Wikipedia:Peer review/American Civil War/archive2

American Civil War

What do you think of this article? It's pretty damn long, but it's very good - high quality stuff. Is it worthy of becoming a featured article? TheImpossibleMan 12:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Very long! If you want it to become a featured article, summarize the content, move detail to daughter articles; reduce the headings; and remove bulleted text. Then only will it have a better chance at FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno about the length. World War I is much longer, and it's featured. If there's a lot to say, there's not necessarily a need to split it up. The 30kb length is a suggestion, not a requirement. I do agree about the bullet points and headings, though. Kafziel 19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go by raw length alone. I first look at the raw page size (removing refs, interwikis etc.) and then determine if the article can be summarised. If it can, I object. This article has ample scope for precis writing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Before it stands a chance at WP:FAC, the following have to be done:

The lead definitely needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD.

Needs references section

Requires inline citations- probably WP:FOOTNOTEs, see Cite.php.

The reasons for the start of the war takes up 1/3 of the article! It definitely has to be shortened down. By contrast, the aftermath is near nothing.

There are several see also links thrown into the center of the article, like "On the use of balloons, see Aerial warfare section on the American Civil War." I would suggest either incorporating them or adding them to the see also section.

Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the most important and complex event in American history--tens of thousands of books. (Just look at a big bookstore and see whole bookcases of titles.) The article is too short since it has very little on the domestic --social--economic phases of war & role of women. The start of the war is much debated and needs to be explained. The aftermath of the war is very important and is fully covered in Reconstruction articles. Rjensen 22:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else noticed that this article has been improving recently. Since I'm one of those who frequently contribute, I'll try to stay out of this discussion, just trying to get some perspective. I would agree that the article is still much too long, but several dedicated users (very significantly Rjensen) have been trying hard to make individual sections more consise and meaningful. The ACW page is a difficult one for many reasons (especially the quantity of shared-domain vandalism). I'm very interested in reading what other users might say about the page. BusterD 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I think the article is pretty good, but needs a good deal of work before being offered as a featured article. There are numerous facts and assertions that need to be footnoted. A References section is needed to list the volumes actually used in preparing the article, versus recommendations on the other books people could read. (The judicious selection of footnotes could ensure that most of the well-regarded works actually appear in the References section.) Since there already is a very lengthy subarticle, Origins of the American Civil War, the introductory material needs to be pruned very significantly and I believe that for an article that will have wide, popular interest, the purely academic term "historiography" should be deleted. The templates for "Main Article" are generally misused; this article is the main one in most cases. The Analysis of the Outcome section should be moved to a subarticle and summarized briefly; the crude graphic should be replaced with one more visually appealing and with more relevant entries in the manufacturing and armaments categories. The "leaders and soldiers" section is not very useful; most of the important contributors to the war are listed earlier and a more comprehensive list already exists in another article. The short sections on slavery and foreign diplomacy would probably read better in the context of the narrative description. On the other hand, there should be additional material on the effects on the civilian population, the role of women, black soldiers, the life of the soldiers in camp and the field, medical issues, technology innovations, and how tactics compared to previous wars and affected future ones. Hal Jespersen 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has a good balance except for lacking on the social history of the homefront. The "Origins" and Historiography parts are necessary for two reasons" there is a high demand for it and the actual military goals and strategies were shaped by the origins. The separate article on "Origins" is not very good -- longwinded, rambling and not closely tied to the war,--so it cannot be a fallback. The Analysis section is essential to explaining what happened--otherwise you just have a meaningless jumble of 100 major battles (and hundreds more small battles). As for the military history, there are three layers. This gives a a brief overview with links to campaigns. In turn the campaign articles link to battles and leaders. Rjensen 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hal Jespersen that the origin should be pruned down. It takes up a pretty large percentage of the TOC and the article. Just wondering, what is the difference between - "Slavery as a cause of the War", "Abolitionism as a cause of the war", and "Slavery in the Territories"? Thanks, AndyZ _t 23:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

On origins. Slavery refers to Southern slaveowners causing the war; Abolition talks about Yankee abolitionists (John Brown etc) as cause; Territories deals with mini-civil-war in Kansas as a cause. All these are separate issues. Rjensen 00:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• First - a major problem is no references (especially no inline references!). Second, a minor one: the lead is too short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)