Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Longstreet/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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

  • I'll get to this over the coming week. I will note that while I've got 9 ACW FAs, they're mostly Trans-Mississippi; I'm not quite as familiar with the theaters of the war Longstreet fought in. Hog Farm Talk 23:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • " including George Henry Thomas, William Rosecrans (his West Point roommate), John Pope, D. H. Hill, Lafayette McLaws, George Pickett, and Ulysses S. Grant, who was of the Class of 1843" - Don't think that it's necessary to state the year that Grant graduated. It's reasonable for the reader to assume that he knew cadets outside of his grade. Also, Pickett graduated in 1846 and Thomas in 1840 and they aren't noted as graduating in other years
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was commissioned a brevet second lieutenant" - what was his non-brevet rank? Did he hold a permanent commission?
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]
  • "as part of Army of Observation under General Zachary Taylor" - Should it be the Army of Observation? Also, recommend using Taylor's formal rank (I think Taylor was a brigadier general at that point; recommend double-checking me)
Done. According to Wert, he was a major general. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On March 8, 1845, Longstreet received a promotion to second lieutenant" - As an ACW studier, I'm familiar with the brevet system. However, a fair number of readers may read this and think "wasn't he already a second lieutenant"? I think this can be handled with a footnote where you mention the brevet rank.
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]
  • " stationed at Fort Marion in St. Augustine, Florida" - link Fort Marion
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He served at the Battle of Contreras" - indicate when this occurred
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]
  • I think the Mexican-American War section isn't quite clear enough. In the beginning portion, its indicated that he was fighting under Taylor, but in the later parts, those battles were part of Winfield Scott's column which was coming from a different direction. Recommend indicating the Taylor/Scott transition
Thank you. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet's first assignment placed him on recruiting duty in Poughkeepsie, New York," - I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "first assignment", given that he had served at others posts and in the Mexican War prior to this
Changed to "next assignment." Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date is wrong on the file page for File:Gen. Longstreet LCCN91783856.tif - you'll want the date whatever book it was published in was published, not the date the picture was taken (put the date taken in the description). It's fairly clearly an antebellum portrait based on the uniform, but the reference to "Gen. Longstreet" is fairly clear evidence that the plate itself doesn't come from something published in 1860
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]
  • " His experience resembles that of many would-be Civil War generals" - is "would-be" necessary?
No. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be wary of using rank abbreviations like Lt. Col. or Brig. Gen. without introducing them explicitly. Not all readers are going to be familiar with the abbreviations
Valid point. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A second attack soon began, but Confederate successes were hampered when inexperienced soldiers from Colonel Jubal Early's brigade sent to reinforce Longstreet began firing on their own men. Tyler eventually withdrew, as he had orders not to bring on a general engagement." - recommend getting a secondary source for this, especially the Early part, given that Longstreet had pretty rocky relations with a lot of the Confederate officers by the time this was written. I personally don't have a First Bull Run book to consult, but I know of a few editors who might. If you can't find a secondary source, I can probably go try to check out David Dezter's Donnybrook: The Battle of Bull Run, 1861 from a local library and look in there
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]
  • I strongly recommend against using the rank of "General" as a shorthand, since General is how the CSA rank of full general is generally presented in sources. For instance, "Longstreet received an order from General Joseph E. Johnston" - while Joe Johnston was promoted to full general the next month and his promotion date was backdated, he was technically only a Brigadier General at the time of First Bull Run. I know this is picky, but it's kinda a minor accuracy thing
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finding the ground he occupied untenable, Longstreet requested reinforcements from D.H. Hill's division a little further up the road and received Early's brigade, to which was later added the entire division" - what does the source (Longstreet's memoirs) say about when this request occurred? Stephen W. Sears's To the Gates of Richmond states that Longstreet's request occurred "Earlier in the day [in context, earlier than when Union reinforcements arrived on the field], as the fighting intensified" as when Longstreet requested reinforcements. Sears also attributes the request to wanting a reserve.
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]
  • " Longstreet reported 9,000 Confederate troops engaged compared to 12,000 Union troops, and the Confederates suffered fewer casualties" - this is sourced to Longstreet. I only have one secondary source about the Peninsula (Richard "Dick" Wheeler's Sword over Richmond is primarily a collection of primary accounts), but Sears has very different numbers. Sears has "Some 13,750 Confederates in the divisions of Longstreet and D. H. Hill saw action at Williamsburg", not including the reserve troops. He also states "During most of the day-long battle against Joe Hooker [...] [the Confederates] enjoyed a better than 1,300-man advantage over Hooker's unsupported division. Only late in the afternoon, after the arrival of [...] [Union reinforcements], did the Federals finally gain a manpower advantage there"
Removed as I don't think it's possible to reconcile the two. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McClellan inaccurately characterized the battle as a Union victory in a dispatch to Washington" - if you want a nonprimary source for this, I can cite it to Sears p. 82
Added. Thank you for the suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On May 31, during the Battle of Seven Pines, Longstreet received his orders verbally from Johnston, but ended up apparently misremembering them." - what does Wert say about this? Sears p. 121 says "yet it is hard to believe that his [Joe Johnston's] instructions of the day before were so vague that Longstreet confused something so simple as which road he was to use. More probably, Longstreet believed his command of the army's right wing allowed him the independence to change the plan, and that by shifting his division over to the Williamsburg Road he would not have to come under Johnston's eye - and Johnston's direct supervision - once the fighting began But Sears can be a bit of a maverick occassionally, so it would be good to see what other sources say about this. I'm gonna leave a message for User:BusterD to see if they have anything that could be useful.
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]
  • Do you think it's worth mentioning that on the first day of Seven Pines, only got one of his six brigades and none of Huger's to support Harvey Hill? (Sears p.130)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the source say that File:Gen. Longstreet, C.S.A. LCCN2004678555.jpg is from 1861? The LOC file description page just states that it was between 1861 and 1890, although I may be missing something.
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]

  • "making the Old War-Horse the senior lieutenant general in the entire Confederate Army" - Didn't Edmund Kirby Smith have the same date of rank as Longstreet?
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]
  • "In some places behind the stonewall" - stonewall should be two words here
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Confederates would have to march over close to a mile of open ground" - provide a conversion to kilometers here, for those readers who use the metric system
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final plan called for an artillery barrage by 170 cannon of the Washington Artillery" - most of the 170 guns were not part of the Washington Artillery.
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]
  • "The Longstreet Society is an organization and museum in Gainesville dedicated to the celebration and study of his life and career." - It's fairly weak sourcing to cite a likely non-notable 500-member organization to its own website; if this can't be sourced to a solid secondary source, recommend removing. My recommended test for determining if pop culture or memorials are truly significant is if they can be reliably secondarily sourced.
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with the GLRP
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]
  • Not seeing any direct evidence that File:General James Longstreet.jpg is specifically a 1865 picture
Changed to "after the war". Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Project Canterbury website" - citation needs publisher and accessdate
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]
  • There's a category about the Aztec Club listed. A mention and citation of this needs to be added per WP:CATV.
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]
  • "He contracted pneumonia and died in Gainesville on January 2, 1904, six days before his 83rd birthday. Bishop Benjamin Joseph Keiley of Savannah, Georgia, a veteran of the Army of Northern Virginia, said his funeral Mass" - recommend getting a better source than a blog for this. Blog post author is described as a "small town lawyer" and helps run a nonprofit; I don't think this demonstrates great credentials for this subject. The source also doesn't mention pneumonia.
Done. Replaced with references to Piston and Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are Knudsen's credentials? the Knudsen work is publisher by a self-publishing company
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 spot-checked a couple of the Tagg references and saw no issues.
  • There appear to still be some rank abbreviations and a few stray uses of the specific rank "General" as a generic rank, such as "before Union General Gouverneur K. Warren, Chief of Engineers,".
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]
  • (Additional comment)

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

  • Suggest scaling up all maps, and providing legends in captions when appropriate
Legends added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:James_Longstreet.jpg: the source file does not appear to exist - who is the author and when/where was this first published?
I'm sorry about that. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gen._Longstreet_LCCN91783856.tif: image description has the collection mislabelled as author; is the author known? Ditto File:Gen._Longstreet,_C.S.A._LCCN2004678555.jpg
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]
  • File:Peninsula_Campaign_March_17_-_May_31,_1862.png: what is the source for the data presented in this map? Ditto File:Fredericksburg-Overview.png, File:Gettysburg_Battle_Map_Day2.png, File:Pickett's-Charge.png, File:Wilderness_May6_1100.png
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]
  • File:James_Longstreet_crop.png needs a US tag
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:James_Longstreet_photograph.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:James_Longstreet_later_life.jpg
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]
  • File:General_James_Longstreet.jpg: source link is dead; where was this first published?
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]
  • File:JamesLongstreet.jpg: suggest using the specific Brady-Handy tag
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]
  • File:Gettysburg_Battlefield,_Pennsylvania,_US_(25).jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 17 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

@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

  • I'll try to comment shortly. Ping me if I've forgotten after a week or so... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • "James remained with uncle Augustus" maybe just "with his uncle"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Southern aristocratic traditions had not yet taken hold." can you link or further explain "southern aristocratic traditions"?
Added link to "planter class." Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seemed largely uninterested in politics" seemed to who?
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]
  • "was a man of some political prominence" is this really necessary? Does it add anything? Why not just "But Augustus, a ... minister, was a fierce"?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe add a year for when the Nullification crisis happened?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is considered likely" who considers it likely?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even though many Americans in this era considered them to be immoral" maybe "at a time when many Americans considered them immoral" would be more concise?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the vacancy for his congressional district had already been filled" this will likely be hard to understand to those unfamiliar with the application process-- is there anywhere we can link, even if it's to a section?
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]
  • "Therefore, Longstreet was appointed in 1838 by a relative, Reuben Chapman, who represented the First District of Alabama, where Mary Longstreet lived." Maybe "Longstreet was instead appointed the following year by a relative, Reuben Chapman, who represented the First District of Alabama in the United States House of Representatives, where Mary Longstreet lived."?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gentleman feels like an overlink
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would longstreet get a brevet commission as a low ranking cadet?
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]
  • After a brief furlough, Longstreet set out to join the 4th U.S. Infantry at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri. Longstreet spent his first two years of service at the post, which was under the command of Lt. Col. John Garland." might be more concisely expressed as "After a brief furlough, Longstreet was stationed for two years at the 4th U.S. Infantry at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri, under the command of Lt. Col. John Garland."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet's commander, Lt. Col. Garland" only one or the other is needed, it's already been established that Garland is Longstreet's commander
Second one removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historians agree that " how many? All of them? Two? Five? twenty?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scott besieged the city and subjected it to regular bombardments" Not following this linking choice
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]
  • Maybe add a sentence clarifying the end of the war?
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]
  • her only rarely in his memoirs
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Longstreets' time at Fort Bliss was pleasant." does this really add anything? I think the following two do a good enough job of establishing the gist of their stay-- and "pleasant" is pretty subjective.
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the way, Longstreet came across his old friend Grant " A nice anecdote, but is it really relevant to an encyclopedic article?
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

  • " to cast his lot with the" perhaps simply "to join the"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which implied a commensurate" what does 'implied' here mean? Who is it implied to or by? I guess I'm just a little confused
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]
  • How did Bonham outrank Longstreet if they were both BG's?
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]
  • "In his memoirs, Longstreet would write" perhaps simply "longstreet wrote"?
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]
  • "but ended up apparently misremembering them. " perhaps simply "apparently misremembered"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "diluting the effect of the massive Confederate counterattack against McClellan." 'massive' feels both subjective and unnecessary
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Postwar criticism of Longstreet" can you date this more specifically than simply 'postwar'?
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]
  • "one of Longstreet's finest performances of the war" According to who? This feels like a subjective opinion wanting of atribution
Attribution added. [5] Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prevented this plan from taking place" either "prevented this" would probably suffice
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an impressive Confederate victory" again, feels subjective. Impressive to whom?
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]
  • " the Union right largely entirely" is there something missing here?
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]
  • "Longstreet deserved" again feels like a judgement call that Wikipedia shouldn't be making in its own voice-- maybe simply "Longstreet received..."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Once again he developed innovative tactics to deal with difficult terrain," why not just "He developed tactics to deal with difficult terrain"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why he was confirmed as an episcopalian
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]
  • "he was able to regain" perhaps simply "he regained"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I never heard of any other cause of the quarrel than slavery."-- This gives the implication Longstreet viewed the war as being over slavery, yet earlier our article gives the impression he reluctantly joined as a states rights issue. Which was it?
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

  • "Ellen J. Dortsch" not referred to as this in the main body, just the infobox?
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]
  • His first "non-notable" wife is mentioned in the lead, but not Dortsch?
Added [6]. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the linked "campaign" articles appear to not capitalise the "C" of campaign. Why are we doing that here?
    • Don't remember where the exact discussion is, but I think earlier this year MILHIST decided that the MOS for campaigns was to lowercase campaign. Hog Farm Talk 20:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSA is used in the infobox but never explained.
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]
  • "Louisiana State Militia" is mentioned twice in the infobox but never used directly in the prose.
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]
  • Just one single element of the infobox is referenced inline, why that one specific fact?
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]
  • "Anglicized" explain/link.
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]
  • " the Nullification Crisis. It" we don't appear to capitalise either word.
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]
  • "near Natchitoches, Louisiana as part of" comma after state, check the rest.
Comma added. Checked the rest and added two more commas. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mexican-American War" en-dash in the section title.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "received a brevet promotion" what is that?
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]
  • "brief visit with his family, Longstreet went to Missouri to visit " visit/visit. repetitive.
Changed second use of "visit" to "see." Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "courtship or marriage. Longstreet" merge.
Not sure what you mean here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chief Commissary" what's one of those?
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]
  • "provided valuable experience" valuable according to whom?
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

  • "At the time of ... at the beginning of" repetitive prose.
Fixed [9]. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "United States Army" it was "U.S. Army" before.
Removed "U.S. Army." Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reared in Georgia" brought up in?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the U.S. Army on" suddenly linked here?
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commission as a lieutenant colonel in " overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "toward Manassas Junction. Longstreet's" overlinked.
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]
  • "with sabre in" might want to link that.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... my horse's heels, or stop the break"." this quote needs reference.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General Milledge Bonham, Bonham" repetitive, rephrase.
Done. [10] Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commanded by Generals Daniel Harvey Hill, " overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the 20th" by January 20.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet immediately returned to Richmond.[51] ... Longstreet arrived in Richmond " repetitive.
Changed first instance to "the city." Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "danger. George Pickett and " overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "funeral and burial" plural, burials at least if they had a joint-funeral.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Union Maj. Gen." suddenly abbreviated ranks?
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]
  • "Main articles: Peninsula Campaign and" campaign.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet would write " wrote.
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]
  • "Second Bull Run" why isn't this called "Second Battle of Bull Run"?
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]
  • "put Major Gen. John Pope in command" overlinked.
Link removed. (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "600-yard (548.6 meter" unnecessary precision.
Seems fine to me. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commanded by Lafayette McLaws, R.H. " overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on October 26. On November 7," repetitive.
Adjusted. [11] Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McLaws' " -> "McLaws's" per MOS.
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]
  • "Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant was" overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "massing around Frederick, Maryland. Lee" likewise.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the Battle of Gettysburg would" ditto.
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4:30 in the afternoon" why not just "4:30{{nbsp}p.m."?
I see no problem here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until 4 P.M. Meade" earlier we used p.m., not P.M. be consistent.
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]
  • "July 13–July 14" no need for second July.
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under George Henry Thomas in the center.[203]" overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "escape towards Lynchburg, and " likewise.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acceptance of Reconstruction and" and that.
I can't find any case of that previously being linked. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "House in New Orleans, which" ditto.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "returning to Gainesville, Georgia. By" ditto.
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "succeeding Wade Hampton III.[15] " and here.
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "librarian Helen Dortch. Although" this too.
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "century, Douglas Southall Freeman kept criticism" similar.
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More overlinked: "hometown of Gainesville, Georgia, through the", "novels by Ben Ames Williams, one " and the three: "novel The Killer Angels and in the film Gettysburg, being portrayed by Tom Berenger.[284"
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]
  • Hi TRM, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 9 October 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]
  • Display name 99, the re-linking in this articles clearly runs into MOS:LINKONCE. While your logic above may be persuasive for the closing coordinator, can I suggest that you recheck that it applies to every multiple link? Several are currently close to each other in the article, undermining your "were only mentioned very long ago in the article" argument. I have just remedied two identical links in two paragraphs. There are other less extreme but potentially unpersuasive examples. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 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]
  • Looks like 32 sources; 25% = 8. By rough count, 336 cites; 15% = 50. So let's say, minimum 8 sources, minimum 50 checks. Will take a few days 'cause real life and all. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To FAC coordinators and other reviewers: there's gonna be a tl;dr word thicket below. You don't need to read it if you don't want to. I'm gonna add all of it for the nominator's benefit. My summary is: (will insert here later).
    • Wert, Jeffrey D. (1993). Cited around 120 times. I checked 14: Wert 1993, pp. 30–31, 2 cites, first good, second includes text from page 32. Cite either needs to be moved 2 sentences earlier, or page range increased to 32. Wert 1993, p. 46, 2 cites. Both OK. Wert 1993, pp. 47–48, 2 cites. "learned how to manage troops" doesn't sound quite correct; source says "gained valuable experience in the administration of a military force". Those might seem like near-synonyms, but to my ear at least, the former sounds like battlefield exp., whereas the latter does not. But several other details are quite correct. [The source text seems to have an error: Fort Marion Scott --> Fort Martin Scott]. Wert 1993, p. 206, 2 cites. "Jackson has been described as the army's hammer, Longstreet its anvil." Have other sources said this? If not, may wanna explicitly attribute it to Wert. It is an original turn of phrase...googling, Jackson as "hammer" is commmon but Longstreet as anvil not so much. May wanna attribute. I think you should. "Wert observed that..." Other details OK... Well, here in the "Suffolk" section of our article there are overlapping cites (Wert 1993, pp. 227–228, 1 cite; Wert 1993, pp. 228–229, 2 cites.) There's info from that three page range all mixed into this section. I suggest consolidating them and making these both Wert 1993, pp. 227–229. There's no fear of a larger page range. I once got in a huge freaking argument (and lost ignominiously) by blowing my top when people were using page ranges of quite literally 50 pages, maybe more, I don't remember... There's also a direct quote that is 1) not cited by itself as it should be, because it's a direct quote, and 2) not actually quoted perfectly word-for-word, as it should be, because it's within quotation marks (direct quote). Make the wording perfect and put a one-page-only cite immediately after it. These cites are... OK-ish. Not blatantly wrong. Just a bit mixed up. Probably OK. Wert 1993, pp. 422–423, 2 cites. "Early, in a speech at..." Is that Jubal Early? Name not near in our article. Looking at source, yep, it's Jubal... "The following year, Pendleton claimed.." Ditto, give first name 'cause it's in a new section. Early's words are just a wee liddly bit too close paraphrase. Although I see you altered several key words, the sentence structure is pretty much the same as the source...Oh, I didn't know Longstreet was critized for the black New Orleans troops... Other details OK. Wert 1993, pp. 258–261, 1 cite in the "July 1–2" section. Oh here's a bigger page range. Does it cover the whole first paragraph of the July 1–2 section? Mmm. I think... there are some details in that para that do not seem to be in Wert in that page range. For example, the idea that attacking Cemetery Hill was best seems to be on page 267 (not in the range of this cite). I think you are casting too wide a net here. I'm not a fan of bunched cites ("[142][147][148][149]") anyhow, preferring to use {{sfnm}}. [Though WikiMedia in its wisdom may delete sfn and related templates if they ever get their way and move entirely to Visual Editor....)]. I think you need to re-read this entire paragraph closely. I don't like this cite, as it stands.. [more later] ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, 6 total cites. Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, p. 148. It's stuck in a cite-hive ("[111][112][113][114]") at the end of a 344 word chunk of text. What part of all that is Eckenrode & Conrad? Yes, this page is about the same engagement that is described in that big chunk of text. And yes, the general conclusion about the hopelessness of the Union position is the same. But I cannot specifically pin down any bit of text in our article that I would wanna cite to Eckenrode & Conrad. I strongly suspect this should be an {{efn}} with text like "For another account, see Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, p. 148." But OTOH, some people hate (or pretend to hate) footnotes, and scream when there are too many. But there are successful FAs with many, many footnotes. So... delete, or footnote, but do not cite in this manner. [More later] ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 11:22, 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]
        • It may or may not be a matter of opinion, but I disagree with your method...and no matter what opinion you hold, you absolutely must put a specific cite behind any direct quote (inside quotation marks). ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 13:09, 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]
          • @Display name 99: I remember about a billion years ago, when I was a GA reviewer and editor, we did this thing where we would leave a paragraph entirely uncited until the very last sentence of that paragraph. There then we would cite one source (only one) and put a not-too-very-big page range. That practice seems kinda OK-ish to me. It's kinda reasonable, assuming evrything in that paragraph is in the cited source and page range. But I don't think it's good practice to leave a stretch of text uncited and then cite several sources at the end. And I really, really don't think that the purpose of a citation is to note a passage from a source that certainly does cover the topic of that paragraph, but that source/passage doesn't actually mention the details that are mentioned in that paragraph. [I hope I explained that well.] In that case, as I mentioned earlier, you can either use a footnote like {{efn}} or similar and say "For another account, see Author Year, pp. xx-endash-yy", or you can just never even mention that source. It depends on how awesome you think that source is, for some reason... I think you need to check the entire article for this sort of issue. I'm really sorry, but I do think so... and you need to be careful about the boundaries within the text of each citation. Most people assume that the boundary of a citation runs only as far as the previous citation. I hope I explained that well, too. So I think you need to look for long-ish stretches of uncited text (more than two sentences? more than three? something) and parse them carefully. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lingzhi.Random, thank you for all of your hard work here. I have made progress on what you have said through edits to the article. I intend to post a fuller response to you here within the next day. Display name 99 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If fixed some of the issues with page ranges. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're mistaken about the source text having an error. It refers to Fort Marion in Florida. Fort Martin Scott is in Texas. He went there after the Mexican-American War, as the article says. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "learned how to manage troops" to "provided experience in administrative military work." Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attributed the hammer and anvil analysis to Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed Eckenrode & Conrad p. 148. I agree it's not necessary.
  • Fixed error in quoting a direct quote in the Suffolk Campaign section. I understand that anything in quotes must be given exactly. It was just a mistake. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added first names to Early and Pendleton under the Postbellum life section. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point about citations, particularly on the matter of direct quotes. I'm working on moving citations so that there is one after every direct quote and so that there aren't so many crowded at the end of a paragraph. I've already done this with the first paragraph of July 1-2. I removed Tagg p. 206 from the paragraph as there didn't seem to be any direct information from it that was used. I know I didn't use it; some other editor put it in before, but all of the text was mine and I didn't use that source. I just never bothered to remove it. Piston p. 51 was cited twice in the paragraph. I found in only one of the two citations was any information actually taken from it. I removed the other. I think that this paragraph is good now. More to come. Thank you. This has been very helpful. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Display name 99: Thank you for your response. I will continue with the review (I'm only about 20% done), and see what develops. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the page ranges in the Suffolk section are fine. I'm not citing Wert pp. 227-229 if I'm only using information from pp. 227-228. Display name 99 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I altered the summary of Early's remarks. [12] Display name 99 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The attack on Cemetery Hill part was not within the Wert page range, but it was in the other sources. I added p. 267 to the Wert citation. Display name 99 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a general comment: I really like it when people put {{main|Battle of Chickamauga}} under sections like "Chickamauga" and "Fredericksburg", etc. I bet you're probably concerned about over-linking, but I find those sub-headers really, really convenient. He said, hinting. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, pp. 214–217: "In one of the most daunting logistical efforts of the Confederacy"...says who? That is an opinion, and needs to be cited... Moving on, I find this cite to be deficient again. Few facts in the stretch of text within the scope of this cite appear in Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, pp. 214–217, and many are clearly not mentioned. For example, the name "Wigfall" does not appear in this book at all! ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 02:01, 21 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]
    • Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, pp. 227–231. All OK. Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, p. 245. Only one fact in the six sentences of our article appear in Eckenrode, but it is in the last of the six. So OK...Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, p. 318. It's OK, but I have a suggestion. This anecdote about L's soldiers fearing he was dead, so he waved his hat, seems to play into L's importance to the assault. Also, our text says "Longstreet missed the rest of the 1864 spring and summer campaign, " and Eckenrode mentions specifically the battles and movements he missed. I think our text would benefit from including that list...Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, p. 376. This about blaming L for Gettysburg. yes this cite is OK. But our article doesn't mention that Gordon also attacked L, see page xiii. Also, L seems to have done something that "superceded" pendleton; does that mean something similar to "relieved of command" ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piston 1987, 18 total cites. Piston 1987, pp. 19–20: All OK... except did you mention Smith's nervous breakdown? It seems odd to say he commanded for one day and leave it at that. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 23:41, 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]

    • I defer to your judgment regarding what to leave in and what to leave out. And I defer to other FAC reviewers about how many links to add, and where. All I'm saying is, I love those subheader links. They are soooooo convenient for me. So easy to see. One reason I almost always use asterisks instead of single quotes to indent my comments is because those single quotes are a little hard for me to distinguish, especially if I forgot to use my "cheater" glasses. [Another reason is habit]... I do think Gordon should be added to the list of detractors. According to Eckonrode, his attack was significant.... Did you mention "why" he was attacked? I haven't read the whole Wikipedia article, only skimmed... seems the deal is, Longstreet criticized Lee, and everyone was engaged in a concerted effort to create a public cult of veneration for Lee. for various reasons. ♦&—nbsp;Lingzhi.Random (talk) 01:13, 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]
    • wow, long reply. :-) Good, thanks! Sorry my error caused you to have to explain. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 01:57, 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]
    • Piston 1987, pp. 41–42. All Ok. Piston 1987, pp. 153–157. All OK. Piston 1987, pp. 159–161. All OK. Piston 1987, pp. 137–139. All OK. Piston 1987, p. 78 (2 cites). OK. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • changing gears, you need a cite immediately after every direct quote, even if the quote is in a stretch of text covered by a multi-page cite. Starting at the bottom of the article, I quickly found many, including these:
      • best staff officer in the Confederacy
      • or order him before a court-martial
      • strategic offensive and a tactical defensive
    • You need to go through the same exercise, for the whole article. The problem is, that may strand a "widow" section of text above the direct quote and leave it uncited, if your direct quote is inside a large stretch. So then you need to add two new cites per every such istance, alas: a one-pager for the direct quote, and a whatever-length for the widow... ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 12:45, 23 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]
    • Sorrel 1905, pp. 140–141. I am using the Gutenberg .txt version, which does not have page numbers. However, I found the section on Fredericksburg and Marye's Hill battle. The only thing our wiki seems to have in common with Sorrel's acct is Cobb's death. Everything else in Sorrel on that matter does not appear to be in our article... Sorrel does mention Jackson's struggles in detail. He also gives casualties: "We lost in killed and wounded--Longstreet, 1,519; Jackson, 2,682;

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]
  • I think I've done four sources and 26 checks, but I'm losing steam. Going by what was there when I started, that's 12.5% of sources and 8% of cites.
    • Mendoza 2008, pp. 3–4; All OK. Mendoza 2008, pp. 4–5; All OK. Mendoza 2008, pp. 38, 50; All OK. Mendoza 2008, p. 48; our wikipedia article does not mention that Stewart initially refused Longstreet's orders and requested the orders in writing. Is this important? All else OK. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I find it odd that you didn't consult Hite, Major Hampton E. A Leadership Analysis: Lieutenant General James Longstreet During the American Civil War. Pickle Partners Publishing, 2015. It's right there in archive.org, waiting... I would think a Leadership Analysis by a US Major in the Defense Technical Information Center would be eminently interesting. At he very least, look for conclusions... but insights on many details could be interesting too! ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 08:18, 30 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.

    • Abbreviation style may need to be made consistent (e.g., Lieutenant Colonel or Lt. Col.)
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]
    • Make sure to remove duplicate links.
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]
    • Even more minor, Sorrel is mentioned as Longstreet's chief of staff, or de facto chief of staff, in three out of four mentions. Does it need repeating?
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]
  • The following statement needs a secondary citation: In the first part of the Northern Virginia campaign of August 1862, this stereotype held true, but in the climactic battle, it did not. This could use a secondary citation, without one, it sounds close to WP:OR. I'm sure it is easy to get.
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]
  • Perhaps the largest thing I noticed is that a goodly number look like they have citations, but the sources are primary sources not secondary sources. These primary sources add value to the article, but the sentences need support from a more objective source. Cursory readers who are unaware may think Longstreet (1991) and Alexander (1989) are contemporary secondary sources, but they are actually reprints of 1896 and 1907 primary sources. I think each sentence which uses these as a stand-alone for a statement of fact also needs to have secondary source to verify that the participant's perception has been historically verified. I'll list the examples I noticed:
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]
    • The Confederates pursued their enemy but stopped once the retreating troops came under the protection of a battery on the opposite side of the river, ending the Battle of Antietam after 18 hours of fighting. Longstreet
Added citation to Sears 1983. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • December 12 saw only a small amount of desultory fighting. Longstreet
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]
    • The Union army suffered almost 8,000 casualties at Marye's Heights; Longstreet lost only 1,900. Longstreet
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]
    • Longstreet insisted that Lee had rejected this plan and ordered him to make the assault against the front of the enemy lines. Longstreet and Alexander (maybe this can be modified to something saying that "Longstreet says he insisted...", then the Longstreet and Alexander citations hold up.
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]
    • The force would include 15,000 men. Longstreet
Added citation to Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When Longstreet himself arrived on the field in the late evening, he failed to find Bragg's headquarters. He and his staff spent considerable time riding looking for them. They accidentally came across a federal picket line and were nearly captured. Longstreet. This one is difficult as there are unlikely to be additional witnesses. There's no reason to doubt Longstreet, but it and forty years of memory also provides a valuable alibi.
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]
    • The plan was well received and approved by President Davis Longstreet (talking about Longstreet's plan.)
There's already a citation to Wert there. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Longstreet said that if Grant gave too strong demands, he ought to "break off the interview and tell General Grant to do his worst". Longstreet. Longstreet states he said this, maybe make a "Longstreet says..."
Added citation to Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • More troops from both sides soon poured into the fighting, which raged for three hours. Alexander (cited twice).
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]
    • Lee held his ground at Antietam until the evening of September 18, when he withdrew his army from the battlefield and took it back across the Potomac and into Virginia. Alexander
    • I've produced a secondary citation for this. Hog Farm Talk 22:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Large portions of Hill's and Ewell's corps...were unengaged, and Meade was able to shift...from Ewell's front in order to oppose Longstreet. Alexander
See above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After Longstreet ordered Hindman's division forward, the Union right collapsed entirely. Alexander
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]
  • Hi Hog Farm, where are we with this one? Is it at FA standard? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gog the Mild: - I feel comfortable with this one, although I want to check one thing. It's made very big improvements during FAC. After another look through the sources, I've never heard of the publisher for Sawyer, but it's cited in RS such as this and this and the information isn't particularly controversial. Pollard can be a bit Lost-Causey at times, so I want to give the Pollard cites one last check. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am satisfied with the sourcing on this one now. Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 9 October 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.

  • 60a - Looks noncontroversial
  • 60b - Checking other sources in my library, vol. 1 of Shelby Foote's trilogy doesn't give a captured cannon total, I didn't see one in vol. 1 of Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants (just says that cannons were taken without saying how many), Glatthaar's General Lee's Army doesn't have a figure, and McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom doesn't either. Sears 2017 p.199 says the Confederates captured "two batteries", while Sears 1991 p. 75 says "The Confederates carried off four of the guns and an ammunition limber; the other six were so deeply bogged in the mud they could not be dragged out"
  • 60c - Material is supported by other cite, as well
  • 108 - Noncontroversial, other cites as well
  • 111 - Ditto to above
  • 119 - Noncontroversial
  • 139 - Noncontroversial
  • 230 - Noncontroversial
  • 233 - Noncontroversial
  • 234a - Noncontroversial
  • 234b - Noncontroversial

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_Longstreet/archive1&oldid=1054435764"