Talk:Battle of Gettysburg, First Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Battle of Gettysburg, First Day has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 24, 2006 WikiProject A-class review Approved May 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has passed an A-Class review. Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force

The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents 1 Shoes, again 2 Menchey's Spring 3 Survey 4 GA Review

[edit] Shoes, again

There was no shoe factory or warehouse in Gettysburg. Had there been a surplus of shoes in town, I would think they would have been cleaned out by Brigadier General John Gordon's brigade when they came through Gettysburg five days earlier. Certainly Heth could have been duped by a rumor or even made the shoes an excuse for his blunder that started a full scale fight. But nonetheless the mention of this part of the battle, needs to be removed. --Asososocrates 05:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why it says "ostensibly." Heth's memoirs says that was the reason, so some deference needs to be paid. There are a number of secondary sources that cite the shoes as the reason for the advance, so we can't perform our own original research to delete the historical claims, but we can water them down, which we did. Hal Jespersen 14:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Menchey's Spring

I'm not entirely sure why User:Hlj claimed that the soldiers being shot by a sniper at Menchey's Spring was not relevant to this article - is it the day of the shooting that is contested, or simply its importance? Bearing a monument in the park today, I would assume its notability is verifiable, so do I have the date incorrect? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 11:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The day. Sorry that my edit summary was terse. Any notability of the tiny spring monument would apply only to the Cemetery Hill#Second day article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. It was the complete lack of context about why the spring had a monument, that made me curious and want to mention it on Wiki. I'm sure a number of visitors from the fields come back confused as to what Menchey's Spring was, or why it had any notability. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass The article looks very good here.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet Is there any way you could add more refs to some of the paragraphs? I understand that a lot of the information probably comes directly from the source material. However, there are a lot of long paragraphs with a single source on them; it would be best if there a reference for every statistic, name, and other detail that is not common knowledge to the average person who knows nothing about the battle. I know that this will mean that you have to add some refs that seem redundant, but it makes the article much more verifiable if multiple references are cited in each paragraph several times, corroborating the same details.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Question: Is there any way you could find information on any kind of "pre battle background" or "post battle effects" and make them into brief sections? The information is very broad on the battle itself, and I know that it is a sub article of the overall Battle of Gettysburg, but it should also be very clear and s person should know the background and details by looking at this article alone.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass both sides are represented well.

5. It is stable:

   Pass no problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass no problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold See about the above things, the article is just about good to go otherwise. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

After taking another look at the article, I feel that it is now of sufficent quality to be GA. Congrats! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)