Talk:Union (American Civil War)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 04:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Copyvio check with Earwig's tool found no violations, though it found two mirror sites.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   "There wasn't a shortage of enthusiasm as young men clamored to join the army in 1861. That was where the excitement was, and they were all volunteers." - Informal tone, including use of contractions. Re-write in more encyclopedic style.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   From "Recruiting volunteers:" "They [the soldiers] spent their time drilling." - All the time? No fighting? I'm not sure what this sentence contributes to the article, or even is trying to say.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   "Harsh weather; bad water; inadequate shelter in winter quarters; poor policing of camps; and dirty camp hospitals took their toll." - Use paragraphs here, not semi-colons.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   " At the same time they passed new taxes to pay for part of the war, and issued large amounts of bonds to pay for the most of the rest. (The remainder can be charged to inflation. )" - I suggest a re-write such as "To finance the war, they passed new taxes, issued large amounts of bonds, and charged any remaining costs to inflation.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   "Apart from taxes, the second major source was government bonds." - add "of income" after "second major source."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   "Fourth the government printed "greenbacks"—paper money—which led to endless controversy because they caused inflation.[49]" - Article never describes what the third financing option was."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   "Frank reports that what it meant to be a father varied with status and age, but most men demonstrated dual commitments as providers and nurturers and believed that husband and wife had mutual obligations toward their children." - Who is Frank?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   "The Union states (all with their separate articles, and some cities):" - Re-write as "list of Union states, with some major cities."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Should "Perpetual Union of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." be "the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union."? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

ok I tried to fix all of the above points. Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Punctuation

• Use of double hyphen as dash (--), semi-colons as above in list, emdash with space.
• Use commas for parenthetic (qualifying) phrases eg " banker Jay Cooke" to "banker, Jay Cooke"
• Does it serve any purpose to place whole sentences in parentheses?
• Suggest use of parentheses in place of parenthetic dashes (eg -phrase- ) as there is presently mixed use.
• Serial commas (eg , and) used with conjunctions (and, or and but) not consistent with convention. Used here when joining two main phrases. Should be used in lists of three or more items or phrases when necessary for clarity? The unexpected use affected readability.
• Missing opening quote. Suggest use of quote template but move graphics so they don't interfere with indent.

• A number of words/phrases (eg gubernatorial control, shoddy, pietistic denominations, Whiggish vision and declamation) require clarification and/or links.
• Review sentence structure for readability and clarity. I found I was having to repeatedly read and re-read sentences. Partly, this was because I found the style of sentence construction to be unfamiliar. There are many large and complex sentences. I am not innocent of this either. I believe that many sentences could be simply broken down without affecting accuracy and with a significant improvement in readability and clarity. Other sentences may require restructure to retain integrity of meaning.
• "During Reconstruction many Unionists in the ex-Confederacy became "Scalawags" who supported the newly founded Republican Party." phrasing implies that the party was new relative to reconstruction.
• The main 'Family' section appears to lack contextual relevence (why is it there?)
• "Unionist regiments were raised in every southern state" or, Unionist regiments were raised by every southern state"?
• "The opposition came from Copperheads, who were Southern sympathizers in the Midwest." Is this the only place they were located? I believe the sections Opposition and Copperheads should be reviewed for accuracy, consistency and redundancy (repetition) and possible combining.
• I believe there needs to be a brief Background section (introduction) to establish context - the underpinning causes of succession and a relationship to the military operations. I think that the relationship of this article to others on the war should be established up-front - perhaps something like a campaign box but I am not certain how this fits with accepted formats.
• I am not a content expert but I am happy to help with many of the things I have identified. I do not; however, want to be traipsing all over somebody-elses turf without invitation. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• These are all very helpful insights, Cinderella157. I'm happy that there are other editors busy on this article. I would encourage editors to address these issues as well. In fact, Cinderella157, feel free to edit the article yourself. I cannot, as the reviewer, edit the article apart from very minor revisions. You, however, are not bound by that and may edit the article as much as you want. On the whole, the prose in this article seems very weak, but that isn't necessarily a GA issue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Follows MOS.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Has an appropriate reference section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   Though not that many citations are given considering the scope of the topic, citations are provided enough to make it clear where the statements and discussions are coming from.

   C. No original research:

   All content attributable to reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   As elaborated in point "B" below, too many sections need expansion or additional information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Many sections need expansion or additional aspects considered:

   "Prisoners of war" discusses the numbers of prisoners involved, but does not discuss prison camps at all. What were the camp logistics? What problems were encountered? How were conditions in Union prison camps? What were major causes of death in the camps?

   With "Draft riots," why were German and Irish populations more inclined to riot?

   Most glaringly, as the previous review noted, there is no direct discussion of the war, and no military campaigns discussed. This important aspect of the Union is entirely absent, apart from the discussion of guerrilla tactics and responses to those tactics.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   The "Public opinion" section mentions the Copperheads, but provides no explanation as to who they are. I'd recommend either a wikilink to the Copperhead article or a parenthetical note such as "(see below)."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   "Lincoln's charm and willingness to cooperate with political and personal enemies made Washington work much more smoothly than Richmond." - This mentions the capital of the Confederacy, but not explicitly. Should re-write to include "Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   "In the first few months men wore low quality uniforms made of 'shoddy'..." - What is "shoddy?"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   As noted in the first GA review, the "Religion" section discusses only one historian's doctoral thesis. What about other scholarly opinions? Currently, very undue weight is given to this particular historian.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I note the recent deletion of material from this source with the comment, "drop unpublished disst". I am not certain if this was the action indicated by comments made in respect to this material or that this action is appropriate. I believe that deletion of content should be IAW the reasons in Wikipedia:Content removal. I do not believe is satisfies Inappropriate content for Wikipedia. It is not "Text that is intended to give one's [an editor's] personal point of view of the subject", unless the inclusion was made by that particular work's author - even then the rational is equivocal. The material may be presented in a 'more qualified manner' - ie in a manner that makes it clear that this is but one opinion (among many?). The criticism (immediately above) is a matter of weight and not of credibility, reliability or that it is an inappropriate point of view. From the succeeding section (Methodists) this opinion appears to correlate with what is expressed in this (the Methodist section) and may well better fit there. I note the additional material under the heading of "Religion" but I believe this section requires further development since this section only hints at the social-politics-religion dynamic. It needs to consider more than just the Methodist denomination. There is also the relationship of ethnicity and religion - eg whether dissent of the Irish and Germans could also be categorised or correlated on a religious basis. I perceive that the criticism WRT this source is that other views and perspectives are not developed. I do not believe that the reliability of the source is a basis for deletion. WP does not consider theses unreliable sources nor unpublished works though it does advise caution(Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship). This particular work is from a reputable university and doctoral degrees in such a case would (generally and most likely) require academic review with (and likely with an international contributor). In short, I do not believe this was an appropriate way to resolve the criticism arising from inclusion of this material. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with you, Cinderella157, that the thesis was fine as a source, and even contributed very usefully to the discussion. My concern was that the thesis was the only source, not that it was used as a source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

1. In general, the article does not discuss the wide range of academic opinions and discussions which I am sure that there are. It focuses on only a few perspectives and analyses.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable. Instances of vandalism reverted promptly.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Licensing checks out.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The previous GAR found the article under-illustrated. I'd say that it is adequately illustrated now, though more images certainly wouldn't hurt. Captions are suitable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

4. Overall: Still needs major expansion in some areas to ensure that all major aspects of the Union are discussed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I generally concur with the above. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Article failed due to significant issues with lack of scope and a need for better prose.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Pass or Fail:

   Currently, the article is undergoing a lot of evaluation, refining, and expansion (thank you Cinderella157 for taking such initiative here), so this review may be on hold for several days still, as changes are made to the article. I'm very happy, though, to see such activity on an article, with multiple editors chipping in to help.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the status, Cinderella157 and Rjensen? If the issues that I brought up in my review are not dealt with soon, I will have to fail this article. I am thinking that this may be the best option, since it looks like a re-write is in the works.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@3family6, I perceive that the article is written in a specific referential framework (US) which creates issues of accessibility for the global readership of WP. I perceive a reluctance to acknowledge this issue, let alone address improvements based on this. I generally agree with the issues that you have identified. I perceive that many of these remain unaddressed and perceive that they are unlikely to be addressed in the present editorial climate. I would particularly agree with your comment regarding the need for expansion in many cases. I believe that with a little polish, this article could easily be very good but, under the present conditions, I see little point in persisting. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that is what I wanted to know. I try to give editors time to improve an article so that it can pass, but this article looks like it will need substantial time to improve it, and as you do not object a fail, I think that is the best option at this point.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion from other editors

Prisoners of war

Simply put, the numbers don't add up! Worse still, presumably the number counted in 1901 would be less than the actual figure because of mortality since 1861. I know that historical figures don't always add up but any discrepancy needs to be at least acknowledged and, if possible, explained; otherwise, it suggests an inaccuracy. Needs checking. Suggest a footnote to explain. Also, shouldn't it be 409,000 imprisoned since not all that were captured were imprisoned? To say captured creates a discrepancy with respect to the 464,000 Confederates that were captured. Could a content expert please address these issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Both sides operated prison camps to handle the 409,000 soldiers captured during the war, 1861–65. The Record and Pension Office in 1901 counted 211,000 Northerners who were captured. In 1861–63 most were immediately paroled; after the parole exchange system broke down in 1863, about 195,000 went to prison camps. Some tried to escape but few succeeded. By contrast 464,000 Confederates were captured (many in the final days) and 215,000 imprisoned. Over 30,000 Union and nearly 26,000 Confederate prisoners died in captivity. Just over 12% of the captives in Northern prisons died, compared to 15.5% for Southern prisons.

I try to fix it, but the sources themselves are based on very different ways of estimating, and are hard to reconcile. Keep in mind that some individuals were captured twice or even three times, and different sources count them as one, two, or three. Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @[[User:Rjensen|Rjensen], I think that you have misunderstood my intent. If the numbers don't add up, you need to tell the reader that you know this and, you need to tell the reader why they don't add up if there is a reasonable explanation. This explanation is an 'aside' from the main thread. That is why I suggest that the best place for this explanation is in a footnote. I can help setting it up if help is needed. The sorts of things you are saying here on the talk page are the sort of thing that needs to be offered as an explanation (but a bit more polished and reference to the sources of course). I would put the 400,000 back to 409,000. The change makes things look worse. 215,000 plus 211,000 should but obviously doesn't equal 409,000 (the total imprisoned - not the total capture). Presumably, the 409,000 is for discrete persons. 211,000 is actually 211,000 plus - due to mortality in the intervening period until the census? The census figure counts discrete persons. Does that mean that 215,000 counts soldiers captured multiple times? How did this come about? Were they paroled and broke parole?

Another thing is referencing. I firmly believe that the source of quotes, critical facts and figures should be referenced where they occur in the text, citing the specific page where this is given by the reference - it should not be a range of multiple pages (but may be two pages if the specific sentence or paragraph occurs at a page break. This expectation is supported by the MOS. Placing two references at the end of the paragraph implies that each reference independently of the other, supports everything said in the paragraph. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

More clarifications

Hi, I have stumbled across this article and am interested in helping with its improvement - mainly by way of copy editing. I am not a content expert nor am I American. I found the article quite difficult to read. Many of the sentences are very complex. In many cases, the complexity can be greatly reduced without significant change - mostly by just cutting the sentence at a conjunction. I have also come across a number of instances that are ambiguous or unclear. Some of these things I can nut out but others, I will need help with. Communicating this way (and usually very succinctly) can appear terse and overly (personally) critical. If I use phrases like doesn't make sense, then it doesn't make sense to me; or, the sentence is clumsy it is just a succinct way to state the problem I perceive. Such statements are not intended as personal slights. Also, any edits I make are suggestions. I am not perturbed if they are reverted or alternatively edited. I am using this section to ask for help with edits when I can see an issue but I am uncertain as to how to resolve the issue. Thanks in advance. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Congress section

Some committee suggested that West Pointers who engaged in strategic maneuver were cowardly or even disloyal. It ended up endorsing incompetent but politically correct generals.

Doesn't make sense. Should this be, "Some of the committee"? Does it refer to the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point – I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Opposition and Copperheads sections

The opposition came from Copperheads, who were Southern sympathizers in the Midwest.

Were Copperheads necessarily Southern sympathizers or were they opponents of the war, of which some were Southern sympathizers? Were they only located in the Midwest? I perceive that having these as two separate sections has created problems with sequencing of information (and with accuracy as a consequence). If Copperheads were the major source of opposition, you can't say what the opposition was without first saying who they were. Opposition and Copperheads may appear to be convenient pigeon holes but from what I read here, the matters are too intertwined to separate out. If there must be too sections, then, for continuity, Copperheads should precede Other opposition but I don't see that any great purpose is achieved by separating. Anyhow, while I could have a stab at it, I would much prefer that this was addressed by someone much closer to the material. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This should fix it: The opposition came from Copperhead Democrats, who were strongest in the Midwest and wanted to allow Confederate secession. Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Unionists in South and Border states section

During Reconstruction many Unionists in the ex-Confederacy became "Scalawags" who supported the newly founded Republican Party.

Firstly, this suggests that the Republican Party was founded post-war but more importantly it does not establish the significance of 'Scallywags'. It only made any sense at all when I went to the link. The role of the link should be to provide further information. The sentence should not depend on the link. This idea needs further development at the moment it is hanging. Suggest:

During Reconstruction, many Unionists from the states of the ex-Confederacy supported the Republican Party. The majority of Southerners resented the reconstruction policies imposed by the Republican Party. "Scalawag" was a derogatory term applied to southern born Republican supporters. Most commonly, its use was confined to Caucasians.

Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to this: During Reconstruction many of these Unionists became "Scalawags" who supported the Republican Party. Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Opposition

US electoral system

There are some assumption of knowledge about the American electoral system that need to be clarified for the benefit of other nationalities. Are the congressional elections (or just the house of reps) concurrent with sate legislature and election of governors? Or was this just coincidental? I am of the impression that elections (state and federal except president and vp) occur all at once. An explanation (probably by way of footnote) is needed to explain this for the benefit of us foreigners. Otherwise, it is confusing that the article is talking about the guberwhosit (gonvernor's) election when it says it is talking about the the house of rep election (by the link - which is probably an incorrect link to use at this place). The link to United States House of Representatives elections, 1862 should probably be made in the next sentence.

I am not sure which sentences puzzling you?? Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It scored major gains in the 1862 elections, including the election of moderate Horatio Seymour as governor of New York. They gained 28 seats in the federal House of Representatives but remained a minority. The 1862 election for the Indiana legislature was especially hard-fought. Though the Democrats gained control of the legislature, they were unable to impede the war effort. Republican Governor Oliver P. Morton was able to maintain control of the states contribution to the war effort despite the Democrat majority.

The link from the "1862 elections" is to "United States House of Representatives elections".

The "gains" came across the board in legislative, gubernatorial and congressional elections, but the only article that covers them well is the one that is linked. I can read phrase it slightly. Rjensen (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate why only that link was used, but it created a misleading impression by how it was used and by other information. Actually this isn't a bad statement: The 'gains' came across the board in legislative, gubernatorial and congressional elections". This has made things clearer but I think I will revisit it at some time to check - let it gestate for a bit.

Federal help ?

"With federal help, governor, Oliver P. Morton was able to maintain control of the states ..."

What was the nature of the help? Please clarify.

I would prefer that my comments are not addressed by deleting the material to which they refer unless there is a question of accuracy which cannot be supported by citation. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The nature the federal help is explained in great detail in the article on Morton, So there is no need to repeat it here. It just makes the section longer and longer and longer. Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

My Question about Federal help has bee made mute by the removal of this reference. I would observe that a consistent concern in review of the article is a need to further develop the material. To this extent, my question is not a minority view. By the article on Morton, I presume you mean: Kenneth M. Stampp, Indiana Politics during the Civil War (1949) online edition - material which is not freely available to readers. Overtly, the statement appeared to represent that the Federal Government was acting to suborn the constitution of the country, the state or both - certainly worthy of at least a brief explanation. The purpose of a citation is to support the veracity of a statement, not to explain it. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Make omissions explicit for other editors

"When writing an article, always aim for completeness."

House of rep link

I had added the link as follows:

" They gained 28 seats in the federal House of Representatives but remained a minority."

My own experience suggested Congress was the name applied to the to the second (other than Senate) house of the US Government. Sometimes understanding (communication) is not based on intelligence but upon the contextual domains within which the reader and the writer are operating. Implied or assumed understanding of meanings common throughout a domain but not across domains become barriers to effective communication. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hoosier

"Washington was especially helpful in 1864 in arranging furloughs to allow Hoosier soldiers to return home so they could vote in elections."

I believe that this sentence could be edited to make the meaning/significance of Hoosier soldiers evident, also with a link and a note on why this was important for Indianan soldiers and was not done for soldiers of other states or was not of significance for soldiers of other states. I acknowledge that Hoosier is the correct demonym for somebody from that state but its use may well fall within the scope of WPs policy on jargon. From the Hoosier article:

"Hoosier /ˈhuːʒər/ is the official demonym for a resident of the U.S. state of Indiana. Although most Americans typically adopt a derivative of the state name (either "Indianan" or "Indianian"), these derivatives are not in official use or proper within Indiana. [my emphasis]

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes well I think people who do not know what the word "Hoosier" means can get a little bit of education by reading this article. "Hoosier" is not slang, it is the official term as the quotation actually says. Footnotes 13 and 14 explain in detail what was going on: The Democrats in Indiana blocked absentee voting by soldiers. A click on the title in the footnote will lead to the actual text. (And yes, I am a born and bred Hoosier have written a lot about Indiana.) Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen, Stating in the article, "The Democrats in Indiana blocked absentee voting by soldiers", as you did here, substantially addresses the questions I posed as to why Hoosier soldiers were different from soldiers of other states. It answers a very pertinent question that arises from and should be addressed by the text of the article. Adopting a position and expectation that a reader should look elsewhere for the answer to such questions as this is quite contradicted by the position and arguements you present for not using relevant links to enhance the article. A quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking is relevant in this context, applying as much to unanswered questions such as these as it does to technical terms explicitly referred to in the text:

Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper.

As for 'Hoosier', I did read the quote before I used it. I was then, as I am now, quite aware that it "is the official demonym for a resident of the U.S. state of Indiana." I did not say that it was slang (only one meaning or connotation of the word, jargon). I explicitly acknowledged otherwise by including the quote above.

[ Jargon is] "the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group".

While not an idiom or technical term (in the sense of technology), it is, nonetheless, substantially 'characteristic' of a group - the Hoosiers themselves, as evidenced by the original quote. It is on this basis, that I made my original observation, "its use may well fall within the scope of WPs policy on jargon." WP does not preclude the use of 'jargon' but, does expect that the meaning is made clear, and preferably, in a way which is 'self-contained' or internal to the text of the article. Using the word, without making its meaning clear does not necessarily get anybody "a little bit of education".

Much of this article is written in a way that assumes a certain level of underpinning knowledge about American society and politics, reasonable to assume of an American 12 year-old who has been taught American social studies at school. WP readers come from a global domain. Such an assumption is neither valid nor reasonable. While it may be reasonable to assert that readers of this article are intelligent (more so than a twelve year old perhaps) and may have already read to some extent on this subject, do not confuse knowledge with intelligence. Usage and meaning of gubernatorial is one example. Knowing that such elections, for the most part occur in October of even numbered years is another. Material about the election result was confusing - partly because a degree of inherent ambiguity but largely because it was written from a position that assumes a certain contextual understanding and I, like many non-Americans, do not have this understanding. I know virtually nothing of what It means to be a Republican or a Democrat. What is "a coalition 'Union Party' ticket with Republicans". What is a ticket, apart from what you buy to go to the movies or travel by train? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Eastern figures prominent

List of names in original text:

" In the East, opposition was led by the Anglo-Germans August Belmont, Samuel Morse and Fernando Wood who represented commercial interests connected to the South and Cotton.

Names replaced by me:

"The opposition came from Copperhead Democrats, who were strongest in the Midwest and wanted to allow Confederate secession. In the East, opposition to the war was strongest among Irish Catholics, but also included business interests connected to the South. Eastern figures prominent in opposing the war were August Belmont, Samuel Morse and Fernando Wood."

Amended to:

"The opposition came from Copperhead Democrats, who were strongest in the Midwest and wanted to allow Confederate secession. In the East, opposition to the war was strongest among Irish Catholics, but also included business interests connected to the South typified by August Belmont."

The original names were ambiguous wrt whether the last or all had interests in the south. That is why I did not revert to the original text when I replaced this information. I had intended to add links for all three names. I am curious as to how the last edit is an improvement, listing one opponent with "business interests connected to the South" as opposed to three one which one or more could have had "business interests connected to the South" and all three could have been read about in more detail through links. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Copperheads

I added some text, by way of explanation.

" It looked back to Jacksonian Democracy for inspiration – with ideals that promoted an agrarian rather than industrialized concept of society."

The text needed to explain what "inspiration" was provided by Jacksonian Democracy. Is my addition correct? It probably needs a reference. Can this be provided pls (or an alternative explanation with citation. Does anyone have access to the cited references. The reference Cited should/might explain. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You can look at Klement, Frank L. "Middle Western Copperheadism and the Genesis of the Granger Movement." The Mississippi Valley Historical Review (1952): 679-694. in JSTOR -- I can get you the entire article, but note that Wikipedia editors are eligible for free subscriptions to JSTOR.Rjensen (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tried looking but didn't know about the free subscription. Thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

President Lincoln section

I added the links to the sentence as follows:

"Lincoln's charm and willingness to cooperate with political and personal enemies made Washington work much more smoothly than Richmond, the Confederate capital."

The edit was reverted by @Rjensen with the comment: "Here the word Richmond refers not to the city limits but to the government based in Richmond." I quite understand that this is the meaning, however, Richmond Va and Richmond as a concept for the seat government are closely related. Richmond discusses the location as the seat of Confederate government but it was not the seat for the entire duration (hence the second link). I think it is somewhat parochial (yes, I am making an assumption by this :) ) to assume that everyone knows about Richmond and where it is - particularly given WP is global. Think it is worth asking for a third opinion. @3family6 — Cinderella157 (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an advanced history article, and we have to assume that people eating deep into it have heard about Abraham Lincoln and the Confederacy in Richmond. If they have not heard of Richmond, they clearly are far over their head in this article. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the links added to, rather than detracted from the material. Said I didn't mind if you reverted my edits but that didn't mean that further discussion wouldn't occur. Like I suggested, it is easiest just to get a third opinion - not out to start WW3. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Cinderella157 (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The link to Richmond, VA, was something that I requested in my GA review. "Washington" refers to the government based in Washington, DC, not the city limits, and so does Richmond. Both could be linked to their respective cities. Ideally, every article should be written in a way that someone who has never before encountered the subject should be able to understand it. Because not every detail can be explained in every article, we provide links to key articles related to what is being talked about in a given passage. It would be wrong to assume that every reader, anywhere in the world, would know that Richmond was, for the most part, the center of the Confederate government.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone ignorant of Richmond who clicks on the link will get a 14,000 word article about a 21st-century metropolis. We have strong Wikipedia policies against excessive overlinking to common words When dealing with advanced articles on the American Civil War, names like Richmond, Washington, Lincoln, Grant, and Lee certainly do not need linking. Let me put it another way: excess linking is stupid because the reader never knows whether the editors are actually recommending a link that has additional useful further information, or just mechanically pointing out that Wikipedia has millions of articles covering millions of topics. Furthermore, the way short attention spans work, is once you send a personal way to another article you may not get them back. If the editor thinks that many readers may need help, then let us give it in this article and not send someone chasing off into the gigantic encyclopedia. I think if you want a Good Article you should raise the level above the comprehension of a 12-year old who has never heard of the American Civil War. Rjensen (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen, Firstly, I did not ask for an opinion from 3family6 on the basis that I had a preconception of the response I would receive - rather, as the reviewer, I perceived that the opinion offered might carry some weight and be acted upon mutually. There were two links in question. In regard to Richmond, perhaps Richmond in the American Civil War would well be a more appropriate choice. There is distinctly a difference between over-linking and appropriate linking. Did you read my short bit on contextual domains? For example, I would strongly suggest a link or explanation of gubernatorial. I would suggest that it is a term that has limited, if any use, in many areas outside the US. I had never come across this term before nor was it to be found in my national dictionary. With a masters degree by research and a graduate diploma in teaching, I hardly think I have the "comprehension of a 12-year old who has never heard of the American Civil War". Links in these articles serve a number of functions: they can help the reader by defining an unfamiliar term, concept or like; they can quickly put something in context, such as a location, theory or doctrine (where this may be unfamiliar); they can provide material that expands and develops a particular subject related to or underpinning the article; and, they network to associated information relevant in a similar way to suggested further reading. I would suggest that American Civil War "names like Richmond, Washington, Lincoln, Grant, and Lee", while perhaps unnecessary for comprehension of the article by an informed reader, are, nonetheless usefull to identify the network of relevent associated material. If you are to argue that these links are all unnecessary, then why, by the same logic, is there a link to McClellan and why have you opposed expanding the article to provide brief explanations for question that would be immediately apparent to a discerning and insightful reader. If, as you suggest, you are writing for the more insightful reader, then would not such a reader be able to discern when it is appropriate to open provided links and would have an appropriate attention span so as not to be unnecessarily diverted from their primary task? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

All English language language dictionaries define "gubernatorial" as relating to Governor, so the gubernatorial election means the election of Governor. Usually that takes place in October of even-numbered years, but then and now there are some exceptions. As I indicated, I think over-linking is insulting and misleading. It risks sending people to long articles that have little or nothing that they seek to know. In the case of General McClellan, the article on him tells a great deal about the Civil War. In the case of Richmond, the article on the city does not. I daresay every Wikipedia user who has delved this deeply into the Civil War knows how to use the search button in the upper right corner. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I do check for unusual words (eg gubernatorial, Hoosier, shoddy, ticket)--all of them are online in Dictionary.com or in Wikipedia. That should do it for all readers. Rjensen (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen and Cinderella157: My recommendation on my GA review was to change "Lincoln's charm and willingness to cooperate with political and personal enemies made Washington work much more smoothly than Richmond" to "Lincoln's charm and willingness to cooperate with political and personal enemies made Washington work much more smoothly than Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy" with no link to Richmond, but an explanation of what role Richmond served, since that is not mentioned in the article, and it is reasonable to assume that many reader may not know that Richmond was the capital. Obviously, I'm in support of my recommendation, but I am fine if it is used in tandem with a piped link to Richmond in the American Civil War or something similar.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've merged this discussion into the GA review, as it appears to be inextricably linked to it in many of the points of discussion. However, I want to make it clear that GA reviews do not require consensus. I as the reviewer have sole responsibility to pass or fail this review, though if someone disagrees with my decision they may ask for a second opinion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I like " than Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy" with no link to Richmond, per edit by 3family6. Rjensen (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen, I apologise that my statement regarding the presence of gubernatorial was incorrect. It was actually Hoosier, that was not in my dictionary. The definition given was: "pertaining to a governor." I had misperceived from the context that "gubernatorial control" had a more specific meaning than simply 'controlled by the governor'. In this respect, my dictionary did not resolve my misperception. This misperception arose because this 'special' word was being used instead of saying something like: "The problem was resolved by Washington passing control of raising all new units to state governors." To fully appreciate this, one must understand that, while gubernatorial may be in fairly common usage in America (particularly around the time of gubernatorial elections) it is not a term used to any degree in many other places around the world. My misunderstanding arose from a principle that: 'an uncommon word phrase had an uncommon meaning'; the corollary of which, is that: 'if it has a simple meaning, then why is it not said more simply?' Perhaps, now you begin to see the point I am trying to make about different conceptual contexts. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Terminology section

Note amendment of:

The Constitution of 1787 opens with, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

To:

The Constitution of 1787 was issued and ratified in the name not of the states but of "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

With comment: "Small fix per GA". Was this in response to GA comment?

Should "Perpetual Union of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." be "the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union."?

This fix had already been made - removing what appears to be a typo that duplicated 'Perpetual Union'. The latest amendment appears 'off topic'. It detracts from, rather than adding to a reader's understanding of the subject at hand, since it introduces information which is not relevant to the subject at hand. The pertinent information is the source of the term 'Union', arising from both the articles and the Constitution. If there is any relevance to the added phrase, it is certainly not developed. The relevance should be developed or the amendment reverted. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Public opinion section

Use of 'Copperhead' in this section is an orphan term, as noted in the GA. The term is subsequently developed in its own section (but some sections removed) - ie, not immediately developed. Given the degree to which this is developed on the page, resolving this with a link is probably not the appropriate solution. I perceive that the problem is essentially one of sequencing - ie, a concept is used out of sequence (before) and substantially removed from its development.

As a solution, an edit was made, to place the 'Public opinion' section after the 'Congress' section. The Congress section includes the subsections, 'Opposition' and 'Copperheads'. The move was reverted with the comment: "public opinion animated politics so it should go first, then we can see how pols responded to it". There is some merit to this view; however, an alternative view is that the relationship is cyclical or a network. Regardless, there is another issue of sequencing wrt to introducing the term Copperhead, in the 'Public opinion' section that needs to be addressed. I would observe that the material across the sections from 'Public opinion' to 'Congress' (and its subsections) lack clear distinctions in concepts. Ideas (material) are somewhat jumbled and lack the delineations suggested by separate section titles. The headings (and their placement) appears somewhat arbitrary, rather than representing a coherent, discrete collection of related ideas with a logical sequential development of ideas. There are issues of sequencing that need to be addressed. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of language that restricts a 'global' understanding

Some comments have been made about the style and use of particular word which do not acknowledge a global readership. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English is relevant:

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia. [emphasis added]

and:

Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences (rather than alternate, use alternative or alternating depending on which sense is intended).

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Notes

<references>