 1861-1863, he writes on pages 438 and 439 that Gamble's Brigade (Buford's Division) received a shipment of Spencer carbines (repeaters) a few days before Gettysburg. It was not enough to arm the entire brigade. Also mentions that the 5th Michigan Cavalry (Custer's Brigade, Kilpatrick's division) was armed with the Spencer repeating rifle (not the carbine—they got those in the following spring). TwoScars (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I have Starr's cavalry trilogy but did not think to look at it on this point. I rechecked Longacre and he does refer to Spencer rifles as the repeaters being used by squadrons in the regiments of Gamble's brigade. Of course, this does not mean that the "myth" text is correct. Even if there is another source that could be a "tiebreaker", I will revise the comment to say that Longacre and Starr disagree as to whether squadrons of Gamble's brigade had Spencer repeating rifles or Spencer repeating carbines. It actually strengthens the point that some them had Spencer repeaters of some sort. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have deleted three unreadable old map photos and Hancock photo, and moved and reformatted a few other photos, tightens up text, full reasons and explanation in the edit summaries just now on Feb. 27. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this section from article talk page because we are posting here and there and maybe even on the GA assessment page and not always on all of them; suggest continuing on above thread or starting a new one for further comments and article talk page carryovers; FWIW

Time that Pickett's Charge began[edit]

TwoScars - I'm sure this can be easily resolved, but I don't have the time to hunt through all my sources right now. Our article currently states that Pickett's Charge began at 3:00 pm, but the source (Wert's "Gettysburg: Day Three") I'm using to replace a bad source in that section has About two o'clock, "Forward" echoed along the lines of slightly more than thirteen thousand officers and men. The footnote Donner added covers the disputed strength, but I the time needs a direct citation since I can't support 3:00 pm with the source I'm reworking that paragraph with. Hog Farm _Talk 03:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: @TwoScars: I added the citation: "Coddington, 402; McPherson, 662; Eicher, 546, Trudeau, 484, Walsh 281." Details: Stewart, 178 “The time was about ten minutes past three. Now the lines had been dressed and the speeches made. The command rang out. Forward! Guide center! March!”; Coddington, 502 “At 3:00 P.M. officers and men of Hancock's Second Corps looking west saw a long gray line suddenly emerge into the bright sunlight from the dark fringe of timber on Seminary Ridge....”; McPherson, 662. “Finally, about 3:00 p.m., Longstreet reluctantly ordered the attack.”; Eicher, 546. “'Up, men, and to your posts! Don't forget today that you are from old Virginia,' Pickett screamed at about 3 P.M. As his men formed and began to march.”; Trudeau, 484, at the start of a chapter labelled (2:55 P.M.-3:15 P.M.) “As Pettigrew's and Pickett's battle lines cleared the crests in their front....” Before this, at 481 in the previous chapter, “Most of Gettysburg's residents could not comprehed why the awful cannon firing seemed just to end at around 3:00 P.M.”; Walsh, 281 “Closing with the enemy about 3, p.m....” I suppose I could have added Sears: Hess as well as Wert, more or less says 2:00 but as he goes on, it appears to be he is not certain about it. Some other sources vaguely state that the charge follows after Alexander's last note to Longstreet, which could be implied as around 2:00 but none of them appear to me to state with certainty that it was about that time. Donner60 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My typical way of handling sources that differ is to pick the time that has the most support (either by the most historians or a recent historian with better info) and cite with one source. Then add a footnote that lists the "backers" of the difference chosen for the narrative. Then, in the same footnote, list the alternatives and their supporters. TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I do different from you and HogFarm: I like to put citations and footnotes at the end of a sentence instead of part of the way through a sentence. Just my preference (not mandatory), and I think it makes it easier on the reader. Also, the few books that I have, when using citations, have them at the end of sentences. See McPherson, Starr, and Sears. My non-Gettysburg books by Rhea, Gallagher, and Chernow also put their citations at the end of the sentence. TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Shaara's "Civil War Battlefields", on page 99, mentions the Confederate artillery opening fire "at approximately one p.m.", and the "barrage lasted for nearly two hours". That would correspond with 3:00 pm-ish for Pickett's Charge. I just checked Eicher and McPearson, and they say 3:00 pm on the pages cited. (I just got the Sears book, but have not yet received the Coddington book—you have more sources.) My preference would be to say "About 3:00 pm" or "Around 3:00 pm". We would not be using "weasel words", since the sources do not say exactly 3:00 pm, and some sources use the word "About" or "Around". We currently have "Around 3 p.m." The MOS says we need a non-breaking space. Not certain about the ":00" part, although I usually use it. TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the "about" or "around" wording. "Around" has been in the article for several days, at least. I am not sure that I would always go along with the most recent historian as a main citation in some cases. I think Guelzo, who may be the most recent, is inexact in wording at some points, and is in disagreement with other sources. He uses the 13,000 figure which is out of Longstreet's quote, unadjusted for overshoot casualties at least.

I sometimes cite in the middle of a sentence when I think that is the point of possible contention. It may be the most precise point. Also, It might not even directly support the rest of the sentence which might need a different citation, or none at all. I found that to be the case once or twice in this article.

I think I almost never put multiple citations in the same footnote, maybe never in articles which I have started or substantially added to. The exception would be an explanatory text footnote supporting a somewhat complicated point, or possible contentious points, or to point out where reliable sources support the same point or perhaps differ slightly. I used the multiple cites in a footnote a few times in this article in part because it was done already, no doubt by Hlj. That was his style to use one footnote to support the entire paragraph. In a few instances, multiple footnotes may be needed to fend off someone who wants to add a different citation, such as the misuderstood 15,000 attackers point but the explanatory footnote might be enough to take care of that. Or due to the time of night, my still blurry eyesight and general state of confusion, I might not have understood part of what you wrote above. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|TwoScars}} I think I should add that I am not opposed to putting all footnotes at the end of sentences, especially if the full sentence is supported by the footnote. It usually is. My view is with respect to somewhat rare situations, I think. I also think we need not worry about being uniform about placement of footnotes, or even form - in this article - unless, of course, GA assessment would be affected. Thanks for all the work you have done in the article and in what you are doing. I may or may not have much time over the next few weeks. I've stretched my time online a bit, but after a few days it becomes harder to sit around and stare into space most of the time when the eye doesn't hurt and is gradually improving. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commemorations[edit]

Donner60, Hog Farm and TwoScars, — A belated thank you and appreciation for the tireless efforts you three have contributed in getting the Battle of Gettysburg article up to speed, once again. I would, however, like to offer one point of indifference I have about one of the removals you made. There was a small section near the end of the article, i.e. Commemoration of US Postage and Currency, that was removed in its entirety, which was added back in 2011, and where it remained until just recently. . Significant historical events have always been later celebrated and/or commemorated many years after a given event. These commemoration are most often well received by history enthusiasts and the general population, as they reflect the importance and the significance of an event, and greatly help to keep it alive in the national mindset. For example, there were, as we all know, many dozens of battles fought during the Civil War, but only a couple are commemorated on coins and postage, and if anything, this highlights the significance of the event. The U.S. government, with the consent of the people, thought battles like Gettysburg were so significant they issued coins and postage to reflect this idea, and they were overwhelmingly well received by most of the country. Items like this occur in many GA and FA history articles, and, imho, are appropriate for inclusion here. If it's not going to create any issues in terms of GA status, I would like to at least return one of the images in question, with at least a short caption, near the end of the article. Hoping this sits well with all concerned. -- Best, Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with the stamp image (I collect stamps myself) but we might need to remove an existing image to add it back to avoid MOS:SANDWICH issues, although. I personally don't think we should have a section discussing all of the coins and stamps, though. Especially with the amount of commemoration of Gettysburg, if we were to start listing all of the various commemorations of stamps/coins/books/ships/etc., both official and unofficial, we would start having significant article bloat problems. Hog Farm _Talk 20:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, Thanks for your prompt reply. Yes, we don't want to invite every item of commemoration, as that would no doubt require a sizeable gallery of sorts, which, bear in mind, never occurred in all the years the section existed. In any case, we can simply add the image with an appropriate caption, and perhaps with a link to the other stamps commemorating the Civil War. As an aside, I'd rename the Popular culture section to Legacy, as this is a more encompassing idea that doesn't confine itself to the 'media'. I'll wait for further comment before returning the image in question. Thanks again, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps#Battles would be a good place to link to in the proposed caption. Hog Farm _Talk 20:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a simple "See also:" under In popular culture that links to the Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. Otherwise, we will have to remove the existing image. TwoScars (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As is done in the Casualties and Lee vs. Meade sections, we simply could place one image under the other, esp since they are not very large images. Or we could display them in a horizontal fashion under the last paragraph. Since neither image is discussed in that section they would work well at the end of that section. Also, we should at least mention in the Alfred Waud image caption that Waud was a British correspondent from London, which is done here. Since people and events associated with the Civil War appear on very many U.S. postage stamps, we should include one here for this famous battle, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the following: After the short paragraph about the film record of the 75th anniversary celebrations, add a short paragraph of about three sentences about the American Civil War Centennial and a link to the American Civil War Centennial article. This paragraph could include the following sentence from Commemoration of the American Civil War article. "The Post Office issued a series of noncontroversial commemorative stamps to mark the centennial.<ref>Cook, ''Troubled Commemoration: The American Civil War Centennial, 1961–1965'' (2007) p. 126.</ref>" The picture of the stamp could be placed below the Waud picture and be no larger than that picture. I think that would not create an undue amount of white space at the end of the article. I think that handling would not invite an influx of a large number of commemoration entries and would fit somewhat seamlessly into the article. @Gwillhickers: @Hog Farm: @TwoScars: Donner60 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, Donner60, and TwoScars: — Many thanks for your time and input. I'll leave the task to one or all three of you, because I'm inclined to write a bit more about the centennial, stamps, etc. Any placement of the images is fine by me. One suggestion: We might want to leave the links in the caption of the Gettysburg stamp where they're more likely to be clicked. Your call. — Once again, many thanks for the fine job you did for this landmark article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will write the paragraph. I agree that the two links about the stamps fit better on the image. Donner60 (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]