Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC) [1].

William Tecumseh Sherman edit

Notified: John Flaherty, Hal Jespersen, Eb.hoop, Hartfelt, WP Science and academia, WP Milhist, WP Louisiana, WP Ohio, WP Georgia, WP Missouri, WP St Louis, talk page notificiation 2020-11-11

Review section edit

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to current FA standards. Hog Farm indicated six months ago problems with sourcing, citations, and the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some additional concerns from a read-through.

  • Not entirely convinced that the summary of the Vicksburg campaign is satisfactory. It doesn't really discuss what he did in the Vicksburg campaign, and omits stuff that is likely significant, such as his fairly independent operations in the Jackson Expedition.
  • Some of the material in the total warfare section isn't really focused on Sherman and would be more relevant in the March to the Sea article
  • The section about the Jews is just a couple of quotes and does nothing to really present anything unified beyond quotes about a couple instances

While I'm one of the ACW-focused editors active yet, I'm not sure that I'll really be able to help much. There's some concerns about text-source integrity in spots, and the only source listed in the references I have is Warner, who isn't cited inline (although I do have Donald L. Miller's new book about Vicksburg that has some useful stuff about Sherman's early career). The local library appears to have Kennett, but everything else on Sherman they have is from the 1950s and 60s, and wouldn't be great to use here. If some others show up, I can help some, but this needs a lot of work, and I'm not able to tackle it by myself. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a bit weird that the 2020 OUP biography isn't cited at all. I believe it can be accessed with TWL for anyone willing to put in the effort. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, there has been some engagement for minor copyediting, but major issues are unaddressed. There is also MOS:SANDWICH and grammatical errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - Significant work needed, minimal engagement. Hog Farm Talk 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I played a large role in the work that led to this article becoming featured in 2006 (I used to be User:Eb.hoop until I changed my password and then lost it after getting a new laptop). I think that the results of those efforts were very good. The resulting article was not only well referenced and balanced, but also readable and interesting for a casual reader. Indeed, there was (and still is) to it what I can only describe, for lack of a better term, as a conceptual coherence unusual in the biography of a military officer. I think that this is demonstrated by the fact that the English article was translated verbatim into French, Danish, and Hungarian, and then became featured in the corresponding Wikipedias. Large portions of the English article were also translated verbatim for the Spanish version.
I've not been active in recent years in preparing or reviewing articles for promotion, so I'm not well informed about the current standards. In the past weeks I've sought to address the substantive objections about the content made here that I thought were valid. These include using the 2020 bio by Holden Reid (which, incidentally, has an overarching thesis entirely compatible with the line on Sherman reflected by this article) as a reference, discussing the Jackson Expedition, and clarifying his roles in Vicksburg and Chattanooga. I also tried to unclutter and improve the illustrations.
I think that I've now mostly done what I can do. A user pointed out that the discussion about stamps has only a very generic reference to Scott's US Stamp Catalog, but I don't have the interest or the resources to fix that. Personally, I'd be happy to take out the discussion of stamps altogether, but someone obviously cared about it significantly. The objection that the lead cites Liddell Hart as having called Sherman "the first modern general" but that this isn't discussed in the body of the article seems unjustified to me. There are many references to Liddle Hart and other military historians and theoreticians in the section on "Strategies" that make the meaning of the quote in the lead abundantly clear.
I'm not qualified to judge whether the article meets the current FA technical standards, but I feel that it'd be a great shame if this it were removed. The contents are mostly very good (unusually good, I'd say) and, as I said, the interest that this article attracted among non-US readers is evidenced by the translations made into several other languages. Hopefully, the technical issues that remain can be addressed by more active editors, without de-listing being required. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eb.hoop2: Thanks for your amazing work on the article. If you are willing to continue, I think we can "save" its FA status. In response to comments about the lede: the lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, and information is usually only there if it is also mentioned in the body. Sherman's designation as "the first modern general" is really interesting to me and I hope the article can explain why he has that designation, perhaps in a legacy section or part of the historiography section? I also noticed that the "Sherman name in the military" section does not have citations. Do you know where we can find sources for those? Once the article is ready, I am happy to review and copyedit the article, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eb.hoop2 and Z1720: - Should we just dispense of the stamps section? I collect stamps and could probably find a source for it, but I'm not sure that we really need to get into that much detail. Sherman's appearances on US stamps aren't really that significant in the scheme of things, and a lot of them are just one stamp that was re-issued several times in the 1890s. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with removing the stamps section. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - Work is currently ongoing, and if pointed to what still needs to be done, I can try to work on it some, too. Hog Farm Talk 21:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's still lots of uncited paragraphs and sections, especially in the Historiography section. The last edit to this article was two weeks ago. Have improvements stalled? Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720 and Eb.hoop2: - I got part of the Sherman name in the military section cited, but between having to study for the CPA exam and starting my first post-college graduation job tomorrow, I don't think I'll be able to throw significant attention to this at the moment, especially since I have a few other projects I want to work on with my wikipedia time. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should we just get rid of the Historiography section? It's one of the things that were added after the FA promotion and which may not have been up to the same standard. The article is already very long, and all of the detail about the various editions of Sherman's memoirs and correspondence may not be necessary. Moreover, the start of that section is not well referenced, not well integrated with the rest of the article, and perhaps too opinionated for Wikipedia. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The stuff at the beginning of the section about how he was viewed in the north and south postwar may be useful, but the publishing details and namesakes are poorly sourced and probably undue. Hog Farm Talk 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Eb.hoop2: - As I've seen no objection to removing the bulk of that material, I have just done so now, leaving only the first paragraph of that section. Hog Farm Talk 03:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that all of the specific issues that have been raised here have already been addressed in the edits. If there are other problems that need fixing someone should say what they are. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Z1720

@Eb.hoop2 and Hog Farm:, I am going to conduct a copyedit and review of the article. I will post questions and comments below if I feel like I can't fix them on my own. Let's see if we can get this out of FAR!

  • "Sherman embarked from New York" is this New York State or New York City?
    • Done. It's now identified as New York City, although I think this was clear enough in the context. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sherman, along with Ord, assisted in surveys for the sub-divisions of the town that would become Sacramento." This needs a citation or to be removed.
    • Done. The passage has been improved and a citation given. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1874, with Sherman having become world-famous, their eldest child, Marie Ewing ("Minnie") Sherman, also had a politically prominent wedding, attended by President Ulysses S. Grant and commemorated by a generous gift from the Khedive of Egypt. (Eventually, one of Minnie's daughters married a grandson of Confederate general Lewis Addison Armistead.)[20] Another of the Sherman daughters, Eleanor, was married to Alexander Montgomery Thackara at General Sherman's home in Washington, D.C., on May 5, 1880." This seems like a lot of extra information about his kids. Should this be summarized? Why is it important in Sherman's article that Minnie had a prominent wedding, and that one of her daughters married a descendant of Armistead?
    • I would support removing all or most of this. Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. The material has been removed. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he relocated to New York on behalf of the same bank. When the bank failed during the financial Panic of 1857, he closed the New York branch." New York state or New York City?
    • Done. It's now identified as New York City. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He received a telegram summoning him to Washington on June 7." Who summoned him? Why?
    • The sentence has been removed because I couldn't easily find a reference for the precise date and contents of the telegram. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article needs more information about the First Battle of Bull Run. The article alludes to a Union loss, possibly due to Sherman's decisions as a military officer, but this is not sufficiently explained.
    • Agree. I consulted a book about Vicksburg I have that has a summary of Sherman's early career, and it refers to him as "exemplary" at Bull Run, which contradicts the Holden-Reid source a bit (Holden-Reid seems to refer to errors made by Sherman) Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • See discussion below. I've added some detail on the subject and I personally think that it's now adequate for the purposes of this article. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Vicksburg section, it starts with a long blockquote. Can this just be summarized and used as prose?
    • I vote to keep the quote. I find that it's a nice change of pace to have a long quote every one in a while, when it's relevant and the writing is good. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generally regarded as a politically motivated distraction from the effort to take Vicksburg" regarded by whom?
    • I have removed this statement, as I'm not convinced that it's necessarily accurate. Sherman thought it was worthwhile, and the Miller 2019 source, which is one of the best sources on Vicksburg published in the last few years, notes that the Union admiral in the theater at the time (David Dixon Porter) also approved, that Grant was convinced of its value, and that taking Arkansas Post removed a sizable Confederate post in their rear that could have caused problems later. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added back something on the subject. The one who thought that Arkansas Post was a politically motivated distraction was Grant, who got along very poorly with McClernand. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " According to military historian Brian Holden-Reid, Sherman finally "had cut his teeth as an army commander" with the Jackson Expedition." The jargon of "had cut his teeth" needs to be explained.
    • It's actually an idiom, rather than jargon. I'm not entirely sure how to explain/rephrase this, so I've linked the phrase to Wiktionary. Hog Farm Talk 18:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's indeed a common idiom. I don't think the Wiktionary link is necessary, but I'm happy to keep it. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to Chattanooga. I'll continue once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eb.hoop2: - I recently picked up a book about Sherman's March to the Sea, which will hopefully be helpful for this. I probably can't solve the Bull Run one with the sources I have, though. Hog Farm Talk 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't think that Bull Run calls for more information in this article. Sherman was not a leading commander in that battle. He was at the head of one of the four brigades in one of the five divisions in one of the two units of the Union army in the field (see First Bull Run Union order of battle). The key points to convey are simply: a. that the Union suffered a disastrous defeat at Bull Run, b. that Sherman was one of the few Union officers to perform well under fire, and c. that the Union defeat left Sherman with considerable self-doubt and apprehension about the outlook of the war. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a non-expert in this topic or Sherman, I did not know what this battle was in connection to the Civil War. Furthermore, I did not understand Sherman's connection to this battle and was further confused when the article talked about Sherman's outlook of the war based on this battle. I think additional information on the battle and how it connects to Sherman's life is warranted to help give context to the reader. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 and Eb.hoop2: - I've gotten a couple of those above addressed, but I don't think I can do a whole lot more due to time constraints and sourcing access. Hog Farm Talk 05:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eb.hoop2: I think you are in a better place to address concerns, because you know more about this topic than I do, and I am entering a busy time in my real life. When the above concerns are addressed, (except First Battle of Bull Run, as that might need a separate conversation) please ping and I will do another review. If others can't address the concerns, I will try to tackle them in a few weeks; please ping me if that's the case (FA co-ords please ping me before considering delisting if no one responds in a while, as I think this is closer to a keep then a delist). Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720 and Hog Farm: I think that all of the concerns raised above have been adequately dealt with (see my point-by-point comments above). Also, I've now actually gone through the entire text and made the copyedits that I thought were called for. Personally, I'm happy with the current state of the article and would vote "keep". Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eb.hoop2: Thank you so much for doing this work. The article looks amazing, and you had a huge part in that. I have added some thoughts below:
  • "His father, Charles Robert Sherman, a successful lawyer who sat on the Ohio Supreme Court, died unexpectedly in 1829." Any idea on how he died?
    • He died of typhoid. I've now added this info, with a ref. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the quote from Sherman about his time at West Point? I feel like it is repeating or contradicting information in the previous paragraph.
  • "promoted to the substantive rank of captain." What makes this rank "substantive"? Can we delete that word?
    • No, this is necessary. The previous paragraph notes that he'd already been made a brevet (i.e., honorary) captain. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early life: "Sherman would marry his foster sister, Ellen Boyle Ewing, at age 30 and have eight children with her." And in Marriage and Business Career, "On May 1 of that year he married his foster sister, Ellen Boyle Ewing, four years his junior." I think the early life sentence can be deleted.
    • I personally don't see a problem with this slight duplication. The first sentence occurs in the context of a description of Sherman's foster family. The second appears chronologically, describing his actual marriage. People might well not read such a long article as this one all the way through, and the information is interesting in both of those distinct contexts. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he returned to California to wrap up the bank's affairs there." Was this to "wrap up" the NYC branch affairs, or the whole bank? Also, I think wrap up can be replaced, maybe "to close the bank in San Franscisco" or "cease the operations of the bank."
    • I've now edited this slightly. It now indicates that Sherman went to California to "finalize the bank's outstanding accounts there". I also added a ref. to Holden Reid's bio. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the first paragraph in "First commissions and Bull Run" section chronological? It gives a sentence about how his first command was of soldiers who fought in the First Battle of Bull Run, then explains Sherman's role in that battle. I think this paragraph needs to be rearranged.
    • I don't see a need to re-arrange this. First comes a description of Sherman's assigned command, together with the statement that it fought at Bull Run. This is followed immediately by an account of what happened at Bull Run, and of Sherman's role in it. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was to set a precedent for future behavior by his armies. The capture of the city of Atlanta made General Sherman a household name." This needs a citation.
    • I've now re-arranged and partly re-written this part. First comes the description of the fall of Atlanta, and then (in a separate paragraph) a discussion of its impact on the 1864 election. I added a ref. on the latter. I took out the sentence on "precedent", which was slightly vague, as well as unsourced. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sherman and Hood played a cat-and-mouse game in northern Georgia and Alabama" I think cat-and-mouse needs to be replaced with a more literal explanation, per MOS:IDIOM
  • "Thereafter, his troops did little damage to the civilian infrastructure...He soon rendezvoused at Goldsboro, North Carolina with Union troops awaiting him there after the capture of Fort Fisher and Wilmington." This section needs a citation.
  • "Sherman proceeded with 60,000 of his troops to Washington, D.C.,...he thus had come full circle to the city where he started his war-time service as colonel of a non-existent infantry regiment." This also needs a citation.
  • "Those orders, which became the basis of the claim that the Union government had promised freed slaves "40 acres and a mule", were revoked later that year by President Andrew Johnson." Also needs a citation.
  • I think the Strategies section should go after the biography (ie, after his death section) and perhaps the Slavery and emancipation section can be moved to after his biography as well. These sections seem to be an analysis of his life/work, and not strictly biographical information.
  • "and in his interview for the film The Fog of War." Needs a citation
    • It's in the movie itself (I've watched it a couple of times). I'm not sure that a further citation is really necessary. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On July 25, 1866, Congress created the rank of General of the Army for Grant and then promoted Sherman to lieutenant general." Needs a citation.
  • "When U. S. Grant became president in 1869, Sherman was appointed Commanding General of the United States Army and promoted to the rank of full general. After the death of John A. Rawlins, Sherman also served for one month as interim Secretary of War." Needs a citation.
  • "In 1945, President Harry S. Truman would say: "Sherman was wrong. I'm telling you I find peace is hell."" Not sure that this belongs in this article, as it feels a little bit like trivia. Maybe remove?
  • "One of Sherman's significant contributions as head of the Army was the establishment of the Command School (now the Command and General Staff College) at Fort Leavenworth in 1881. Sherman stepped down as commanding general on November 1, 1883, and retired from the army on February 8, 1884." Citation needed.
    • I have cobbled together citations for this entire paragraph. Hog Farm Talk 18:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such a categorical rejection of a candidacy is now referred to as a "Shermanesque statement"." Citation needed
  • "General Sherman's body was then transported to St. Louis, where another service was conducted on February 21, 1891 at a local Catholic church. His son, Thomas Ewing Sherman, a Jesuit priest, presided over his father's funeral mass. Sherman is buried in Calvary Cemetery in St. Louis." Citation needed
    • I've cited the cemetery he was buried in; the rest still needs cited (I've dropped in a cn tag so it's clear that Warner doesn't cover it all) Hog Farm Talk 18:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added some info. and a ref. on the funerals. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the "General Sherman" Giant Sequoia tree, which is the most massive documented single-trunk tree in the world." Citation needed.
  • I think the External Links section needs a major trim, maybe consult WP:ELNO
  • I was in the process of adding alt text for images per MOS:ALT but did not finish. Someone can finish this for me, or I will get to it later.
    • Alt text has been added. I also removed some px sizes per MOS:IMGSIZE but kept it for others that I thought needed it (such as the maps or insignias). Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts after a second readthrough. I am seeing the end in sight! Z1720 (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to check out a copy of Marszalek 1992 from the local library, so hopefully I can address more of this now. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Marszalek was not helpful for the specific CN points and is back at the library. Hog Farm Talk 18:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some duplicate links can be justified, but there are quite a few here that are unnecessary; you can install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to view duplicate links.
    • I've taken a crack at reducing the number, keeping 5 or 6-ish where it was not obvious that the linked item was the same as previous. Hog Farm Talk 07:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 13 instances of the word however, and it is unlikely they are all useful. Ditto for the 17 instances of also. From the top of User:SandyGeorgia: Subsequently, however, in order to, in total, and also—almost never needed and almost always redundant. See overuse of however and User:John/however. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia.
  • Please see MOS:ACCIM; images within sections go after hatnotes (I have fixed this). I have also run scripts to correct faulty WP:DASHes and dates; anyone can install those scripts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picked up a paperback copy of Kennett (which is barely used) during a recent trip to Branson. I've got a couple other projects on the brain, but hopefully I can get some of these last straggling uncited statements cleared up with Kennett soon. Hog Farm Talk 05:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to start getting refs for the uncited parts. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF sourcing comments
  • There's still a bit of uncited text, mainly in the postwar career material. I'm trying to chip away at this, but it is slow going.
    • @Eb.hoop2: - This is mainly just down to a couple sentences about the Indian Wars, which I don't have great sources for - any chance you'd be able to knock this out? Hog Farm Talk 05:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure about the reliability of two of the web sources: Civil War Home and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I used the SCV in a GA once, but I don't think it's FA-quality.
    • CWH is replaced, will try to get to the SCV sources soon. Hog Farm Talk 07:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of 19th-century sources needs a double-check to make sure that everything cited to the older sources is okay to do so
  • The Sherman tank ref is actually an uncited note (this one should be easy to source, I would think)
    • This is done

A bit slow going, but this is still being worked on. Hog Farm Talk 07:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone through the list of references used - not all are cited directly

  • Detzler is not used, moved to further reading
  • Isenberg not used, removed
  • Moved O'Connell to further reading, as it was not used

Also removed a source from further reading that is used as a source. Hog Farm Talk 07:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back at this one - hoping I can focus on this for awhile. Hog Farm Talk 04:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, SandyGeorgia, and Eb.hoop2: - Gonna do a detailed review on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 03:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the original pass. I'm not going to have the sources/time/energy to really be able to address most of this myself. Hog Farm Talk 06:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eb.hoop2, Hog Farm, and Z1720: I must sincerely apologize that, during my extended wikibreak, I completely forgot that this was my nomination, and failed to adequately follow the progress here. Hog Farm has posted a lengthy list at the talk page here, so I will follow up there. I am wondering, though, as HF has indicated not having the time, sources or energy to continue, if you all still feel this star can be saved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I'm looking at this as a reviewer; others will have to assess whether they want to work to save it. When they are ready for me to review, they can ping me. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: productive work continues here on talk; I am concerned about overquoting and the difficulties with WP:V because of a haphazard citation style, and there are a few unresolved issues in the text. It will be easier to examine the text more closely once citation and verifiability issues are ironed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we've decided to convert to sfns, which will add some time to the FAR, but leave us with cleaner citations and better verifiability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC break edit
  • Delist - the process of converting to sfns and the accompanying scrutiny of sources has turned up a bevy of areas where the sourcing simply isn't up to par. Quite a few areas have been identified as failed verification, better sources needed, or similar. In particular, two whole sections are in quite poor condition. The slavery and emancipation section relies too heavily on Sherman's memoirs, and weaker sources that mainly just copy his statements. It also gives undue weight to a single event involving the 20 leaders, without indicating that those leaders who said those things were selected by Sherman. Additionally, the religious views section is in extremely poor condition, consisting almost entirely of quotes or purported quotes, when biographies of Sherman give secondary analysis to this topic and when there is an entire journal article specifically on this subject listed in the further reading and not used. Hog Farm Talk 07:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your specific concern about the coverage of the Savannah meeting with Savannah ministers in the section on "Slavery and emancipation" is, in my view, misplaced. The relevant issues have been covered by many subsequent historians (I personally have read Marszalek, McPherson, and Holden-Reid), and the account as it's currently given in the article is not suspect, although it can be better sourced (as I'm currently trying to do). The Savannah meeting was actually an initiative of Secretary of War Stanton, who got along very poorly with Sherman and who was probably aiming to impugn his treatment of the freed slaves. Sherman invited the black leaders who attended, which is hardly the same thing as "selecting" them (much less "hand-picking" them). The meeting is important not so much for the positive words about Sherman than the black leaders expressed, but principally because it led to the (ultimately failed) project of black settlement reflected in Sherman's Special Field Orders No. 15. Anyway, if one is familiar with the modern secondary literature on Sherman, one will see that there isn't really a substantive issue here.
Which brings me to my main worry. As someone who's read fairly extensively on the subject, I can assure you that the contents of the article are OK and consistent with current scholarship, though of course there's always room for improvement, and this review process has thus far caught some minor factual inaccuracies. The issue is that the standards of citation, which have become so much more stringent since this was promoted to FA in 2006, are rather difficult and laborious to implement here. In an article which (properly) tries to present a readable narrative, information is condensed and organized in a way that doesn't necessarily just collate the secondary sources directly and sequentally, and this makes the sort of point-by-point referencing now required particularly difficult. Nor does it seem reasonable to me to expect editors to read all of the modern biographies of Sherman and give them comparable weight in the referencing. That's just never going to happen.
If this is delisted now, I don't expect there will be enough momentum in the foreseeable future for this to be addressed. I think the process should continue, although it may take some more time. A very considerable amount of work has already gone into this. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not an FA as it stands. FAs have been built before during the course of a FAR, but that requires a monumental, blitzkreig effort, which has not happened here. The article has been at FAR for the better part of the year, and only recently was the faulty sourcing delved in to. Bringing this article to FA level would require a much broader and sustained commitment to rewriting the article.
Here’s a list of, at minimum, what needs to be done (and my concern is that, the deeper we look, the more we find):
  1. There are at least four new scholarly sources that have not been used (now listed in Further reading: Carr, Detzler, O’Connell and Woodworth).
  2. Reliance on Sherman’s Memoirs needs to be reduced, considering there is a large body of scholarly sources that could be/should be used. In many cases, even the secondary sources used are only repeating Sherman’s own claims, and all of that needs to be teased out and weighed versus other independent sources.
  3. As of now, none of the Memoirs citations meet WP:V because we don’t know from what version came the page numbers, and all need to be checked. In any case, many of those citations to self should be replaced anyway.
    Citations to Memoirs sorted, over-reliance on them remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In every section checked, there are now failed verification, primary source, citation needed, page needed, etc. tags throughout, which all need to be addressed.And there is more that is not yet tagged (when I am reading from my iPad in the car, I often notice things that I can’t edit in until I get back to a real computer).
  5. In addition to that, there is a long list here on FAR talk of questions and issues to be resolved.
  6. So many of the older sources have multiple versions that I am not confident that we are identifying page numbers correctly. (Current example, but there are others: the two Cox sources list no publisher … from which version of his publications come the citations?)
  7. And if all of that sourcing is cleaned up, only then can real examination of the more serious issues be attempted. Does the article meet due weight, is there no cherry picking, etc. It is a big problem that, in every instance of attempting to correct the citation formatting to indicate what source cites what text, deeper issues are found in terms of comprehensiveness and neutrality.
  8. Two current examples of this problem are the Slavery and emancipation section, and Sherman’s religion. In the first case, we have only included text that all directly points back to Sherman himself, even though we have on FAR talk a list of independent sources that present a different view. In his religion, we have an entire paper on the topic that is not used. A third example is that somewhere in my “time in the car” reading, I came across one source that delved extensively into Sherman’s relationship with his wife— an area I don’t believe we have covered. All of this contributes to the flavor of the article, which is that we are re-telling Sherman’s story as he told in it, in his Memoirs, rather than giving due weight to independent sources.
It may be possible to locate an experienced FA writer at WT:MILHIST to take this on, [2] but I believe we are well beyond the point of what should be undertaken at FAR, and that a rewrite with a new submission to FAC will be a better approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that are several things going on here that need to be disentangled. This article certainly was lacking in the dense, point-by-point referencing that became the norm for Featured Articles after its original promotion in 2006. This is a complicated task, for the reasons that I've already mentioned. It exceeds my own technical skills and available time, and the intervention of more experienced and active editors is certainly needed. But I think that another aspect of the problem is that much of that technical work so far has been done by editors who're not familiar with the literature on the subject. This is certainly not an aspersion on you, Hog Farm, or anyone else, and I certainly appreciate your effort and contributions. But I think it's clear that one can easily get confused or sidetracked when performing such as task without a sense of what the literature on the subject looks like and what the gist is of the current scholarly take on Sherman's life. Therefore the assistance of experienced editors with more knowledge of the subject is sorely needed.
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with your view that the contents of this article need a significant overhaul. A great deal of work went into writing this article more than fifteen years ago, so that it would provide a fair and readable narrative (as I mentioned above, literal translations of the English text soon became featured articles in several other languages). Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one of the editors involved that effort who's still around. When I first saw this FAR, I purchased a copy of Holden-Reid's 2020 biography and read it, which reassured me that the current scholarly consensus is consistent with the narrative that this article provided (see, e.g., this review, unfortunately paywalled). There's a huge secondary literature on Sherman, who was always an intensely controversial figure for several obvious reasons, but there's also a modern scholarly consensus that's broadly favorable to Sherman's honesty and leadership. I don't see the wisdom in starting now to revisit the controversies from Sherman's old detractors without a clear understanding of where the scholarship on Sherman stands today. That way lies chaos.
Another issue are the many quotes from Sherman's letters and Memoirs used in the article. I suspect that the main reason for this is simply that Sherman is often very quotable, and that his Memoirs are readable and available. I think that this is only really a problem when Sherman's own words are used as the sole reference for a potentially controversial claim or judgment, but I don't see many instances of that in the current text. In any case, fixing that is certainly part of the ongoing labor of improving the references.
Finally, I think that at the current stage some of the tagging of deficiencies in the referencing is excessively literal. For example, I've been trying for a while to find a secondary source to support the statement at the end of the lead that Sherman's Memoirs "became one of the best-known first-hand accounts of the Civil War". But is that really necessary? The body of the article mentions and documents Sherman's publication of his memoirs, the public controversies that the aroused, the response by President Grant, the comment and praise that they drew much later from the critic Edmund Wilson, their inclusion in the Library of America collection, etc. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the citation needed for "one of the best-known" is needed, because it's making a superlative claim. For instance, it's not clear how it'd stack up against, say, Grant's memoirs, or E. Porter Alexander's, or Co. Aytch, all of which I see referenced more often than Sherman's in my readings of sources related to this time period. The article is making a superlative claim, so this needs a citation. Hog Farm Talk 14:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Woodward book review says:
  • Sherman’s writing was a less heroic business and obviously more enjoyable, done in a period of three years when he was full of beans. He enjoyed the company of women as well as dancing and theater, amateur painting, and quoting Shakespeare. With the Memoirs he did not take the pains he might have in checking facts and called it in his preface to the first edition “merely his recollection of events, corrected by a reference to his own memoranda.” Shortly before publication he wrote his brother, Senator John Sherman, “I have carefully eliminated everything calculated to raise controversy.” Calculated or not, controversy was certainly raised. In a second edition in 1886 (the one used here) he undertook to correct factual errors (some fifty, the editor finds) but not to reconcile his own memory of events with that of others. “I am publishing my own memoirs, not theirs,” he declared somewhat testily.
Another indication that we shouldn't be overquoting from his Memoirs (and we should take care with which version used). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a MILHIST-type, and can only contribute cleanup (of which there is/was an overwhelming amount needed). Hog Farm, on the other hand, is a Civil War editor. I understand the unfortunate circumstances that brought this article to where it is, but the concern is that I don't see us getting where we need to be from where we are now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do understand that Sherman is very quotable, but we should be basing which parts of his Memoirs we are using on the secondary sources, rather than directly quoting Sherman based on our own determination; we have an abundance of secondary sources that could be used. This is shown very clearly in the two sections I’ve given as examples, where Wikipedia is telling Sherman’s story in Sherman’s words, rather than using other secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is too close paraphrasing. In the ten days since these delists were entered, the amount of text quoted to Sherman has not been reduced, and the four untapped sources have not been introduced. The article still contains blatant breaches of WP:ABOUTSELF, like Sherman’s own statements about his academic record, and in spite of the Woodward book review above, indicating the extent of Sherman’s bias in his Memoirs. The article has been edited, but has not improved on the important matters; Wikipedia’s account of Sherman is still mostly as told by Sherman. Another example of this problem, as yet unaddressed, is how we treat his “breakdown” (an unaddressed colloquialism). We have six sources on FAR talk that discuss severe depression and anxiety (I don’t know what the newer untapped sources add), and yet we never use those sources. Instead, we rely again, excessively, on Sherman’s own accounts and letters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you're conflating two distinct issues. The first is the extent of the quotations from Sherman's own memoirs and letters. I personally don't see this as a problem, as I've explained elsewhere. Bear in mind that most of those quotes were there when this article was promoted to FA in 2006 (and when literal translations were promoted to FA in several other languages) and I'm not aware of standards having since changed to make this a problem. Still, if there's a consensus to remove those quotes, it shouldn't be difficult to implement.
The much more serious issue that you raise is whether this article is an account of Sherman "mostly as told by Sherman". I beg to differ with that assessment. There's an enormous secondary literature on Sherman. A great deal of it is in fact used, and in every case that I'm aware of, the line taken in this article is consistent with the modern scholarly consensus. I don't see any important instances in which Sherman's own account or assessment is accepted uncritically, much less allowed to stand in contradiction to the evaluation of modern and reliable secondary sources. I trust that this question as it concerns the section on "Slavery and emancipation", which was the main concern when you and Hog Farm asked for delisting ten days ago, has now been adequately addressed by adding references to important secondary sources that make it clear that we're not simply taking Sherman at his word.
As I've already argued in the appropriate section, I see no way to resolve the issue of Sherman's "breakdown" without engaging in OR or NPOV, because there's no consensus about what a modern medical diagnosis of Sherman's conditions might be. In this issue, in fact, what we have to go on is almost wholly the content the letters by Sherman and his family. The current treatment of the subject seems to me satisfactory and consistent with Wikipedia policies.
The outstanding problem, as I see it, is still the detailed referencing. I'm only now beginning to work on clarifying the page-number references to Sherman's memoirs, distinguishing between the public-domain editions in two volumes and the authoritative and modern Library of America edition in one volume. This may take me several days. I note again that more active intervention by editors with direct expertise on Sherman and the US Civil War would be very welcome. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eb.hoop2, I also think that the religion section needs work. I believe Sandy was able to find a link to the Detzler article about Sherman and religion and I think it's linked somewhere on the talk page of the FAR. Surely there is some useful content in that article. And if you're wondering, I'm the primary author of 13 FAs about the US Civil War, although I'm more familiar with the Trans-Mississippi West than the events further east (Grant's Canal is the only one with a Sherman connection). Hog Farm Talk 14:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I agree with Hog Farm, and don’t think we can get there from here; the work of trying to sort the sourcing by converting the haphazard citation style to sfns forced closer examination of just what the sources actually were, and has revealed serious shortcomings. A top-to-bottom rewrite to newer sources (which are currently unused) would be needed, there is an extreme over-reliance on Sherman’s own Memoirs, there is too much text that fails verification, there is cherry-picking, very important sources are left out, there is extensive quoting of Sherman himself, and there remains a lack of clarity about many of the sources used; all is documented on the talk page of this FAR. The problems are too serious to be reworked in the course of a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Sandy. There's been a lot of improvement—for which I can thank all participants in the FAR—but it's just not at FA status at the moment, imo (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For now. Extensive changes are actively being made. Buffs (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eb.hoop2 and Z1720:: for their opinions. I would assume at least Eb.hoop2 is a clear keep. Buffs (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me to endorse a keep, the article would, in my opinion, be able to pass an FAC with today's standards. Hog Farm has brought up sourcing concerns, which are very time-consuming to repair (it took me a year to gather sources for my historical biography FA, and I would imagine that an article about this prominent of a person might require the same amount of sources.) While saddened to see an article delisted, I would rather have an article delisted and brought back to FAC than remain open here for multiple additional months. Saving articles at FAR is supposed to be a quick process, (a few weeks to a maximum two or three months) and I'm afraid that this article, despite the best work of Eb.hoop2, is going to take much more time. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just gonna give a heads up here that I'll be on break for probably over a week, ping me if there are major developments; I'm seeing great work going on here. Hog Farm Talk 06:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hog Farm now that you're back, I could not decipher if all/any/none of your unstruck items on the talk page have been addressed; could you update? I struck those concerns I had that have been addressed (which is not all of them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia - I've got a few remaining that are still unaddressed. There's still a half-sentence of uncited text in the Carolinas section about the order of secession, the Thanks of Congress still isn't mentioned in the body, and "Sherman's views on Indian matters were often strongly expressed" is still sourced to one of Sherman's letters. My concerns about certain quotes that may be excessive don't seem to have been responded to or rebutted. I will say though, that the majority of my concerns have been addressed and that I am now fairly comfortable with the religion section (it looks like Detzler and Gannon were quite helpful). Hopefully I can give this a re-read over the weekend, but this is trending in the right direction. Hog Farm Talk 06:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked through again (after your break :), and still have several concerns; will transfer and summarize to this page, from talk, as soon as I get a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I've been arguing throughout this review, the contents of this article are sound, and what was really required was to improve the referencing to bring it up to the current, exacting standards. This has taken a very long time because I seem to be the only one sufficiently familiar with the contents of the secondary literature on Sherman to engage with that task in earnest, something that I couldn't imagine would be the case when the review started. I'm not a particularly active editor and I've never previously done this kind of work. I thank Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia for their technical contributions, without which I wouldn't even have really known where to start.
Hopefully now all of the major issues raised in the review have been resolved. All the tags have been resolved, while several new and modern secondary sources have been incorporated. In fact, I think that it should be possible to close this review fairly soon. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Hog Farm has indicated on talk those items he raised that have not been addressed. I stopped following the day-to-day editing, but can summarize the issues that I raised on talk that haven't yet been addressed:

  • I asked what makes http://www.sfmuseum.org/ a reliable source; that query is unanswered. It is a commercial source that gives none of the usual indications of reliability, and appears to be a website operated by one person; as such, to be reliable, it would need to meet WP:SPS.
    The Museum of the City of San Francisco (formerly the "Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco") was established by the city's archivist, Gladys Hansen, in 1991 and is currently run by her son Richard Hansen. Both of them are published authors. I leave it to others to decide whether this is enough to make it a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. In any case, this article uses it as a source only twice: first for the date of Sherman's arrival in Monterey and its chronological relation with the change in the name of San Francisco, then for Sherman's participation in Col. Mason's inspection of the gold mines near Sutter's Fort. On the second point, the same information is also sourced to O'Connell's biography. That use of the MCSF could therefore be easily removed, but it's much easier for a reader to consult the MCSF website than O'Connell's book. In the other case, one could either reference the date of disembarking and the date of the change of city name separately, or remove the second bit of information (although I personally think that it provides an interesting chronological perspective). In any case, this hardly seems to me like a major issue that should hold up or scupper this review. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing that. WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." In this case, it's marginal as both the website, and Gladys Hansen#Selected publications seem to establish her as an expert on the San Francisco earthquake, while we are using her to cite content related to the California Gold Rush. I will strike this concern only because part of the content is duplicated by O'Connell. Please understand for general purposes and as a timesaver, though, it is up to the person wanting to use a questionable source to establish why they believe the source meets SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked why we aren't using more recent sources. Carr, a 2015 book, is still listed in Further reading, as is Woodworth (2010). Was Carr consulted? If not useful, why not? And if not useful, why then is it worthy of listing in Further reading? This is our most recent scholarship--some understanding of why it isn't used should be provided.
    Carr's book is not a biography. It's an interpretive essay on the legacy of Sherman's campaign in the subsequent development of US warfare, somewhat along the lines of the earlier work by Walters and Reston that the article comments upon. Woodworth's is a short biography published as part of a series on "Great Generals" for a broad audience, and therefore not a detailed scholarly bio comparable to the books by Marszalek, O'Connell, or Holden-Reid. I don't see why it's a problem to list them under "Further reading" without using them as references. As I've already said here more than once, there's an enormous secondary literature on Sherman, and I don't think it's realistic or reasonable to expect a Wikipedia entry to deal with all of it directly. What's important is that the facts in the article be verifiable and that the interpretation reflect the gist of the modern scholarly consensus, supported by the corresponding references. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for those explanations.
    I have struck my oppose to the exclusion of Woodworth, and agree both should be listed in Further reading.
    Carr is a separate matter, that could have been resolved earlier. On FAR talk, at 05:26, 26 December 2021, I mistakenly listed this WSJ review (see ProQuest 1797588016) as being of Carr, when in fact, the review is of McDonough and O'Connell (both of which are used extensively). That is the material I am concerned about including. Are you able to access the WSJ article? Because now the question becomes a different one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    New concern (per mixed up review of Carr v McDonough/O'Connell). Why is the material from McDonough and O'Connell highlighted in the WSJ review (ProQuest 1797588016)) not reflected in the article? For example: We are presenting Liddell Hart's comment on "first modern general" at face value, with views from supporting scholars, when other scholars have different views according to the WSJ review. It also mentions Sherman in relation to slaves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue of Shermans' "nervous breakdown" is unresolved. While the meaningless term has been removed from the article, the underlying issue remains, and is an example of what plagues much of the article. While we have multiple reliable sources that discuss Sherman's depression, we never use the word. What we do instead is to rely on Sherman's own Memoirs, with a euphemism from a personal letter: While he was at home, his wife Ellen wrote to his brother, Senator John Sherman, seeking advice. She complained of "that melancholy insanity to which your family is subject".
    I've said already that I don't think this can be further resolved, because it's totally unresolved in the secondary literature. Trying to say more about the subject seriously risks trouble with the OR and NPOV policies. Some modern authors suggest that Sherman was bipolar, some that he was depressive, some that he suffered from anxiety or panic attacks. O'Connell argues that he had no abnormal psychiatric condition at all, and that his breakdown in Kentucky was the result of exhaustion. No more information about this likely ever to be available, since all we have to go on regarding Sherman's mental state are his own letters (and a few comments by family members, like the phrase from his wife's letter to his brother that you quote above). I feel strongly that the article's treatment of the subject is fine as it is. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have sources, and we certainly can say what they say without OR or NPOV, and without getting into marginal sources like wired.com claiming bipolar (which I have never suggested we use). I will repeat here, then, what has already been stated and asked on FAR talk (copying comments from myself and Hog Farm).
    1. This NYT book review of McDonough claims depression; what does McDonough say ?
    2. Kennett p. 145 says Dr. Paul Steiner, whose study of Sherman has been cited earlier, went over the relative documentary evidence and prepared a "Neuropsychiatric Record" offering this conclusion: "Today the diagnosis would be that of a mild "anxiety attack". and then goes on to discuss a similar and poorly document incident that had occurred in California in 1856.
    3. And this source says Holden-Reid mentions severe depression.
    4. Miller p. 65 calls it "incapacitating depression" and pp.68-69 says when Sherman was in St. Louis, that Halleck had an army doctor perform an evaluation of his mental health and that Sherman was ruled "unfit for command", and that he was later cleared for field service again in February.
    5. This WSJ book review of Holden-Reid mentions depression and anxiety, so presumably Holden-Reid does as well.
    These questions were raised on FAR talk on 26 December and have not been addressed. You said on 26 December "secondary sources don't agree on a diagnosis (bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety attacks, something else), nor do I see how they possibly could". I'm not asking about a post-humous diagnosis. I am stating that we have no mention anywhere in the article that various scholars have described possibilities ranging from anxiety attacks to severe depression, to counter and explain the useless euphemism now in the article. Leaving this out is POV. It appears that most credible sources--indeed, the sources you use for other content-- delve in to this. I do not have McDougal, or I would simply add this content myself so we can wrap up this (much too) lengthy FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although we have an entire journal article, the issue of religion and how that affected Sherman's marriage is not covered. Again, relying on his own letters, we recount his disappointment in his son becoming a priest, having jumped over the importance of the religious differences between Sherman and his wife, which is well covered by Detzler. By jumping over this issue, we not only leave out what appears to be a significant matter in his personal life, but we fail to adequately explain why it was such an issue with his son. One or two sentences could address this.
    Even though I didn't feel that much more discussion of Sherman's religion was called for, in response to what you and Hog Farm requested, I read the article by Detzler and then edited the article to incorporate it. I also found and used another article by Gannon (even though I personally think it's clear that Sherman was an agnostic rather than, as Gannon argues, a deist). I don't quite understand what it is that you think we're currently "jumping over". If it helps, I note here that I think it's clear that Sherman was so upset when his son Tom decided to become a priest not because of religion per se, but rather because it meant that Tom would neither take over the administration of the family's financial and practical affairs nor continue the bloodline, as Gen. Sherman had wanted and expected him to do.
    The current level of detail about Sherman's relations with his immediate family seems adequate to me. I'm open to improving this, but I really don't think this is something that should hold up this review. I might note here, as I've already done elsewhere in this review, that Sherman is only notable for his role as a military commander in the US Civil War, and not for his religious views or family life. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is still no content in the article describing his relationship with his wife and children with respect to religious differences, as covered in an entire journal article. Regardless of what makes Sherman notable, this is his bio, and should reflect his life. If we are using the logic that he's notable as a commander of the US Civil War, we wouldn't have a problem with the Virtual Museum of San Francisco, as we wouldn't be including that content at ll. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe any of the issues with respect to Slavery and emancipation with the sources listed here have been addressed.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I responded to those comments and then edited to section of the article on "Slavery and emancipation" to improve the references and clarify the issues that you'd raised. I don't see any contradiction between the sources that you listed and what the article currently says. If you have concrete objections to the current text, or questions about it, I'd be happy to consider them. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources provided on talk; issues unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I missed it because my better source needed tag was removed, but "One of the most serious accusations against Sherman was that he allowed his troops to burn the city of Columbia. In 1867, Oliver Otis Howard, commander of Sherman's 15th Corps, reportedly said, "It is useless to deny that our troops burnt Columbia, for I saw them in the act."" is still sourced to an obscure 19th century autobiography and the writings of a Confederate general sometimes accused of being part of the reason Columbia was burned. Given that the burning of Columbia is still controversial to this day, both of these sources are wholly inadequate. Hog Farm Talk 22:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who removed the "better source" tag because I thought that the problem was with the lack of details on those two sources. I thought that this was solved by providing an archive.org link to the full text of the first one, and details on the authors and publisher of the second one (which as far as I could tell isn't available online). I agree that the sources aren't such as would inspire great confidence in the reliability of the statement quoted. But they certainly do contain the statement, which has been used down the line by those who've argued that "Sherman burned Columbia". I obviously agree with you that the sources cited would be insufficient if the article were presenting the statement attributed to Howard as true. But the article is actually doing almost the opposite, since this accusation is followed by a summary of the current scholarly consensus that Sherman didn't deliberately burn Columbia. I wouldn't object strongly if others want the statement attributed to Howard removed from this article. But I think it's useful in providing a sense of the debate on the issue that raged for years after the war. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have not been much substantial edits since mid-January, is it time to put this FAR out of its misery? (t · c) buidhe 00:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have had no response from Eb.hoop2 yet on the unresolved issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that someone else would step in first, but it seems that hasn't been the case. Let me say here that I'm not quite happy with how this FAR has progressed in recent months. It's clear that, as the article stood when the FAR was opened, the referencing needed badly to be brought up to the current standards. I believe that this has now been fixed, with a very considerable investment of time and effort. Other aspects of the article have also been improved, and significant historical scholarship published after this article was first promoted to FA in 2006 (such as that in the bios by O'Connell and Holden-Reid) has now been incorporated. But I also feel that the users most active in this FAR have recently adopted an attitude of asking others (effectively, me) to rewrite the article for them. Although standard may have changed, I think it's still relevant that, when this was promoted to FA in 2006, it was with the support of a number of different editors who claimed expertise in the subject of General Sherman and who were therefore actively involved in determining the contents of this article.
As I've already said in this review, I'm personally opposed to cutting back substantially on the quotes from Sherman's letters and memoirs (most of which have been there since before the original promotion to FA), and especially to cutting back on the discussion of the Civil War in order to give more space to Sherman's private life. Of course, if there's a consensus among other editors to do that, then that's what should be done. But, since I've seen no such consensus being expressed, and since there has been so little input in this review from editors claiming substantial expertise on Sherman, I feel strongly that it'd be a mistake to demote this article from FA because those things haven't been done. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re "But I also feel that the users most active in this FAR have recently adopted an attitude of asking others (effectively, me) to rewrite the article for them."
You have two reviewers who have consistently engaged towards saving this bronze star for almost a year, and spent a great deal of time doing so. The time spent has been somewhat misspent because questions have not been answered and concerns have not been addressed. This FAR is approaching the record that the British Empire hit (a year) before the British Empire was delisted because concerns weren't addressed. If you would take the concerns more seriously, perhaps the star can be saved.
You also seem to be under a faulty impression re "I think it's still relevant that, when this was promoted to FA in 2006, it was with the support of a number of different editors who claimed expertise in the subject of General Sherman and who were therefore actively involved in determining the contents of this article".
For the time period in which this article passed FAC (when FAC was much busier than it is now), this is a very cursory look and a promote on minimal support. The supporters were not experts in the subject of Sherman, and if you glance through other articles promoted in the same month, you may get a better sense of just how minimal the support for this FA was. I worked closely with most of the reviewers who supported; they were neither Civil War editors nor even MilHist editors, and to continue suggesting that Hog Farm is not is becoming derogatory and disrespectful of the work expended on this article. If you are uninterested in responding to concerns raised on this FAR, we should just proceed to delist, in the interest of not wasting more reviewer time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my comments came across as derogatory of disrespectful, which was certainly not my intention. But both you and Hog Farm have explicitly disclaimed sufficient expertise on the subject of this article to engage directly in major editing of it (Hog Farm said at the start that he's more of a "Trans-Mississippi Theater guy"). I sincerely appreciate your input and the work that you and Hog Farm have put into this review, and especially into improving the referencing. What I'm not so happy about is that, in recent months, I've come to feel that if I want to save this article's FA status then I have to edit it myself in ways that I disagree with and without any visible consensus (or even much of an input) from other editors.
I have fond memories of the work that led up this being promoted to FA in 2006. I recall a collaborative back-and-forth with Kross, John Flaherty, Hal Jespersen, Hartfelt, and a few others (none of them, unfortunately, active on Wikipedia any more). I was proud of the final result and was encouraged to see that literal translations were used in several other languages and even became FA's in French, Danish, and Hungarian. When this review came up, I was sufficiently interested in saving the FA status that I bought and read Holden-Reid's 500-page biography, and have more recently delved into O'Connell's biography and other sources that are now incorporated into this article. This has been a lot of work and I believe that I've now fixed what I can fix and explained it clearly here when I disagreed with an issue raised. I think it'd be a shame if the article were delisted, but I don't think that I can go much further in making changes that I don't think would improve the article.
I also think that it's unfortunate that there's been so little involvement from other users, especially since last December. To give just one small concrete suggestion, Hog Farm has asked that information about the two 'Thanks of Congress' that Sherman received during the war be incorporated into the main text. I considered this and finally decided that I didn't like how it would interrupt the flow of the narrative (especially in the transition between Chattanooga and Atlanta), but he should feel free to make those edits himself if he thinks that they'd improve the article. I don't own this text, evidently, and I can hardly be expected to be the one to change it in ways that I don't personally agree with. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your feelings.
Do you have McDoughal? I have asked for over a month what McDougal says on depression. Similar for several others: I can access reviews of the sources, but don't have the sources myself. We are talking literally about one sentence, which I am happy to add myself, but I do not have the sources so it would be irresponsible of me to do so.
We are also talking about one sentence on family and religion; I can add it myself if I must, since I can access that source, but I suspect you will be happier if you add it yourself, as you have more of the full body of work. If you don't have these major sources we are using, then we have a bigger issue.
On slavery and emancipation, we have a larger problem. I would not like to see the article delisted after so much effort expended to bring it to current standards, but you have the sources, I don't, so it falls to you to either make the necessary edits, or supply quotes from the sources so others can make the edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Thank you for the improvements but the article is tagged as lacking reliable sources and I think there is an over-emphasis on Liddell Hart, particularly in the lead. DrKay (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2022 (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_review/William_Tecumseh_Sherman/archive1&oldid=1079702587"