Talk:Battle of Atlanta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Battle of Atlanta has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 11, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
March 19, 2011 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
Current status: Good article

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)

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)
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)
Well, in Wikipedia, the "someone" could be you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


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)


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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Its in our library - I'll see if I can find it. Kirk (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
Thanks. I'll see what I can find through my local library. Guoguo12--Talk--  17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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 (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 21:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I will comment later. Have a good review! WikiCopter (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 21:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment(s)
    • Lede is too short. WikiCopter (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
      • 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)
    • File:Potter house atlanta.jpg requires a license/copyright tag. WikiCopter (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
      •  Done. To be precise, I replaced the image with a similar one that is licensed. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Heavy reliance on [1], can you supplement with a book? It won't stop the article from passing, but webpages can get hacked, printed books, no. WikiCopter (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • 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 (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • 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)
    • 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 (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • 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)
    • Two cite 14s in 1st para of section Siege and closure. Only one is needed. WikiCopter (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 17:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • McPherson rode S. from the Ga. R.R. when he heard firing in Sugar Cr. valley... Ga R.R.? Clarify in the article. WikiCopter (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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 (simplecommonslostcvuonau) 07:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
          • 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)

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)

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

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)

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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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