Battle of Fredericksburg was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 13, 2005, December 13, 2006, December 13, 2007, December 13, 2008, December 13, 2009, December 13, 2012, December 13, 2016, December 13, 2018, and December 13, 2020. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The date and place info in this article isn't the same as on this site. --[[User:Brian0918| brian0918 talk]] 22:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The number of casualties in the War Box and the text of the article disagree by at least an order of magnitude. Guapovia 10:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the same error that was noted and "fixed" 13 years ago, but the article says the Union had more than three times the casualties of the Confederates. In none of the various categories for comparison in the text box do the Union numbers exceed 3x the Confederate numbers, so without knowing what was included in the ambiguous category of "casualties" this claim fails on the basis of the distributive property of mathematics. Or else the stats in the box are wrong. It's certainly true that some Civil War stats, especially from the Confederate side, can be debatable. But if that's the case, the article should acknowledge that in providing a range in the stats box and in adding qualifiers to the 3x claim in the text. Either way, the text and box should not be in such obvious mathematical disagreement. Ftjrwrites ( talk) 18:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The troop strength differs between the text number and the number in the war box. Ctifumdope 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added the quote said by Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain after the war. 65.255.130.104 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)VonR
Please add details/link for "Sumner". Assume you mean "Edwin Vose Sumner", but only his last name is used with no explanation or reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.53.179 ( talk) 02:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like some advice before making a change.
Nowadays we use the term "Main Effort" for the principal attack by a force and "Shaping Effort" for an attack which is to pin other enemy forces in place. The attack against Jackson was Burnside's Main Effort (altho' bungled orders denied it the force it needed to be successful) and the attack on Longstreet was the Shaping Effort. Where is a good place to put that in the article? CsikosLo ( talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The article refers to a penetration on Jackson's front, making it appear that Meade broke through there, but that is not the case. Altho' Maxcy's Brigade was defeated, other forces (the term that comes to mind is secondary and tertiary defensive belts) were in place and were able to patch the hole in short order (altho' at some cost), most notably Early's Division but also D. H. Hill's, which was positioned along Mine Road. I'll take a look later at rewording that section when I have more time available, if someone else doesn't get to it first. CsikosLo ( talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
User 72.221.69.79 was been adding Longstreet & Jackson to the Conf. side of the infobox, as well as to the BoAnt, BoChanc, and others. Do we want this kind of expansion there? I we do the Union side should reflect this as well by adding key Corps commanders and such, and the list would be long and probably arbitrary in selection. What is the consensus? Kresock ( talk) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I recently attended a talk about the Battle of Fredericksburg at Chatham Manor, the house across the Rappahannock which was used as a headquarters and hospital by the Union troops during the battle. The ranger mentioned that the battle was noteworthy for several reasons: it was one of the bloodiest urban battles in American history, if not the bloodiest; the building of the pontoon bridges marked the first time that troops attempted a bridging maneuver while under enemy fire (and as such could be considered a predecessor of the marine landings of World War II); and it was the first time that the civilian population of an American city was subjected to shelling. I had also heard that the Sunken Road was considered by some military historians to be a precursor of the trench warfare of World War I. I may have misremembered some of these, and of course an oral report isn't a reliable source. But if these are accurate, and if they've been noted by reliable sources (military historians, et al.), I think that these would be noteworthy additions to the article. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. If the superlative is debatable, it doesn't belong in the article. (That said, Marye's Heights was pretty close to the town proper, with scattered houses that can be seen in the Matthew Brady photographs of the battlefield.) Out of curiosity, what about the pontoon bridge water landing under fire, as compared to, say, Normandy and Iwo Jima? I realize I'm now heading into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, but I'm curious. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the uncited paragraph about traversed trenches. There is a description of this architecture in Piston's biography of Longstreet, Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant, but they make it clear that this is work done after the battle on the 35 mile long Rappahannock line. Hess's Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War also indicates that this post-battle line did not represent any innovation beyond designs that were already in the military literature of the time. Furthermore, the references I have about the battle indicate that the Confederate artillery was well protected, but the infantry did not construct elaborate earthworks. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The section regarding John Pelham has an error. It says that he held off the union with two canons, but really it was only one. One of John Pelham's canon broke very quickly, and the majority of his maneuvering was with a single canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.160.122 ( talk) 03:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
He was the one who helped deal the majority of confederate casualties at Fredericksburg, and personally I've never heard of what Hooker did at Fredericksburg.-- 75.177.176.20 ( talk) 14:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to Hooker because he is listed as a key commander while Meade isn't. And what do you mean by selected subordinates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The article states that the Irish Brigade lost over 50% of it's fighting force in the battle. I personally feel that over 50% is a very loose term, cause, as stated in the Irish Brigade Article: Battle of Fredericksburg where its fighting force was reduced from over 1600 to 256--Red Wiki 19:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I see there is a dispute about the added paragraph:
This opinion is actually correct, but there are two problems with it in this article. First, a lament regarding a Confederate victory that turned out to be hollow because they eventually lost the war could actually be included in many of the battle articles about Lee, so it is not very valuable in this one. Second, although this article is not yet fully cited, this paragraph is obviously an opinion and should be accompanied by citations from secondary sources. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 01:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice that, so thanks for catching it. (I thought it seemed well written.) We are trying to avoid plagiarism of that type. Although a number of articles still have some copied public domain text in them, is a good thing to root that out when we find it. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 01:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, apparently in this case you didn't write anything yourself. But I have already given my opinion above about whether similar text should be included, even if properly cited. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 23:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I never said I wrote it. What I meant to say was that if I wrote something similar, you would just criticize it.--Red Wiki 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Valkyrie Red (
talk •
contribs)
With all due respect to a very good article that is very well researched and documented the issue of the quality of the victory is relevant. Many claim Fredericksburg is Lee's greatest achievement or amongst his greatest anyway. The mauling the Union took was painful but far from fatal - had the Army of the Potomac been trapped after a flanking maneuver it would have been quite different. The article ends a little abruptly with the lull and withdrawal part without examining why Lee (mistakenly or not) decided to forgo pressing an attack. The Union managed to extricate most of its troops and get away - with hardship certainly and leaving all manner of things behind but get away they did. This failure - and the same scenario at Chancellorsville - certainly contributed to hasten the moment that Lee would hit a wall when the North's greater resources started to tell: Gettysburg. I know this has been written about in quite a few academic publications but it is omitted is it worth digging this up or do you have a reason for not going into the reasons that made Lee fail to follow up? 81.164.98.215 ( talk) 14:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Contained within the section "Aftermath" is a paragraph repeating the legend of "the Angel of Marye's Heights". While the other paragraphs in the section report on historical information following the battle, the Richard Rowland Kirkland paragraph only repeats the legend of a battlefield deed. The entry should be removed because it adds no verifiable useful information. Norwigger ( talk) 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I notice that in one of the diagrams (specifically [ [1]]), the year is wrong. Its legend says "Battle of Fredericksburg, Overview: 13 December 1863" when it means to say 1862. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.26.222 ( talk) 22:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the deleted section "In popular media". I believe that the reference to WP:MILPOP was intended, as it states, to primarily suppress the trivial inclusion of weapon and equipment references. In contrast, many of the American Civil War articles include references to major motion pictures that depict applicable battles or generals, and these references are rarely abused as they apparently have been in other military history articles. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 17:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Battle of Fredericksburg. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Fredericksburg. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: No Great Shaker ( talk · contribs) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll be happy to review this article. No Great Shaker ( talk) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I've done a quick first read and I think the article is interesting. There are no apparent grounds for immediate failure as I see no obvious evidence of copyvio and the article is stable – there have been just 100 edits in the last eighteen months and only two of those were at all significant. I'll commence detailed reading shortly and come back to this page as and when there's more to be said. I prefer to deal with minor fixes like typos, spelling, grammar and clarifications myself. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I should have added above that I'm impressed by the range and variety of images in the article, the credit for which goes to former editor User:Hlj. As far as I can tell, the majority are public domain and the rest are Hlj's own work. The maps he has created are very good. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think I've seen enough now and I must fail the review because of verification issues. What typically occurs is that there is a multi-citation group at the end of a paragraph and I suppose that one of the components (or part of one) is the source for a given statement or quotation within the paragraph, but there is no certainty of that. An example of this syndrome is the last paragraph of the Movement to battle section which includes a lengthy quotation that is not directly cited, the paragraph ending with <ref>O'Reilly, pp. 51–52; Eicher, p. 398; Goolrick, pp. 39–40; Esposito, map 72; Marvel, pp. 169–70.</ref> There must be about thirty similar cases. Citations need to be added individually to the appropriate sentences, not presented in a block at the end of each paragraph. There are a few other paragraphs and statements which are completely uncited and I've flagged those.
Given the difficulty which these citation groupings present, I don't think it is worth placing the review on hold. I've decided to fail the review which is a shame because the article is fine in many other respects, especially the images. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Fredericksburg was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 13, 2005, December 13, 2006, December 13, 2007, December 13, 2008, December 13, 2009, December 13, 2012, December 13, 2016, December 13, 2018, and December 13, 2020. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The date and place info in this article isn't the same as on this site. --[[User:Brian0918| brian0918 talk]] 22:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The number of casualties in the War Box and the text of the article disagree by at least an order of magnitude. Guapovia 10:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the same error that was noted and "fixed" 13 years ago, but the article says the Union had more than three times the casualties of the Confederates. In none of the various categories for comparison in the text box do the Union numbers exceed 3x the Confederate numbers, so without knowing what was included in the ambiguous category of "casualties" this claim fails on the basis of the distributive property of mathematics. Or else the stats in the box are wrong. It's certainly true that some Civil War stats, especially from the Confederate side, can be debatable. But if that's the case, the article should acknowledge that in providing a range in the stats box and in adding qualifiers to the 3x claim in the text. Either way, the text and box should not be in such obvious mathematical disagreement. Ftjrwrites ( talk) 18:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The troop strength differs between the text number and the number in the war box. Ctifumdope 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added the quote said by Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain after the war. 65.255.130.104 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)VonR
Please add details/link for "Sumner". Assume you mean "Edwin Vose Sumner", but only his last name is used with no explanation or reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.53.179 ( talk) 02:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like some advice before making a change.
Nowadays we use the term "Main Effort" for the principal attack by a force and "Shaping Effort" for an attack which is to pin other enemy forces in place. The attack against Jackson was Burnside's Main Effort (altho' bungled orders denied it the force it needed to be successful) and the attack on Longstreet was the Shaping Effort. Where is a good place to put that in the article? CsikosLo ( talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The article refers to a penetration on Jackson's front, making it appear that Meade broke through there, but that is not the case. Altho' Maxcy's Brigade was defeated, other forces (the term that comes to mind is secondary and tertiary defensive belts) were in place and were able to patch the hole in short order (altho' at some cost), most notably Early's Division but also D. H. Hill's, which was positioned along Mine Road. I'll take a look later at rewording that section when I have more time available, if someone else doesn't get to it first. CsikosLo ( talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
User 72.221.69.79 was been adding Longstreet & Jackson to the Conf. side of the infobox, as well as to the BoAnt, BoChanc, and others. Do we want this kind of expansion there? I we do the Union side should reflect this as well by adding key Corps commanders and such, and the list would be long and probably arbitrary in selection. What is the consensus? Kresock ( talk) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I recently attended a talk about the Battle of Fredericksburg at Chatham Manor, the house across the Rappahannock which was used as a headquarters and hospital by the Union troops during the battle. The ranger mentioned that the battle was noteworthy for several reasons: it was one of the bloodiest urban battles in American history, if not the bloodiest; the building of the pontoon bridges marked the first time that troops attempted a bridging maneuver while under enemy fire (and as such could be considered a predecessor of the marine landings of World War II); and it was the first time that the civilian population of an American city was subjected to shelling. I had also heard that the Sunken Road was considered by some military historians to be a precursor of the trench warfare of World War I. I may have misremembered some of these, and of course an oral report isn't a reliable source. But if these are accurate, and if they've been noted by reliable sources (military historians, et al.), I think that these would be noteworthy additions to the article. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. If the superlative is debatable, it doesn't belong in the article. (That said, Marye's Heights was pretty close to the town proper, with scattered houses that can be seen in the Matthew Brady photographs of the battlefield.) Out of curiosity, what about the pontoon bridge water landing under fire, as compared to, say, Normandy and Iwo Jima? I realize I'm now heading into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, but I'm curious. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the uncited paragraph about traversed trenches. There is a description of this architecture in Piston's biography of Longstreet, Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant, but they make it clear that this is work done after the battle on the 35 mile long Rappahannock line. Hess's Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War also indicates that this post-battle line did not represent any innovation beyond designs that were already in the military literature of the time. Furthermore, the references I have about the battle indicate that the Confederate artillery was well protected, but the infantry did not construct elaborate earthworks. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The section regarding John Pelham has an error. It says that he held off the union with two canons, but really it was only one. One of John Pelham's canon broke very quickly, and the majority of his maneuvering was with a single canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.160.122 ( talk) 03:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
He was the one who helped deal the majority of confederate casualties at Fredericksburg, and personally I've never heard of what Hooker did at Fredericksburg.-- 75.177.176.20 ( talk) 14:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to Hooker because he is listed as a key commander while Meade isn't. And what do you mean by selected subordinates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The article states that the Irish Brigade lost over 50% of it's fighting force in the battle. I personally feel that over 50% is a very loose term, cause, as stated in the Irish Brigade Article: Battle of Fredericksburg where its fighting force was reduced from over 1600 to 256--Red Wiki 19:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I see there is a dispute about the added paragraph:
This opinion is actually correct, but there are two problems with it in this article. First, a lament regarding a Confederate victory that turned out to be hollow because they eventually lost the war could actually be included in many of the battle articles about Lee, so it is not very valuable in this one. Second, although this article is not yet fully cited, this paragraph is obviously an opinion and should be accompanied by citations from secondary sources. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 01:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice that, so thanks for catching it. (I thought it seemed well written.) We are trying to avoid plagiarism of that type. Although a number of articles still have some copied public domain text in them, is a good thing to root that out when we find it. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 01:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, apparently in this case you didn't write anything yourself. But I have already given my opinion above about whether similar text should be included, even if properly cited. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 23:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I never said I wrote it. What I meant to say was that if I wrote something similar, you would just criticize it.--Red Wiki 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Valkyrie Red (
talk •
contribs)
With all due respect to a very good article that is very well researched and documented the issue of the quality of the victory is relevant. Many claim Fredericksburg is Lee's greatest achievement or amongst his greatest anyway. The mauling the Union took was painful but far from fatal - had the Army of the Potomac been trapped after a flanking maneuver it would have been quite different. The article ends a little abruptly with the lull and withdrawal part without examining why Lee (mistakenly or not) decided to forgo pressing an attack. The Union managed to extricate most of its troops and get away - with hardship certainly and leaving all manner of things behind but get away they did. This failure - and the same scenario at Chancellorsville - certainly contributed to hasten the moment that Lee would hit a wall when the North's greater resources started to tell: Gettysburg. I know this has been written about in quite a few academic publications but it is omitted is it worth digging this up or do you have a reason for not going into the reasons that made Lee fail to follow up? 81.164.98.215 ( talk) 14:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Contained within the section "Aftermath" is a paragraph repeating the legend of "the Angel of Marye's Heights". While the other paragraphs in the section report on historical information following the battle, the Richard Rowland Kirkland paragraph only repeats the legend of a battlefield deed. The entry should be removed because it adds no verifiable useful information. Norwigger ( talk) 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I notice that in one of the diagrams (specifically [ [1]]), the year is wrong. Its legend says "Battle of Fredericksburg, Overview: 13 December 1863" when it means to say 1862. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.26.222 ( talk) 22:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the deleted section "In popular media". I believe that the reference to WP:MILPOP was intended, as it states, to primarily suppress the trivial inclusion of weapon and equipment references. In contrast, many of the American Civil War articles include references to major motion pictures that depict applicable battles or generals, and these references are rarely abused as they apparently have been in other military history articles. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 17:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Battle of Fredericksburg. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Fredericksburg. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: No Great Shaker ( talk · contribs) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll be happy to review this article. No Great Shaker ( talk) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I've done a quick first read and I think the article is interesting. There are no apparent grounds for immediate failure as I see no obvious evidence of copyvio and the article is stable – there have been just 100 edits in the last eighteen months and only two of those were at all significant. I'll commence detailed reading shortly and come back to this page as and when there's more to be said. I prefer to deal with minor fixes like typos, spelling, grammar and clarifications myself. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I should have added above that I'm impressed by the range and variety of images in the article, the credit for which goes to former editor User:Hlj. As far as I can tell, the majority are public domain and the rest are Hlj's own work. The maps he has created are very good. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think I've seen enough now and I must fail the review because of verification issues. What typically occurs is that there is a multi-citation group at the end of a paragraph and I suppose that one of the components (or part of one) is the source for a given statement or quotation within the paragraph, but there is no certainty of that. An example of this syndrome is the last paragraph of the Movement to battle section which includes a lengthy quotation that is not directly cited, the paragraph ending with <ref>O'Reilly, pp. 51–52; Eicher, p. 398; Goolrick, pp. 39–40; Esposito, map 72; Marvel, pp. 169–70.</ref> There must be about thirty similar cases. Citations need to be added individually to the appropriate sentences, not presented in a block at the end of each paragraph. There are a few other paragraphs and statements which are completely uncited and I've flagged those.
Given the difficulty which these citation groupings present, I don't think it is worth placing the review on hold. I've decided to fail the review which is a shame because the article is fine in many other respects, especially the images. No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)