Talk:Battle of Atlanta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBattle of Atlanta was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 11, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 19, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
November 20, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 22, 2004, July 22, 2005, July 22, 2009, July 22, 2011, July 22, 2014, and July 22, 2023.
Current status: Delisted good article

Work in Progress[edit]

As of September 26, 2023, revisions to this article are a work in progress. Expansion and additions to text, citations and sources have been made; others are being worked on in a sandbox or offline. Some sections may be expanded, revised or cleaned up before others. See also GA Reassessment section below. I will remove this entry when work is finished or if it the work becomes delayed for a prolonged period of time. Donner60 (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes have been made to the article but most edits and additions are now being prepared in a sandbox. The changes and additions will be extensive and I think it is better at this point not to add them piecemeal. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strength[edit]

Normally, the strength is given by a number. Here, it is just referred to the armies, and if you go there, still, no numbers.

So, how many soldiers fought on each side? Formerly very active, now only occasional editor (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This practice is a crutch for editors who have not located the actual numbers in secondary sources. Those figures are actually difficult to nail down sometimes. It's arguably better than omitting the data entirely. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Very good. Those figures are very often difficult, or even impossible, to nail down. If you look at the articles for old battles, they very often has spans or ranges for it. I just say, someone need to insert the spans and ranges here. Formerly very active, now only occasional editor (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Wikipedia, the "someone" could be you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Strengths listed here have to be wrong. Sherman starts with 98,500-12,000, but is someehow down to 34,863 by the battle of Atlanta? Hood outnumbers Sherman with 40,438 in Southern territory, but somehow loses and has to abandon Atlanta? Sherman consistently had more troops than Johnston or Hood or else he wouldn't have gotten anywhere. These numbers are implausible. Are they a mistake? BobEvil (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nine years later, but for the record, these numbers are estimates of the numbers for the units involved in the battle. Most of the Union troops were too far from the locations of the battle and were not engaged. The Confederates used a larger percentage of their total force. More detail and citations are now being added to the article; the entire work may take some time yet to complete. From: McMurry, Richard M. Atlanta 1864: Last Chance for the Confederacy. Lincoln and London, University of Nebraska Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-8032-3212-9. p. 151: "By a mixture of boldness and good luck Hood had brought a superior force to the point of battle." Donner60 (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Decatur[edit]

In this edit, I removed unreferenced information claiming that the Battle of Atlanta was also called the Battle of Decatur. I'm starting to think that whoever added the information confused it with the Battle of Decatur of late-October 1864. If anyone can prove that the Battle of Atlanta was actually called the Battle of Decatur, please do re-add the information with a reference. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One part of the overall battle on this date included an engagement at Decatur separated by a few miles from the other part of the battle. Bonds, Russell S. War Like the Thunderbolt: The Battle and Burning of Atlanta. Yardley, PA: Westholme Publishing, 2009. ISBN 978-1-59416-100-1. p. 161 refers to this part of the battle as the "so-called Battle of Decatur." In his new book, Hess, Earl J. July 22: The Civil War Battle of Atlanta. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2023. ISBN 978-0-7006-3396-8, Earl J. Hess has a chapter "Decatur and the Rest of July 22", which starts at p. 208: "The great battle at Sugar Creek and along the earthwork line at Bald Hill and the Georgia Railroad overshadowed a much smaller fight at Decatur on the afternoon of July 22. Although marginal, it was an important struggle...." In the Order of Battle appendix, at page 327, Hess lists the units engaged at Decatur under the caption: "Battle of Decatur, July 22." Dyer's Compendium [1] lists, for July 22, 1864: "Engagement at Decatur" separately from "Battle of Atlanta." Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123 has the following in the entry for July 22, 1864, at page 544: "At the fringes of the gigantic battle, fighting occurred near Decatur, at Beachtown, and along the Chattahoochee River." Other citations are probably available. There is no confusion with the later battle by noting this separate action as part of the overall battle(s) on July 22. The citations here show historians have referred to this separate action as the Battle of Decatur. However, I think the distinction between the two Decatur actions should probably be noted in a footnote or in the article to avoid any possible confusion of the later action with the separate phase of the Battle of Atlanta at Decatur. Donner60 (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B-review[edit]

The lead should be expanded more; I expanded the lead to include the political ramifications since that was easy, but it still needs to do more on the background and siege. Also, there were a number of duplicated refs in the paragraphs - the style these days seems to be you don't have to repeat references on successive sentences.

You should include some kind of the strength numbers in the infobox and the text - the text refers to the Confederacy being out numbered repeatedly, and it should be easy to find since this is an important battle. Good luck on your GA review! Kirk (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll see if I can spruce up the lead and I'll look over the references. Thanks for reviewing! Guoguo12--Talk--  13:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick browse of Cox's Sherman's battle for Atlanta on Google books reveals appendices with the approximate sizes for each side during the campaign. Kirk (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can seem to get to it. It says "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book". Guoguo12--Talk--  13:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its in our library - I'll see if I can find it. Kirk (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added references for the approximate strength of the confederate army from Cox, but I had to use a weblink for the Union strength; I'm not sure those web articles about the campaign are going to hold up as authoritative sources. Kirk (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll see what I can find through my local library. Guoguo12--Talk--  17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was always unclear to me how Sherman got to Atlanta in the first place. A larger map of the initial advance would be helpful as the smaller maps only cover the Atlanta area. A link might be sufficient if there is one, unless I overlooked it.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Atlanta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I will comment later. Have a good review! WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment(s)
    • Lede is too short. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your multiple notices, although I tried to add a bit to the lede within 15 hours of your comment. Personally, I think the lede meets the requirements at Wikipedia:Lead#Length; the article is just under 8000 characters long, and thus requires only one to two paragraphs. There are also plenty of similarly-sized GAs (e.g., Battle of Arcadiopolis (970)) with shorter ledes. Guoguo12--Talk--  01:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Potter house atlanta.jpg requires a license/copyright tag. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done. To be precise, I replaced the image with a similar one that is licensed. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heavy reliance on [2], can you supplement with a book? It won't stop the article from passing, but webpages can get hacked, printed books, no. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To commemorate the 140th anniversary of the battle in 2004, two new markers were erected in the Inman Park neighborhood. Describe the markers in the article. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't find any more information, but I did add more information about markers in general. Guoguo12--Talk--  14:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Up to this point, every issue raised has been answered except the one concerning web source usage. Therefore, I give you more comments and issues.
    • I'm assuming that the (CS)s are referring to Confederate divisions, correct? If so, clarify in the article. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have clarified the meaning. Since I copied (legitimately) the inscription text directly from the source, I didn't change the "(CS)". I've replaced it with "[CSA flag]" (as seen on the actual marker). Guoguo12--Talk--  03:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two cite 14s in 1st para of section Siege and closure. Only one is needed. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • McPherson rode S. from the Ga. R.R. when he heard firing in Sugar Cr. valley... Ga R.R.? Clarify in the article. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I may be able to clarify it, but I'm more or less in favor of minimal change. If that's not okay, I'll see what I can do, or I may replace the quote entirely, since it doesn't add too much value to the article. Your call. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel the entire marker text should be replaced with inline text with citations to the markers, since there are so many grammatical errors and misunderstandings. BTW, what is Ga. R.R.? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 07:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Most likely "Georgia railroad", but there were many railroads used by the Confederates as supply lines to Atlanta, a major Southern rail hub. Destroying/capturing these supply lines was the idea behind the remainder of the Atlanta Campaign battles. Anyway, I didn't think there was much to write about when it came to historical markers (I mean, what do I say? That they marked historical places?), so I added a quote by Commander Sherman on McPherson's death. What do you think? Guoguo12--Talk--  20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who commanded[edit]

In the lead you state "Union commander James McPherson" and mention that he was killed, a great tragedy for the Union army as he was an outstanding army commander. Later on in that same paragraph you state "Union commander William Sherman."

As you know (you make this distinction later in the article) Sherman had overall command of this campaign while McPherson was the commander of the Army of the Tennessee, one of the Union armies in this campaign and present at Atlanta. I suggest you rework the paragraph so that visitors understand this. As it appears now, those unfamiliar with the War of the Rebellion might come away with the idea that Sherman rose to command after McPherson was killed.

I recommend this as I have been told, by other editors, that the lead is the only thing some people read.

Just as an aside, I read your last section on the rapid rebuilding of Atlanta after the war. During that time Memphis, Tennessee was often referred to as the "Queen City of the South." However, after the 1878 yellow fever epidemic hit Memphis particularly hard, her prominence declined and Atlanta became more important culturally, economically, etc.

Good luck with this article. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will see what I can do. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)It was Logan who rose to command of the Army of the Tennessee and actually commanded the Union forces in the field at the Battle of Atlanta. Despite winning a great victory, Logan was demoted back to command of the XV Corps, and replaced by O.O. Howard, a terrible general who had done nothing to deserve the promotion. This led to ill-feelings by many in the army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.128.35 (talk)

Aftermath section[edit]

I think some alternate history is good for encyclopedia articles - make it clear what was at stake - but I don't like this passage in Aftermath:

"The fall of Atlanta was especially noteworthy for its political ramifications. In the 1864 election, former Union General George B. McClellan, a Democrat, ran against President Lincoln on a peace platform calling for truce with the Confederacy, although McCellan himself advocated continuing the war until the defeat of the Confederacy. Had this truce been achieved, it is highly unlikely that the war could ever have been restarted. However, the capture of Atlanta and Hood's burning of military facilities as he evacuated were extensively covered by Northern newspapers, and significantly increased Northern morale. Lincoln was reelected by a comfortable margin, with 212 out of 233 electoral votes.[8]"

How much of this is really cited to Boyer? Just the result? Is the first part original research / author's opinion / opinion of someone else? At best, I'd want it to be "According to historian Boyer, XYZ." But the current phrasing strongly connects the Battle to the re-election ("however") when I'd argue that it was more the general Georgia campaign that raised Union spirits, and furthermore seems to imply that had the CSA won the battle, then this truce might have had the CSA win the war. Which, IMHO, is quite wrong; the South had already lost by 1864, McClellan lost by a lot of votes, and even if McClellan had won he'd *probably* have continued prosecuting the war. The passage goes even further and notes "it is highly unlikely the war could ever have been restarted;" this requires way too much knowledge of the terms of the hypothetical truce to judge. A truce that came about due to crippling Northern losses would probably have ended the war, yes. But otherwise, the country was still a tinderbox with none of the problems fixed and no compromises likely. President McClellan might want to deal, but on what terms? The CSA wanted independence and McClellan was a Unionist, and the North would still have had a winning hand in 1865 even if the Georgia campaign somehow stalled out. That's no reason to offer a truce without terms the South would be unwilling to accept. The only thing that would have ended the war was a clear loss by one side or the other.

I'm not asking my opinions on Civil War alternate history be included, of course, but I'd ask that the ones currently in the article be either cited to a specific historian or removed. SnowFire (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Atlanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Battle of Atlanta[edit]

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 • Most recent review
Result: No worries, Donner60. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2011 listing has several tags for citations, failed verification, and page numbers needed. Overall, I am not sure this article meets GA criterion 2. Pinging Hog Farm for a subject matter expert's opinion on specific content. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a battle of this magnitude and significance, I would argue that only three paragraphs on the actual fighting is under developed. I find it very surprising that Castel's Decision in the West is barely used at all; it's one of the most important modern works on the campaign. I don't have the time or energy right now to take this on. Hog Farm Talk 12:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the posting for this. I am rather sure that the defects can be fixed and the article can be revised and expanded to fit the criteria. Note that many of the sources are public domain and can be found on line. I would not use most or all of them because there are almost certainly better ones. I would replace many of these citations to the extent possible with other references from books by reliable historians that I have available. I think I have all but one of the more modern sources that are cited so far in the article and others. The modern ones include the NPS public domain on line source which I would still replace to the extent possible.
As Hog Farm notes, it was a big battle and the article needs to be expanded. As noted in the lead "Despite the implication of finality in its name, the battle occurred midway through the Atlanta campaign, and the city did not fall until September 2, 1864, after a Union siege and various attempts to seize railroads and supply lines leading to Atlanta." That does not negate the point that it was a big battle but it should be kept in mind that there were later battles that were part of the Atlanta campaign. It needs to be kept in context.
I would like to work on this and intend to as I have time. I must note that I am a little backed up right now both as to articles I am working to improve here and by real life. Even if I put some other military history "to do" items on the back burner, I think this is going to take some time to research and revise and bring to a conclusion. So I must note that I am not ready to jump right into this and bring it to a conclusion. To the extent I work on it soon, it is likely to come piecemeal. If the reassessment can wait for a while, as it did with Battle of Gettysburg, I will get the work done. Any help that others can add to move it along would also be welcome. If the article needs to be reassessed very soon, I think it can be restored to GA eventually. Donner60 (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time Donner60; I only ask that you give status updates every two weeks or so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I made some additions and improvements and added a few references to the article on August 6-8. Brief battle section appeared to have made a relationship to two actions that were separated in location and to some extent in time of day. The reason for the recall of Confederate cavalry from Decatur did not line up with sources. The article still needs additions and citations. I'll be plodding along with it. Donner60 (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Donner60, you still intending to work on the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have been rewriting the background section offline rather than post it piecemeal. I think it needs some more detail and additional citations. I may work the current section into the new version to the extent needed for completeness or remove the current section altogether if I have covered and expanded the background. Then I will move into expanding the battle section. I have read some of the sources in detail and think I have a grasp of what happened I hope to have more time over the next few weeks to give it the concentrated effort it needs. Sorry for the delay. Donner60 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I have moved my work on this article from offline to User:Donner60/sandbox 7. I have drafted a longer background section but I want to work on it more before moving it to the article. I may trim it back at least a little but I think the article needs more background than is in that section now. It was a major battle in the middle of the campaign. This is mentioned but I think more is needed. I still need to add some citations to the draft, which I have available. When the draft section is done, I plan to replace the existing section entirely with the draft section.
I have drafted a paragraph about opposing forces in the campaign for the opposing forces section. That section only has links to orders of battle articles now. I will be removing a similar paragraph that is in the background section now and include the information in the opposing forces section. I will put further text about the units only engaged in the July 22 battle in that section as well. It would be superfluous to take the space to repeat the full orders of battle in the linked articles in this article; it isn't commonly done, of course. The additions should be more than enough to remove the empty section tag.
From my reading, I now have a reasonably good idea of the course of the battle and high points. It will take some time to write it all down. There is more to it than the short original version and the slightly expanded version that I posted last month. Donner60 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your efforts, D60. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I have done some cleanup in the article and worked some in the sandbox version mostly on Background; a little more to be done on that section, then on to the other sections. I have replaced the empty section tag in the order of battle section and replaced it with a version of the OOB without the regiments listed and in a format to take up less space than if I had put each entry in a laddered fashion. Now that the info is there, the format could be revised or info possible shortened if desirable. Donner60 (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I haven't given up on this. In this case, I think the whole main section about the battle will need to be revised and lengthened. The Gettysburg revision took some time but could be done piecemeal without distorting the article overall. I have been getting used to being a co-ordinator for Wikiproject Military History and have had a few other distractions. This is at the top of my to do list. I hope to have more solid blocks of time after this weekend to work on this. I have the references ready but I just need to do some concentrated work and get the text written. As with the background, I will write this in the sandbox before posting it in final or near final form. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Donner60, congratulations on your new MILHIST position; I'm sure you'll do great. Hog Farm I don't know how much free time you have these days, but can I ask you for your thoughts on the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find the time to take a look this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts about the current article, although I have not read much about the battle. 1) Should the Background have any mention of Grant's overall plan to destroy rail line, resources, and infrastructure used to equip and feed the Confederate armies? 2) the Opposing forces section is almost unreadable. We already have an order of battle. Too much detail. Were the various units seasoned vets or inexperienced? How well were they armed? Detail down to a brigade may be too much here, unless a certain brigade had an important role in the battle. Battle: I would get rid of the gallery and instead use maps on the right side of the text to help explain the battle. Someone with a low attention span (me?) should be able to look at two or three maps and have a reasonable understanding of what happened in the battle. I am not a fan of abbreviations such as "Brig. Gen." Siege and closure: Is this part of the battle, aftermath, or what? Legacy: Does the "Map of Atlanta battlefield core and study areas..." do anything to explain the battle or preservation efforts—I'm not a fan. TwoScars (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TwoScars that the orbat needs work - the full table is best left in the main orbat list. I personally wouldn't provide much detail below the divisional level if it were my choice. The citation needed and page needed tags should be addresssed. The two Historical Marker Database citations are user-generated and are not RS. I can help a bit if help is needed (it would be mainly utilizing Castel for me) but not until at least next weekened, because work is going to be busy for me this week. Hog Farm Talk 22:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Hog Farm TwoScars
(1) I have deleted the order of battle detail. I inserted the text and the detail in response to an empty section tag. I was trying to add part of the order of battle section without adding so many lines. It was something of an experiment. It didn't work. I intended to take another look but left it in place pending that further look. As it turned out, I did not get back to it promptly. In retrospect, I could have spent the time better on something else. The text may be enough or I may add a little to it.
(2) I have moved my work on this article from offline or the article itself to User:Donner60/sandbox 7.
(3) I have a longer and improved background section in the sandbox. I don't want to post it or other changes because I think it will overwhelm the rest of the article. Also, I am trying to decide whether the next paragraph or two will be background. At this time I think it will start the battle narrative. I welcome any needed edits or additions to the revised background in the sandbox, but working on the existing text in the article online would be a wasted effort. So please work in the sandbox for now if you wish to work on this.
(3a) After writing this I decided to add the first subsection, objectives, preparation, to the background section. It is a good addition in my opinion though it does make the background section longer than the battle section even before the further expansion in the two additional subsections.
(4) In line with TwoScars's comment, I had already mentioned Grant's plan in the expanded background section (now divided into three subsections) in the sandbox. This is in the subsection that I added after posting the initial remarks here.
(5) I have removed: "Twice more in later campaigns, Hood would seek to lure the thrust of a Union axis of advance upon a position and/or force that he was commanding to seek an engagement. The Union's forces were not turned in those cases either.{{citation needed|date=June 2019}}" I had removed it in my sandbox work. I could not find any source or sources for this. Since it is superfluous, I have now deleted it.
(6) I don't like the Brig. Gen. abbreviations any more than the NATO abbreviations over which we had some controversy recently. I don't use them in my writing but will sometimes leave them in articles if extensively used. I think the guideline on existing style may not apply to require keeping them, especially since I will likely become the primary author. I have now changed the remaining abbreviations to full titles.
(7) I had not gotten to the Historical Marker data base citations yet but I agree that they are not RS.
(8) I also have not looked at the pictures, etc. Some maps are needed because they help understanding the several movements over the course of the battle.
(9) The article is inaccurate, not properly organized, incomplete and needs extensive rewriting and additions. (All of TwoScars's comments accurately reflect this.) I think that working on it piecemeal is not possible (for me to do a good job, anyway) as it was with Battle of Gettysburg. There are some inaccuracies and too much detail left out of the existing text.
(10) Even though my previous work was in September, I have a good understanding of the battle and quite a few sources, including Castel at hand.
(11) Real life, to some extent, learning some co-ordinator work and a few distractions into less important editing have slowed me down. For me, this rewrite will require solid blocks of concentrated time because it is almost like writing a long article from scratch. I am sure I can do it. I should have more such time in November, but I sometimes overestimate that of course.
(12) None of this is meant to discourage any help on this nor is it meant to pass it off to others, especially others who have so many other things to do. I thought it was important to note the few changes I made today and, more importantly, the work in the sandbox to avoid duplication of effort. I am not sure where we stand on this with respect to timely completion, but I have not abandoned it and it is on top of my to do list on my user page. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Donner60, this GAR has been open for nearly four months. As you say, the article "is inaccurate, not properly organized, incomplete and needs extensive rewriting and additions". I am leaning towards delisting the article and leaving it for you to work on at your leisure and discretion. Would that be fine? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with that because I am not sure whether I can improve it enough in the near future to complete the revision soon, even with some work done in the sandbox. I think we should not depend on the few others who might be able to help with this. They have many other things to work on. In the case of Hog Farm, we need to let him concentrate on his career and family and not take on big tasks, if any. My only hesitation now is that it may take time for a new assessment once it is in shape. That's not enough to leave it hanging however. Real life, the holidays, co-ordinator actions and the need for blocks of time and energy may all cause delays. Sorry for keeping this hanging but I plan to work on it and eventually complete it. Maybe it will reappear sooner than we think. Thanks for your patience. 00:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

You know they burned Atlanta right?[edit]

So far as I can see the only reference to Sherman burning down Atlanta when he left on November 15th is in the caption to a photo. 2601:602:9000:6700:E5C7:9994:3C82:D789 (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further information links in the "Aftermath" section to Burning of Atlanta and Atlanta campaign. Please note from the opening paragraph: "Despite the implication of finality in its name, the battle occurred midway through the Atlanta campaign, and the city did not fall until September 2, 1864, after a Union siege and various attempts to seize railroads and supply lines leading to Atlanta." The reference to the burning of Atlanta, via the photo, is in the "Aftermath" section. It is not directly related to this battle and further mention, other than the added links, is not really needed in this article. It is somewhat complicated, a whole article being written about it, and can not be summarized briefly. The links should suffice. Donner60 (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Atlanta&oldid=1206846569"