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 by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2021 [1].

James Longstreet[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Longstreet was one of the leading Confederate generals during the American Civil War. Like many Civil War generals, Longstreet graduated from West Point Military Academy, fought in the Mexican-American War, and served on frontier duty. As a Confederate, he rose to become Robert E. Lee's chief subordinate in the Army of Northern Virginia. Longstreet was present at most major Confederate victories during the Civil War, and he nearly always played a decisive role. Longstreet had a tactical preference for the defensive, which at times contrasted with Lee's aggressive style. Longstreet strenuously disagreed with Lee's strategy at multiple times throughout the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863. After the war ended, Longstreet supported Reconstruction, unlike most former Confederates. For this he was lambasted as a traitor, and his detractors scrutinized his war record and accused him disloyalty by sabotaging Confederate victory in the war, at Gettysburg and at other instances. Since the late 20th century, Longstreet's reputation has improved among professional historians and the general public. He is now considered one of the war's greatest military commanders. Display name 99 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support[edit]

Thank you Hog Farm. I know that you do most of your work in the smaller Trans-Mississippi Theater, your Civil War contributions to this site are nonetheless very impressive and I look forward to seeing your thoughts on this article. Display name 99 (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given Gog's comment below, I'll look extra close to see if anything can be trimmed a bit (agree that this is a topic where its okay to go a little longer). Hog Farm Talk 04:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wert, Longstreet, Helen Dortch Longstreet, and Mendoza all mention his brevet rank without giving any non-brevet rank. Eckenrode/Hamilton and Piston appear not to mention the subject at all. I don't have access to Sanger or Sawyer/Hay. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. According to Wert, he was a major general. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but I'm not sure what to do here at the moment. Wert doesn't explain it. The article links brevet, so someone could click there if they were confused. I'll see if I can add something later.
Warner's Generals in Gray doesn't say, either. There may just not be a good source for this. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this sentence because it turns out to have been inaccurate. Longstreet was in Worth's division, which was unengaged at Contreras. The soldiers who fought at Contreras were under the divisions of Twiggs and Pillow. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "next assignment." Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The LOC website says that it was published between 1860 and 1890. I have changed the date accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another good point. I checked Wert. He mentions that one of Early's regiments fired a volley which nearly hit Longstreet, but it doesn't say anything else. Changed accordingly while keeping the citation to Longstreet.Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Longstreet (p. 74) says this: "From the swelling noise of battle I concluded that it would be well to ride to the front, and ordered the remaining brigade (Colston's) and the batteries of Dearing and Stribling to follow. Stuart sent his horse artillery under Pelham into action on the open field. [paragraph break] Viewing the ground on the left, I thought it not so well protected as [R.H.] Anderson conceived, and sent to D.H. Hill, who was a little advanced on the march, for one of his brigades." Wert p. 105 speaks of Confederates throwing the Union back; Wert p. 106 mentions the request for reinforcements. I believe that the article is correct here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as I don't think it's possible to reconcile the two. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thank you for the suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wert disagrees. He says: "Longstreet evidently misunderstood his orders." (Wert p. 115) He offers alternate explanations before concluding that Longstreet having misremembered the road that he was supposed to march down is the most plausible scenario. "From the evidence and from his actions early that morning, Longstreet made an honest mistake in moving his division to the Williamsburg Road." (Wert p. 123) According to Alexander in Fighting for the Confederacy, "Gen. Longstreet entirely misconceived his orders and instead of marching straight down Nine Mile Road massing in front of G.W. Smith, he crosses over to the Williamsburg Road to get behind D.H. Hill. Of course he would not have done it had he not conceived himself ordered to do it." (Alexander 1989 p. 85) Wert explicitly concurs with Alexander's view that Longstreet would have only taken the road that he had if he felt that Johnston had ordered it. Piston calls Seven Pines a "colossal blunder" (p.31), says that "Longstreet erred badly" (p. 180), and, as the article says, calls it "the lowest point in Longstreet's military career" (p. 19). The consensus appears to be against Sears here. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine, then. Hog Farm Talk 01:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to do so. Date removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready for the Second Bull Run section. Having to take a break here, because I've got to travel for work early in the morning. I hope I'm not being too picky. Hog Farm Talk 04:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to noting that he was the senior lt. gen. in the Army of Northern Virginia. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed mention of the Washington Artillery. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Wilderness to Appomattox section, will continue later. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. It's been very helpful. It's always nice to have a reviewer who is knowledgeable about the topic. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Longstreet plays a prominent role in Michael Shaara's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Killer Angels and in the film Gettysburg, being portrayed by Tom Berenger. He is also featured in Shaara's son Jeff Shaara's novel Gods and Generals, a prequel to his father's novel. In the film Gods and Generals (2003), he is portrayed by Bruce Boxleitner and given a minor role. Longstreet was played by Brian Amidei onstage in the world premiere of The Killer Angels at the Lifeline Theatre in Chicago." - source supports none of this - it's about a stage adaption of The Killer Angels (not the film), doesn't mention Gods and Generals, and barely mentions Longstreet. Hog Farm Talk 05:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that. That source has been removed, as has any mention about the stage adaptation, which does not appear sufficiently noteworthy. New sources have been added for everything else. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it and replaced it with the Baltimore Sun source as well as an article from CNN. Both articles were also helpful in adding content elsewhereDisplay name 99 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaves Wilderness/Appomattox, Postbellum, and Legacy, as well as a general look at the sources. Hog Farm Talk 05:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I have addressed all of the points that you have made thus far. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "after the war". Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the ref supporting him attending Bishop Polk's funeral. Hog Farm Talk 14:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing "Project Canterbury website" anywhere. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as I couldn't find any mention of it in the major sources. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Replaced with references to Piston and Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who is supposedly a strategy expert. Beyond that, I don't know. Before I started preparing this article for FA nomination, there were a lot more references to Knudsen than there are now. For the most part, the content that was sourced to him did not have much factual information but was instead vague, at times a little off-topic, and even rather pretentious-sounding analysis of tactics and strategy. I'm glad that these are out, and that Knudsen is sourced less than before, but do you think it's best that he be removed entirely? I can definitely see that making sense. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend removing entirely, if that would be possible. Frankly, it looks like Knudsen's work has been largely ignored scholarly, and I'm just not sold that it's a great source from what I've seen of it. There's at least one part where Knudsen is cited for his opinion on Longstreet; I'm really concerned that Knudsen is probably not WP:DUE weight for his opinions. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's gone. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some of these, and if there are any that I missed, I'm sure I'll find them. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's most of my comments. This article is an excellent effort about a significant figure. The article would be one of the longer FAs, but I didn't think it seemed particularly bloated anywhere. I will note that I'm a major nerd when it comes to this conflict, so what I consider to be due detail may be the result of me having great interest in minute material here. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I've responded to everything. Thank you for your kind words about the article and for your helpful assessment of it. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, thank you once more. Knudsen's removed. Is that the last of it? Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having great patience with my sometimes-picky review, Display name. Support. Hog Farm Talk 15:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, your review was extremely helpful. Thank you for your support. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

Over 15,000 words!! See WP:TOOBIG. A very brief skim suggests a number of areas which, IMO, would benefit from a more summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thank you for your comment. I can't say I didn't see it coming. My featured article nominations tend to be a bit long. This is long too, but it isn't my longest nomination. I've had two longer. Andrew Jackson passed at almost 16,00 words, and John Adams passed at a little over 16,000, almost 1,000 words longer than this article. I know that this does not mean that this article should automatically be given a pass, but articles on very important topics are allowed to run a little long. The American Civil War is easily the largest war in the history of the United States, and an article on one of the top military commanders in the war, a man who was definitely in my opinion one of the two or three best Confederate generals, and also perhaps the war's most controversial general, seems important enough to me to allow for some extra space to cover his contributions and the debate surrounding them. Display name 99 (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

We non-Americans don't know what antebellum means so please link somewhere. And if "postbellum life" means "postwar life" more non-Americans would understand.

I do not agree that this should be changed. Postbellum is Latin. It means "after the war." A quick Google search would reveal what the term "postbellum" means in America, and I don't see anything necessarily wrong with occasionally sending readers to the dictionary or to Google. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99I think we should make it as easy as possible for the readers - for example "The Economist" would not make the reader look up such a word just as it would not make Americans look up UK specific words. I am British and am sure at least 90% of Brits don't know the word "postbellum" - would be interested to hear from other non-Americans though - would most good English speakers in your country know the word? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, I think that most Americans would know the word. Some wouldn't. At the start of the section, I added a link to an article with a literal definition of the word as well as explanations of its various usages, including the one in connection to a period in American history. Display name 99 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, I'm not sure if you're still interested in what's happening here, but I broke the "Postbellum life" section into two smaller sections on the advice of a different editor, and that word is no longer used. Display name 99 (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If known please mention why he was ambassador for such a short time.

I had not mentioned it before because the chief Longstreet biography that I was using to write the article, the one by Jeffry Wert, glosses over his ambassadorship in two paragraphs and says nothing of his reasons for departure. The article's hefty length was also a concern and I was wary of extending it any further. However, it is a worthy subject. William Piston's biography of Longstreet is roughly half the size of Wert's, but he dedicates two solid pages to Longstreet's tenure as minister and I was able to glean a fairly solid summary from there. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Longstreet was subject to vigorous attacks over his war record beginning shortly after his death and continuing until the end of his life." needs fixing.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but (for good reason I think) I've never seen someone solicit reviews for their FA nominations within another nomination. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, I have responded to your points. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99 - sorry for slow reply - see reply above - also please ping if you want me look more to see if I can support - not sure why I did not see ping - if no response in future feel free leave message my talk page Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99 Should nickname be in infobox? Infobox needs changing to emphasize his miliary role and deemphasize diplomatic Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the infobox is fine as is. Nicknames don't have to be included. There are several in the article, but he's not known by any of them in the same way that Stonewall Jackson is. Political and diplomatic positions go ahead of military service in infoboxes, even if they are far less notable. I don't think that a reader of this article will be confused by the infobox and think that he was primarily notable as a diplomat. Display name 99 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not possible to make the diplomatic job smaller type than the military? It seems too prominent in the infobox now especially on the iphone mobile app where it is larger type on a white background. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything more to say on the matter than what I said. Display name 99 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99 - Is writing "P.M." in capitals normal in US English? At least one more battle or campaign plan needs adding - for example "Second Bull Run" is hard to follow just from the text Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. They are abbreviations after all. They stand for ante meridem and post meridiem. There are different ways of writing it and I see nothing wrong with this one. I added a map to Second Bull Run. Hopefully it's a little easier now. I intend to add one to Chickamauga as well later when I have more time. Display name 99 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, I have now added maps to both Second Bull Run and Chickamauga. There are numerous battles mentioned here and I can't include maps for every one, but all of the major battles and campaigns where Longstreet fought now have maps. Display name 99 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Legends added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the latter, if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry-I had gotten it confused with something. The author is indeed unknown. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but again, we have a tag stating the author died over 100 years ago - how do we know that to be the case? If the image was created towards the end of the given date range it would be very possible for that not to be so. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source for these maps, as linked in the descriptions, is Hale Jesperson, a cartographer who has made over 200 maps for media. He doesn't appear to say where he got his data, but is it enough just to cite him as the one who drew the map? Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - that's fine as far as the copyright, but I'm asking about the verifiability of the map. It's fine if we have a source that confirms the data, even if it wasn't the one originally used - is that possible? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most major campaigns from the American Civil War have individual books written about them. I could easily cite such a book for each of the maps, although I would not be able to do specific page numbers. Would this work? If so, where should the citations go? Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different authors. Both died in 1897. Their names are listed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing that on the latter? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize but I had once again gotten it confused with a separate image. The latter photograph was, as the description says, scanned from Longstreet's memoirs which were published in 1896. There is no author credited in the memoirs. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As above, how then do we know this unknown author died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source link added to Library of Congress. This image was published between 1865 and 1890. Added publication data. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Er, doesn't seem to be? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - referring to copyright tag here rather than creator. See commons:Template:PD-Brady-Handy. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a public monument erected on U.S. government property in 1998. I don't know what that means legally. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was it a work for hire, or is the copyright otherwise held by the federal government? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike most monuments at public battlefields, the statue was not built by the federal government using taxpayer funds. Money was raised privately by the General James Longstreet Memorial Fund. The statue was sculpted by a man named Gary Casteel. [3] Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... would there be any other reason to believe the statue is in the public domain? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. The only thing that I didn't quite know how to answer was px size for images. Can you direct me to some place showing how it's supposed to be done? Thank you once again. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMGSIZE has some details on how to do this. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. px have been removed and maps have been scaled up. Nikkimaria, I have addressed all of your responses. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I understand what you meant now about the authors' death dates. I have removed the tags from the images where the author was unknown. I added books to the maps as sources for the data. I added the Brady-Handy copyright tag. Regarding the statue, I don't know anything other than that it was a privately-funded monument erected on public property. I don't know where that leaves us in terms of copyright. Thank you for your assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: - I believe it depends on that (non-public) VRT tag. If the tag applies to the photograph, the image is likely nonfree because the United States does not have freedom of panorama for 3D art, and I'm not seeing any indication that the statue is in the public domain. If the tag is from the copyright holder of the statue, then the image is fine. But if the tag is for only the photograph, then it will need to be removed as the image would only really meet WP:NFCC in an article about the statue itself. Hog Farm Talk 17:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, the author of the photo is a Wikipedia editor, and since VRT interacts with the public, I think that it is likely for the statue rather than the photo. Display name 99 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we confirm that? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, as you can probably tell, I am extremely unfamiliar with Commons and image copyright. I would not know how to do that. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone on this list would be able to access the ticket, or you could ask on the Commons VRT Noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and Display name 99: - I actually posted a query yesterday; this is the response. Hog Farm Talk 13:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! So that's fine then. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt - Support[edit]

  • "as a primary reason for the Confederacy's loss of the war. " Suggest "as a principal reason why the South lost the Civil War"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and reminded him of his more happy younger days." more happy?
Changed to "happier." Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet demurred against three suggestions from Lee urging him to attack" Does one demur against something? Demurred to, I would think, is more common.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "P.M." Think we use pm. Please check other instances.
I don't think that this is important. I think that professional writing generally uses either P.M. or PM. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and then Longstreet himself was told to take command of the detached divisions and the Departments of North Carolina and Southern Virginia.[123][15] " Do you intend for the refs to be out of numerical order? Similarly "but he refused.[197][196]"
No. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and, by threatening a federal city," Are we talking Washington or Philadelphia here?
Washington, Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, or New York. Lee's options were very open. His and Jefferson Davis' goal was to force Lincoln to negotiate through the seizure any major city controlled by Union forces. I don't think that they had a specific one in mind. It depended on how the strategic situation turned out. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Peach Orchard" why the initial cap?
Because it's the title of the article. But it looks awkward in the text so I made it a pipe. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two miles" I think we also give the metric conversion, please check for other instances.
Added metric conversion to this and other instances. I may have missed some but I'm sure I'll find them. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You twice mention Longstreet receiving a congressional pardon. I take it that this was actually a removal of disabilities under the insurrection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment?
You are correct. I didn't fully realize that the information was repeated. I took out the first mention of it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the salary of the customs post, wasn't the true value of the position in the fees and in the opportunity for graft in employing customs employees? Did Longstreet profit therefrom?
This is not discussed in the sources that I consulted. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be mentioned that Lee had been president of Washington College, when you mention the attack.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. We have a long article already and I'm not sure that's noteworthy. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could think of at least two other works in which Longstreet appears as fictional character, 1901 and The Guns of the South, but I doubt it's necessary to mention them.
  • I've read 'The Guns of the South, and would recommend against mentioning. I don't remember Longstreet being a pivotal character in that one (although it's been a few years since I read it). Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of any of these and so I have no reason to doubt your assessment that they are probably not notable. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, thank you for your review. I have responded to everything that you have said. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hi, I'm just making a query to try to check in and see where we stand with this nomination. The realize that all of the reviews that have been made here have turned out favorably, but there have not been many reviews and the article has gone two weeks without any comments. I have twice had to undergo the frustrating experience of having an article fail FA review not because of opposition to it because it did attract enough reviewers. Are we anywhere close to that happening at this point? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is always irritating. No current danger of it timing out, but, yes, it needs further reviews at some point. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, I have listed it at Urgents and Requests for a general and source review respectively. If you are aware of potential reviewer feel free to send them a neutrally phrased request. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 - Support[edit]

Hey Eddie891. It's been 6 days, so I'm just reminding you. Thank you for agreeing to do this. Display name 99 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added link to "planter class." Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "seemed" to "appears to have been." Obviously, the person who makes this judgment is Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any good way to do this. I agree that at first it might be a bit hard to understand, but then the reader can step back and infer from the text that admission to West Point depended on appointment by one's congressman. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Wert, Longstreet, Helen Dortch Longstreet, and Mendoza. None of them give any reason as to why he received a brevert commission or what his non-brevet rank was. Regrettably, there does not seem to be a source available for this. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second one removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The city of Veracruz was mistakenly linked twice. The second link should have been to the Siege of Veracruz. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence stating that the Battle of Chapultepec led to the fall of Mexico City. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I kept the fact that Longstreet met Grant, because I like how the article follows their journey together a little bit before the war. However, I removed the rest. It says more about Grant's character than Longstreet's and thus probably isn't relevant to this article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Through 'subsequent activities', please remember these are just suggestions and thoughts... Eddie891 Talk Work 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, thank you for your review. I have addressed all of your concerns thus far. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, will try to power through some more

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It meant that he would be the highest-ranking officer from that state and thus had a chance at being commander of its militia. Rephrased. [4] Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is determined by seniority from date of appointment. If Bonham became a brigadier general first, he would outrank Longstreet. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's phrased in this way to avoid repetition with the phrase "he wrote" that is used later in the sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the postbellum section. It began in the mid-1870s but continued for the rest of his life and long after his death. It cannot be dated to a specific time. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution added. [5] Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "strong." This word is less subjective and I don't think it's in dispute. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Should have said "entirely collapsed." I edited that part recently and something obviously got twisted up. It's fixed now. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Like for his later conversion to Catholicism, we do not know exactly what precipitated it. Per Wert p. 418: "Longstreet wrote virtually nothing about his religious beliefs." Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both pieces of evidence seem to conflict, but none is more valid than the other. Perhaps Longstreet viewed the cause of the war as slavery and, whether he agreed with it or not, felt that it was his duty as a citizen of a Southern state to follow it if it chose to leave the Union. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's just about it... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, I have responded to everything. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonably happy to support on prose Eddie891 Talk Work 00:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Eddie891. Let me know if anything else comes to mind. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose from TRM[edit]

Changed to "Helen Dortch". Not sure why she was called by that. I neglected to adequately check up on the infobox when preparing the nomination." Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added [6]. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to the article for the Confederate States of America. Just as it's commonly known that the United States can be called the USA, I don't think that it needs to be explained any further that the CSA is equal to the Confederacy. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His service in the militia is discussed in Postbellum life. I added a direct mention of the name of the militia in which he served to avoid confusion. [7] Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a footnote about it because there is some additional information surrounding it to be explained. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Update: The link didn't go to the proper place and the footnote didn't fully seem to be necessary. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link added [8], but I don't think that any further explanation is necessary and could possibly be added without sounding redundant. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a historical event, the word "nullification" is always capitalized when referring to it. Whether crisis is capitalized or not can depend and I'm not sure if one is more correct than the other. I made it lowercase however because that seems to be the convention on Wikipedia, like campaign. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to explain this as best I can. There were two Hills who were Confederate generals: D.H. and A.P. Hill. Both of them are very important and come up frequently in Civil War accounts. Neither one is usually referred to simply by his last name, because this would engender confusion. Whenever their names come up, they are usually called by their initials or something else derived from their first and middle names. Both Hills are mentioned frequently in this article, and so we have to follow the convention of using more than simply their last names each time we refer to them. (It's the same thing with the Andersons: R.H. Anderson and G.T. Anderson, although whereas the Hills are roughly equal in importance, R.H. Anderson was much more important than G.T. Anderson, although both are still mentioned in this article.) I think that the Wikipedia article is called Daniel Harvey Hill because that is his full name and better to use than his initials, although the use of his initials is more common and so maybe it would be better per WP:Common name if that article's title was changed to use his initials, like the article for A.P. Hill. What I decided to do was to refer to him as "Daniel Harvey Hill" the first time his name came up, and to leave his initials there for every other mention as an abbreviation. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comma added. Checked the rest and added two more commas. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources explain it, but the term "brevet" is linked so that a reader who does not understand can learn what it is. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed second use of "visit" to "see." Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained later in the sentence: "On January 1, 1850, he was appointed Chief Commissary for the Department of Texas, responsible for the acquisition and distribution of food to the soldiers and animals of the department." Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to historian and Longstreet biographer Jeffry D. Wert. I removed the word "valuable" because that seemed like something that might require attribution. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about a third of the way through and literally just skim-reading, there still feels (to me) like there's a heap of stuff to do here. Did this get a non-MILHIST peer review or anything similar before FAC? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not perfect on nomination, and there were a few things that have been pointed out to be already that I should have seen before nominating. But I believe that the article is very high quality and is ready to be a featured article. I think that you will find it gets better as you read the section on the Civil War, which is of course the most crucial. To answer your question, the article did not undergo that kind of assessment. It became a good article way back in 2007, and by the time I began serious work on it in 2017, it had fallen well below good article standards. I worked on it by myself intermittently from then until now. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, Thank you for your review. I have addressed all of the concerns that you have raised thus far. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, do you have any further comments? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying on from "American Civil War" section

Fixed [9]. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "U.S. Army." Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? That's the only time that this is linked. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Literally the previous sentence or so, at "at Manassas, where" it is pipelinked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. [10] Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed first instance to "the city." Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is fine. The ranks are commonly abbreviated, and once we introduce the non-abbreviated ranks, I don't see an issue with using abbreviated ones for the rest of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then be consistent. You have repeated ranks in full previously. This appears to be the first time you go for abbreviations. I don't mind what you do but it must be consistent throughout. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to the beginning of "Peninsula" section. Lots of trivial issues, but nonetheless, issues that need fixing for a FA. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Rambling Man. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's written this way to avoid repetition with "he wrote" later in the sentence. Feel free to recommend alternate phrasing or go in there yourself and make a change. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word "battle" isn't used in any other section titles. I see no need to do so here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted. [11] Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find this. I copied the whole article into a Word document and did a search but nothing came up. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The style that I've chosen is A.M. and P.M. I found two previous instances where this was not followed and remedied them. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any case of that previously being linked. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Links to Gainesville, Killer Angels, Gettysburg (film), and Tom Berenger removed. Link to Ben Ames Williams not removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, thank you for your review. While this was helpful, I do have an issue with removing some of the links that you suggested. While it may be in accordance with a strict and technical implementation of Wikipedia policy, I think that it is unhelpful to the reader to remove links that were only mentioned very long ago in the article. For example, someone wanting to know who Ben Ames Williams was, coming across his name at basically the very end of our article and seeing that there was not a link, would most likely not know to look under the first paragraph of "Subsequent activities" all the way near the beginning. Likewise, Helen Dortch was only mentioned much earlier, but if someone clicked on this article wanting to find out something about Helen Dortch, they wouldn't think to go to the "Subsequent activities" section between the Mexican-American and the Civil Wars, but to the section on Longstreet's life after the war, which is when he married her. In "Historical reputation," while Wert doesn't need to be linked because he has been mentioned many times over, Douglas Southall Freeman is mentioned only once, buried in the middle of the Civil War section a long ways up. Gettysburg should be linked at the start of the section about the Battle of Gettysburg, even if it was already mentioned in the Second Bull Run section. I think I was pushing things already by agreeing to remove links to the articles of a list of generals who were only mentioned once in the section on Longstreet's time at West Point. But especially in these cases, I think that to remove the links would not improve the article. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how selectively overlinking certain items helps the readers at all. But that's your call of course. I can't support an article which adopts that approach. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah apologies. I have just noticed your comment immediately above, which, obviously, answers my query. (I had noted it when it first appeared, but then forgotten it in the intervening two weeks.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, thank you for your assistance with the article. I have removed one case of double links that were very close together, but am unable to locate any others. Are there more that you know of? Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the one case left which does not clearly meet the test you set - I leave aside the question of whether that test is sufficient reason for ignoring the MoS - is Douglas Southall Freeman. And when something like this is not clear I feel one should default to the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I've removed the second link to him. Display name 99 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild you've promoted this already? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild weird, I never got back to re-reviewing everything. Yet it's been promoted already? Oh well. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi.Random[edit]

Placeholder... I'll verify the content of sources/cites, but I am not inclined to start !voting in either direction. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi.Random, thank you very much. I know that source reviews often don't end in someone voting one way or another. So if by the end of it you do vote to support, that would be great, but it's fine if you don't. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi.Random, thank you for all of this work. I'm a bit busy in real life today but will begin to work on all of this soon. As a general note about the style of citing many works at once, descriptions of battles include details which are found in many sources but some details which are only found in one. If I wanted to include something which was only found in one source in between two pieces of information that were found in another source, that would automatically require three footnotes. Rather than have an innumerable amount of footnotes with often-repeating page ranges, which would be difficult for me to cite and confusing and overwhelming for the reader, I found that the best way to do it was to summarize a battle and then cite all of my sources at the end of each paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And according to the MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the part of the sentence that you quoted. I made it so that the Eckenrode & Conrad quote covers only the abandonment of Chattanooga, which is not mentioned in Wert. Hopefully that solves the problem. I will probably add those templates. But I'm off to sleep now. Display name 99 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi.Random, thank you again for all of your work here. Here is what I have accomplished so far. I added the templates to the start of the sections. Do you think I should leave the links to the battles and campaigns in the body of the text, or should I get rid of them? I moved the other two citations with Eckenrode & Conrad p. 245 to before the last sentence. This way, the final sentence is only cited to that source, and the Eckenrode & Conrad citation does not cover anything else. I'm not sure what you mean about the anecdote. Maybe worthy of mention, but length is a concern. I added the battles and campaigns that Longstreet missed. Pendleton and Early were Longstreet's two most vocal critics, but he had many others. This article can't cover everything. I don't think that Smith's health is worthy of mention. It has no direct connection to Longstreet. Furthermore, Smith probably would have been removed anyway. As the senior major general in the army, he was basically just a placeholder for a day until Lee could arrive from Richmond. Display name 99 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I'm still not inclined to mention Gordon. Piston barely mentions his criticism and Wert doesn't do so at all. With only one source paying any significant attention to it, it just doesn't seem notable enough. The immediate cause of Longstreet coming under criticism was his support for Reconstruction after the war. This should be obvious once you read "Postbellum life." Most Southern whites vehemently opposed Reconstruction as well as the Republican Party, which was seen as the party of Northerners and Southern blacks. But Longstreet joined the Republican Party and called for cooperation with the North and acceptance of Reconstruction laws. It effectively anathematized him from white Southern leadership, and it was followed shortly by attacks on his conduct during the war. Longstreet's military conduct did not come under any major public criticism either during the conflict or in the years immediately after it, but it did after he became politically active. To be sure, many former Confederates simply wanted to deflect as much blame from Lee as they could, but the main reason that Longstreet became a scapegoat was his postwar politics. His criticism of Lee mostly didn't begin until after he himself came under attack, and was mainly a defense mechanism to deflect blame away from himself. Criticism of Lee was basically tantamount to blasphemy in some Southern circles, and so Longstreet certainly made things worse for himself by doing this, but it wasn't the immediate cause of the criticism directed at him. Display name 99 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I like talking about that stuff. I'll await further posts from you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi.Random, Thank you. This is done. I went through the rest of the article and found three or four more. I added citations immediately after the quotes to these. Display name 99 (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

total, 4,201. Jackson was also reported as having lost in missing 526. These figures are also adopted by Ropes, and he gives Burnside's army as 122,500, ours as 78,500. I do not think that more than half of our forces were engaged on the 13th. The Federal losses, attacks on Marye's Hill, 8,000; loss of whole army, Federal, 12,650 killed and wounded. (Ropes figures.)" ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Longstreet's troops "easily repulsed several more assaults." Sorrel writes about how strong the Confederate troops were and how easily they disposed of the Union troops attempting to take their position. I know that none of the specific details are in Sorrel aside from Cobb, but I feel comfortable leaving it where it is. As for the casualty figures, primary sources can give different accounts, so we rely on the authors of secondary sources for the best estimates. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lingzhi.Random. Do you have any further comments? Thank you for all of your work on the article. Display name 99 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: Got you scheduled for tomorrow...sorry if any inconvenience... ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Lingzhi.Random. I came across Stewart's refusal to move forward unless he received confirmation from Longstreet. I initially declined to include it, but I reconsidered. I added it in with a new citation to Sorrel. [13] As for the book that you mentioned, I can't find it on archive.org, but more importantly, I cannot establish any historical credentials for the author. Yes, an analysis of 19th century warfare by someone in that profession could certainly be interesting, but just because a person holds an important position in the United States military today does not mean that the person is a qualified historian. The press is non-academic. As such, I feel completely fine not using it. Display name 99 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OH, it's an MA thesis. Never mind. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi.Random, just a polite reminder here. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Lingzhi.Random has retired, which leaves us with something of a situation. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild. Linghzi has chosen to pass the source review. He or she posted the comment at the top of the section rather than at the bottom. Please scroll up. Also, I've left a post on the talk page of an additional editor who I know frequently edits early U.S. history topics asking for a general review. So I hope to have a little bit more activity. Display name 99 (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was looking at "To FAC coordinators and other reviewers: ... My summary is: (will insert here later). Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that of issues that may need to be considered[edit]

There's been a lot of work in this article, that's for sure, and it is in good shape. My comments are minor.

Mentioned on the article talk page. I think it's in good shape. Abbreviations are used after first mentions. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of duplicate links maybe after many paragraphs without mention. I just removed one of these but I don't know how big of a deal it is if in a long article like this something is linked near the beginning and again near the end after not being mentioned at all in between. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv, a few duplicate links were pointed out to me by a different reviewer. They have now been removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The final time is a direct quote, so it cannot be altered. But I did remove the mention of it in the July 1-2 section. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced to Wert p. 156. That citation also covers in the information in the next sentence, and I see no good reason to use the exact same citation for two sentences in a row. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I said on the article talk page, Alexander's book is not a reprint of a 1907 source. It was discovered long after his death and published for the first time in 1989. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added citation to Sears 1983. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any need to add a secondary citation. There's no reason to doubt Longstreet here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as I couldn't find a source for the first part. Hog Farm, maybe you could lend a hand here? Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding a great single figure here. Best I can do is Frances Kennedy's The Civil War Battlefield Guide p. 148 has "The battle of Fredericksburg cost Burnside 12,600 casualties, almost two thirds of which occurred on the few acres in front of the sunken road", Bruce Catton's Glory Road pp. 64-65 which has "In killed, wounded, and missing, the army [of the Potomac] had lost more than 12,600 men ... The great gulk of the casualties had been incurred in front of the stone wall" and Stephen W. Sears's Lincoln's Lieutenants p. 467 which has "The cost for teh Union was worse even than Antietam - 12,653 ... The assaults aimed at Marye's Heights account for 70 percent of that total" Hog Farm Talk 02:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, thanks a lot. That should work. I can work that percentage into the text. Display name 99 (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness I made some typos. The Catton quote should be "bulk" not "gulk" and the teh in the Sears quote should be the. Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a citation to Sorrel. Sorrel writes that he carried a message from Hood asking if he could move around to the right. As another eyewitness, I think that the text is now on solid ground. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added citation to Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, added citation to Sorrel. As a staff officer to Longstreet, he was also an eyewitness. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a citation to Wert there. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added citation to Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to doubt Alexander here. His memoirs are probably the best single primary source for military history about the war from a Confederate perspective. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And again. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary citation added to Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, these are all pretty easy to find secondary-source support to back up the primary sources. Wtfiv (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review. I will get to these comments in more detail soon, but as a brief note, while some of these could certainly use secondary sources, I don't think that they are entirely needed. Here is what I mean. Longstreet's memoirs, though valuable, have major problems. They're covered by bitterness and can be quite biased. Some of the information that you have pointed out which is cited exclusively to Longstreet should indeed have a secondary source. I will work on adding them. However, I don't think that every one needs one. I am specifically talking about Alexander. Alexander was a brigadier general of artillery. His memoirs are recognized as being perhaps the most balanced and fair account of the conflict by any general on either side. They are dispassionate in tone and were written probably at least about 50 years after the war ended. I don't think that all of the citations to Alexander necessarily need secondary sources. Display name 99 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Display name, I recently picked up quite a few sources about the war at a charity book sale - I can try and hunt down stuff for specific items if you have trouble with them. Hog Farm Talk 01:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hog Farm. Wtfiv, I have responded to your review. As you can see, I didn't agree with all of it. But it was definitely good to add additional citations to some spots. Thank you for looking at the article and sharing your suggestions. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheking Pollard[edit]

As I'd say Pollard is the weakest source used here, and doesn't seem to have been brought up by anyone else, I'll give it a little extra attention. Ref numbers from this revision.

So my only real question with Pollard is what to do with the captured cannons. Hog Farm Talk 20:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, thank you very much for your work here. I've replaced the Pollard reference about the cannon with a reference to Sears and changed the information in the article accordingly. [14] Display name 99 (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC was closed with an open oppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, why do you do this to yourself? Anyone can look at the page history and see that isn't true. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing anything to "myself" Gog, thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and active comments, they're still relevant. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More