Talk:Battle of Antietam

GA Reassessment

Battle of Antietam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Closing as kept; the more minor issues remaining I'm sure will be dealt with outside of GAR. Hog Farm _Talk 03:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

2007 listing with uncited material. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to work on this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So we've got some uncited material and a few unreliable web refs (historynet, necrometrics, etc.). IMO there are frankly far too many images; we don't need to reproduce as many of the Gardner images or all of the Hope ones. This will take some work but it is fixable. Hog Farm _Talk 16:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the historynet source, but not done for necrometrics yet. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have the Eicher 2001, Frassanito 1978 (I think a different edition), Kennedy 1998, McPherson 1988, McPherson 2002, and Sears 1983 books from the sources listing, as well as the Gallagher 1989 and Gottfried 2011 sources from the further reading, in addition to Johnson's Artillery Hell and the Brigades of Antietam book edited by Gallagher from a couple years ago. It'll take me a bit, but I feel comfortable in my ability to fix the citation issues here. Also pinging Donner60 and TwoScars who worked on the Gettsyburg GAR awhile back. I have more time for the next couple weeks, so I should be able to play a more active role here than in the Gettysburg one. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@GabrielPenn4223: (Also pinging Donner60 and Hog Farm) I agree that Battle of Antietam needs to be fixed up. Since it gets lots of views—you might want to a) fix up a copy in your sandbox; b) get Military History people such as Hog Farm, Donner60, or other members of the group to look that version over; then c) replace the entire article. That way, people can come to a consensus on what needs to be done—and you should not get complaints. I have been involved in two recent rewrites: Battle of Shiloh was done using the sandbox method, while Battle of Gettysburg was not (Donner60 did most of the work).

My thoughts on the current article, which may not match what others think, are:

• The opposing forces is a mess. We already have a separate Order of Battle—no need to reproduce it. I would discuss the Union's corps (each) and cavalry, with one image of McClellan. How many men did each corps have? Were they experienced? Well-armed? For the Confederates, discuss the two large infantry wings and the cavalry. One picture of Lee. Need similar info: size, experience, and arms.
• I like sub-headers and images that tell a low–attention–span reader (like me) what is going on. The "Cornfield" section is too many paragraphs before we get another section header.
• I'm not a fan of the Thulstrup image, especially since a Thulstrup is already in the InfoBox. Hal Jespersen's maps are usually good, but I think they are too small sometimes. I have cropped copies of his images for some articles. I can also see that some of the paragraphs in this section do not end with citations.
• Midday phase has the same issues as the Morning Phase–Cornfield.
• Midday also had text sandwiched by two images—not a recommended practice. The Sharpsburg's citizens image is a waste of time.
• Same issues in Afternoon phase.
• Aftermath is somewhat long. Maybe the first paragraph can be two paragraphs. I recommend the Aftermath section have a Casualties subsection, and a Reactions and significance subsection.
• Battlefield preservation needs citations, and a better image would be what the battlefield looks like today.

• Donner has added the citations, and I've swapped out the image for a picture of Burnside's Bridge I took when I visited the battlefield a couple years ago. It's a bit self-serving to use an image I took myself, and there's plenty of other images on Commons to use instead if preferred. Hog Farm _Talk 17:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• I like the preservation section now, and I like the photo too. My tour was over 20 years ago, and the bridge is one of the few things I remember. TwoScars (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• I personally do not like the Historic photographs and paintings section, and would drop it completely—but many people might disagree with me. I also try to not use image galleries unless they are only 3 or 4 images. See Wikipedia Manual of Style for galleries.

TwoScars (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the citizens image and have replaced the Thulstrup duplicate image with the famous dead horse in East Woods image. Hog Farm _Talk 18:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Hog Farm has fixed the opposing forces section, as noted below. Donner60 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@TwoScars and Donner60: - would y'all be willing to look over my work in overhauling the opposing forces section? Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm:Vast improvement, although I did not fact check any citations. I would still drop the Lincoln-McClellan photo since it is hard to see, and split the army commanders where McClellan is with the Union and Lee is with the Confederates. TwoScars (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The group photo is gone, and I've split up the Lee and McClellan images - let's see if the changes stick. The material in there is about 98% new text, so the citations should be fine although I'm always open to someone checking my work. I expect the new Hartwig book is going to be useful for strength numbers, I'll need to look over the wikipedia library copy. I'm more concerned about citation checking having issues in the parts of the article where people have just been adding material periodically for 15+ years. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

More comments on the article

• I like subheadings that tell what each leader's plan was.
• The various "Phase"s are a little weird, with a wasted section header and non-sentence.
• From my battlefield tour long ago, I remember the Sunken Road/Bloody Lane and the bridge Burnside had trouble crossing — they must have been important.

TwoScars (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, TwoScars, and GabrielPenn4223: Looks good. Similar to what I ended up doing with opposing forces in Battle of Atlanta. Unfortunately I had to concede that although I have sources and knew what happened, I did not have time at that point to make the necessary revisions, mostly additions, very quickly. So I had to let it be demoted to C. I have a sandbox in which I have done a little extra work, but not enough to post any of it. Even with Two Scars suggestions, I think, or hope, this would take less work to bring it to a GA keep. I do have some sources but I suppose I will need to buy Hartwig's new, and expensive, book to have the most up to date source - and presumably a very important one. Donner60 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Donner60: - both of Hartwig's books are avialable for free through WP:TWL via the Project MUSE application. Hog Farm _Talk 00:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

And all this time I have been using the Library for only JSTOR and newspapers—smacking my forehead right now! TwoScars (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I was on Muse some years ago but dropped it, after downloading some articles, because of increased demand for a limited number of users from Wikipedia. I dropped JSTOR through the library eventually as well, but signed up for the 100 articles per month viewing during covid times. I can still read that many per month but can only download open access articles unless I want to pay the monthly fee. I need to look into getting back on the library. Donner60 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Donner, I think any editor who has been reasonably active in the past 30 days and doesn't have any active blocks can access the Wikipedia Library without any issues. I believe they've removed the cap on number of users able to be on MUSE at a time. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Another update: I'm working on adding citations where there was previously uncited text now. Everything through the end of the morning phase section now has a citation. I have not been regularly checking existing citations; that should probably be done as well but I for sure want to get all of the CN tags taken care of. Currently 4 CN tas and some lesser uncited stuff that isn't tagged remaining. I'm going to be busy this weekend and next week, though. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your work on removal of the galleries and additional text. Good work on the citations. I have been to Antietam at least twice that I can recall. I can attest to the removal of the non-period buildings but, of course, I am not a reliable source. I will eventually pay a little more attention to this. Between a new computer to set up, coordinator reviews, covid in the house, two meetings worth of minutes to write up and a few other real life matters, I won't be able to do much in the immediate future but I will look further as soon as I can. Of course, you may have finished everything that needs to be done by then. Donner60 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Donner and TwoScars - I'm going to be fairly busy this weekend and next week is going to be extremely busy with work for me, so I don't know if I'll be able to work on this much for awhile. I really have four main concerns at this point:

• Add citations for the remaining uncited text in the article including that text that isn't currently marked with a CN tag
• Consider the need to check that existing citations support what they are citing
• The article states that it is the battle with the 5th-highest casualties. The accuracy of this has been challenged on the article's talk page and the claim is unsourced. I don't know where to find good sourcing for such rankings
• I really don't like how we're presenting the casualties as a nice, precise number of what each side lost. Hartwig 2023, pp. 816-817 especially notes the futility of trying to pin down a precise Confederate loss number. We should express a bit better in the main article body that these are rather approximate figures.

I'll try to see when I can get back to this (it'll probably be a while - I'm about to get busy with audits of 12/31 fiscal year end entities), but this is definitely a lot better than what it was. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Donner60 and TwoScars: - so I have found some extra time. The only CN tag left in the article now is the ranking in total casualties among battles. I have no clue where to source that to. I also turned up a failed verification chunk in the casualties section. My concerns about casualty precision remain, as well as the question of how much citation checking to do. There's a lot of the article cited to Bailey; I do not have a copy of that book. I don't anticipate being able to do much more on this maybe until enxt weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 20:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look for casualty figures after I set up my new computer. I assume sources will vary. I don't have the Bailey book. It is available at a low price online. However, it is a Time-Life book and likely has an overview and many pictures. Perhaps it is reliable but I suspect it is not comprehensive. So I did not order it. The covid is clearing up but it will be some time before I know whether I may have gotten it, despite both of us having the latest shots. If things go well, I should be able to look at sources for casualties within the week. Donner60 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The American Battlefield Trust ranks Antietam lower here. BTW, I will be out for the first week of February. TwoScars (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Added citations and ranking info for now—do not hesitate to change or update. I think fifth is too high based on the other Wikipedia articles and the Wikipedia list List of costliest American Civil War land battles, but it is still in. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The failed verification bit I've removed - I tracked down the addition to being based on an unreliable source in the mid-2010s. Hog Farm _Talk 04:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to work on this any further in the near future; I'm moving in a little over a week and the Antietam books just got packed into a box. Hog Farm _Talk 22:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I altered the images: maps are bigger, some of the captions have small changes, at least two images are commented out. I like to be able to read the maps without clicking them -- so I can see the text and maps at the same time. If they seem too big on your computer, do not hesitate to make them smaller. I have added the "upright=", so they are easy to resize. TwoScars (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I was blocked for two weeks so that's why I was absent. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Donner60 and Hog Farm: About citations and sources.... I normally use a Harvard Style for citations, but I think it would be too much work to change the citation style for Battle of Antietam. However, in the Bibliography I don't understand the terms "Secondary sources" and "Primary sources" that are used. It seems to me that Primary should be listed first, and many of the sources (if not all) under Secondary are Primary. What is the difference between Secondary and Primary? What am I missing? TwoScars (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hlj used and promoted Chicago Manual of Style citation which is why that is often found in American Civil War articles, especially the many which he started or to which he was a main early contributor. I followed his advice and use that style too, unless the article already uses the other style, which admittedly has an advantage or two. Then I will try to conform to the existing style. Some articles have both styles of citation contributed by different users over time. I am not sure how much trouble that might cause but I suppose it might result in duplicate footnotes or some other confusion, or perhaps it may just look a little odd. Donner60 (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Primary is participant-written sources, secondary is historian-written. I'll take a look at citation formatting tonight. Hog Farm _Talk 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That makes everything make more sense, and I think the secondary sources are probably less likely to suffer from "puffery" or hidden agendas. Does a typical reader understand that? TwoScars (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Two of the primary sources, Tidball and the 1862 NYT article, were not even used as sources so I removed them. Antietam Creek in this sector was seldom more than 50 feet (15 m) wide, and several stretches were only waist deep and out of Confederate range. Burnside has been widely criticized for ignoring this fact is currently sourced to Douglas - I've marked this as needing a better source, as "Burnside has been widely criticized" needs a stronger source than the Douglas memoir. Dawes is the sole source for most of a paragraph of "Hooker and Hood attack" section; which also should be remedied, as well as part of a paragraph earlier in the article. I'd rather not use the participant memoirs for anything other than the quote boxes. Hog Farm _Talk 00:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Late reply. I agree with Hog Farm on the meaning of these sources. Perhaps it is helpful but perhaps it is unnecessary to separate them. I think I don't use primary sources much but when I do I don't remember making a special effort to separate them if not already separated in the article. I think they may be self-evident at least most of the time. But maybe that is because I think of them as being included with attribution to some work or someone who is a primary source. That is in fact what I see Hog Farm proposing to do with respect to the memoirs. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I found a copy of Bailey on internet archive and did some source checks. Most of what I checked is in the source, which is good. A few things below: Text below in green is from the article, in red from Bailey:

• the Federals brought up a battery of 3-inch ordnance rifles and rolled them directly into the Cornfield vs the Federals brought up a battery of three-inch ordnance rifles and rolled the guns directly into the Cornfiled - close paraphrasing, which is problematic
• They were halted by a charge of 1,150 men from Starke's brigade, leveling heavy fire from 30 yards (30 m) away - Bailey doesn't provide the 1,150 men strength figure and describes a charge of two brigades led by Starke, who had acceded to divisional command
• (Corby would later perform a similar service at Gettysburg in 1863.) is an accretion not found in Bailey

Again, there were no significant issues with most of what I checked. Hog Farm _Talk 00:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I just ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector and got a 99.1% similarity. A Heritagepost.org page had 99.1% similarity, so it is probably a copy of the earlier Wikipedia version. Some of the other high scores were for things such as "the bloodiest day in American history", "Army of Northern Virginia", "Army of the Potomac", etc..... Probably a waste of my time. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, TwoScars, and Donner60: thanks for your extensive work. Do you think this article is now GA-standard, or close to it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on what Hog Farm and TwoScars have done and reported, I think it is GA. I may try to add or replace a few citations when I have some extra time, but I think that should not hold this in reassessment any longer. Donner60 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to fix the unsupported 1,150 men detail mentioned above (the other two items in that block have already been addressed) but that's not going to happen until I can finish unpacking my books and get internet at the new house; it might be awhile on the latter front. So I guess this can be closed as kept; this is in much better shape than before. Hog Farm _Talk 13:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is vastly improved, and have no problem with it being GA. I think the three of us (Donner60, Hog Farm, and TwoScars) probably spend more time on American Civil War articles than anyone else—so we will always see small things that we believe need to be improved. For me, the fifth paragraph under Mansfield and Sedgwick has citations (current citations 75-79) that are too broad and need to be split to various sentences in the paragraph. I hope to eventually address that issue, but I don't think the GA should wait. TwoScars (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usage of the word 'men' in place for soldiers

I saw (this) comment on the featured article nomination for the Battle of Big Black River Bridge which I found convincing in regards to the usage of "men" as a stand in for a group of soldiers to not meet the criteria of MOS:GNL. I figured that since Antietam was especially notable for its female soldiers that this would be a good place to mention it. In particular:

1. There are 46 instances on the page where the term "men" is used. Only a handful of these are cases referring exclusively to men. Is there any objection to changing these instances to gender neutral language?
2. The article does not currently mention the women involved in the battle, or mention the incident of Clara Barton discovering Mary Galloway (Soldier)'s sex while treating her wounds. Would there be any objection to adding this incident to the casualties section after the mention of Clara Barton?

First source from 1993 lists 'at least four women' as participating in the battle. The second source is corroborating the first. The most recent source I found is the third from 2013 listing the number at 'at least eight women'. I am unsure where it would be best to insert this information. [1] [2] Relm (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to making the change over to soldiers/troops/forces from "men" as need be. (Full disclosure: I am the FAC nominator at the Big Black River Bridge article). I'd have to consult the sources though about the Barton/Galloway incident to make sure that this is WP:DUEWEIGHT. I don't recall reading about that in the sources I consulted for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Antietam/1. There were over 80,000 common soldiers on the battlefield, and in an encyclopedic summary article, we can't really just pick and choose certain of the many heartbreaking stories to provide in it. We don't, for instance, mention Charles Edwin King in this article. Hog Farm _Talk 13:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! Fair point in regards to due weight. On memory alone I think there might be enough from sources already on the page to expand the post battle casualty collection process as a place for expanding the article slightly - the one that comes to mind immediately is Sears (It's chapter 9, the section ~303-307) who is cited in that section from the chapter he also spends a number of pages discussing Clara Barton - in addition to the big picture details of casualty collection that more aptly fit the main article on the battle rather than a biographical page. Whether the room to expand is due that weight however I would need to dive into the sources later.

In favor of it being due I would argue that the battle has the legacy as 'the bloodiest day', with that being covered extensively in sources. Thus more details about the casualties would feel warranted.

Despite that, against this point is that similar Civil War battles with the reputation for 'bloodiness' do not feature such treatments such as Battle of Chickamauga and Battle of Gettysburg. Battle of Stones River also does not have this treatment, yet it does contain an (albeit uncited) mention of Frances Elizabeth Quinn having been injured in the battle. This seems to have been lifted almost word for word from (this) article on the battle from American Battlefield Trust, so I'll go and amend that real quick for the time being. I understand that Wikipedia's doesn't quite work off of reference to other pages as 'precedent' in this manner, but thought that this would be helpful to the discussion nonetheless! Relm (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)