Battle of Backbone Mountain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Featured articleBattle of Corydon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 11, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 14, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Question

According to this site [1], the battle of Corydon is one of only two battles fought on northern soil (the other being Gettysburg). If that is accurate it would be worth mentioning in the article. However, is it accurate? And if so by what definition?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other "battles", but wouldnt Battle of Buffington Island and the Battle of Salineville be northern, or do these not qualify as a battle as? Charles Edward 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Antiem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.216.103 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

battle map

Battle of Corydon

I have made this map. Any suggestions for improvements? Charles Edward (Talk) 15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Unit labels: Defender is the Sixth Indian Legion under Colonel Lewis Jordan. The attacking brigade was under Stovepipe Johnson according to Matthews. The rebs first attacked the Indiana left, and were repelled by the "Spencer Guards" under Captain George Lahue (according to Terrell). The rebs then flank both sides. The right is defended by Major McGrain, and is armed with 16 Henry rifles (according to Wolfe). Senour called it the "Henry Rifle Company". Citizens and other companies in the center, with a ravine out front of them to halt any direct cavalry charge. Really, not much of a contest. Green farmers against seasoned cavalry with artillery support. The cavalry flank them, the artillery fires, and the line breaks. Senour quotes Wolfe "This shelling operation, together with the fact that our line was about to be flanked on both wings at the same time made it necessary, for the safety of our men, that they should fall back. This they did, not with the best order, it is true, but with excellent speed". It was over in 25 minutes, and the confederates had left Cordon after only five hours. Hot knife through butter. -J JMesserly (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two more personal accounts of the battle here. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review for 'Battle of Corydon'

Hi,

  • Lead - You need to develop the lead some more. Most leads are two to three paragraphs or say 15 to 25 lines deep. While the length is not the official criteria, this criteria does show that you can lengthen this lead without fear of it being too long. The present lead is interesting to read and tantalising to a reader by giving a good setting for plunging into the article, but it does not summarise the battle well. What is the test for this? Place a sheet of paper over your screen and read the lead. If having done this you get a broad, concise, accurate and relevant idea of the subject matter in the rest of the article (which is hidden by your paper), then your lead passes. If you don't get such an idea, there is need to develop it further. Done
  • Referencing - I favour this alternative method of general referencing as it gives a neater and more methodical presentation than the simple referencing style followed herein. This would be a good style improvement thing to do.  Done
  • Images - The images present seem inadequate to me. They don't seem to illustrate the wiki very well. It's a subjective feeling, if you understand what I mean. Just Image Googling on 'Battle of Corydon' turned up this, amongst many others:
Now since these are most likely to be public domain images due to age of images, it would be well worth your effort to locate a few images, check that they are public domain, place them on WM Commons or WP (fair use)((last resort only)) and use a few images to spruce up the article.
Morgan's existing photo can also be used without hassle. Done
Would it be possible to get a 'rogue's gallery' with Morgan, Lewis, Morton etc?
Is Corydon near where you stay? Sometimes one can go on a wiki-image errand.No action required for GA review.

Any chance of more images? AshLin (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Often I find 'cite' template clunky, instead I use {{aut|Morgan, Col JH}} for the author which will give this effect: No action required.
Morgan, Col JH, An account of the Great Confederate Raid in Indiana (2009). Hoosier Books, Indianapolis.

More Later,

Good editing and bon chance, AshLin (talk)

I do live near the battlesite, but the only thing there of interest is the cabin and memorial already pictured. Intend to take some photos at the reenactment later this year. We could probably fit another image, but because of the short length of the article, I think additional images might look cluttered. I have also reformatted the references to look neater. Charles Edward (Talk) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. My view is that a wiki should have the images needed for it to satisfy the reader . What would a reader want to see if he is reading only a plain-vanilla text wiki of the Battle?
  • Maps - Two maps are already present in this case, one of the Raid and one of the Battle. Nice ones clearly illustrating the wiki.
  • Personalities - We have only one person's image. Preferably we should have Col Jordan's image and perhaps Richard Morgan's image too.
  • Image of Battlefield, memorial, etc.
  • Images of Indiana Legion and Morgan's elite light cavalry.
  • Historical images of Morgan's cavalry raid if possible with caption marrying the image suitably to our text.
  • Image of some of the weapons or equipment playing an important role (gunboats, 10 pounder Parrot's Rifles, Henry rifles.
Since the wiki is small, images may be more than the text; in that case it is appropriate to have them organised in a gallery or galleries.

More

  • Shouldn't the the first mention of Corydon, Indiana come in the lead itself rather than halfway down the article at the end of first section?  Done
  • Split the large central paragraph of Prelude into smaller ones.  Done
  • Is the Prelude a mite oversized & detailed? You could thin down details of the crossing at Maukport as it would IMHO be more relevant to the article on Morgan's Raid. You take the judgment call.  Done
  • Shouldn't some of the following be wikified : Done
    • Union.
    • Indiana Legion.
    • 6th Regiment of the Indiana Legion.
      • The only notable thing about this unit is what is already in this article, it is likely an article by that name will never be wrote. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Col. Lewis Jordan.
      • The only notable thing about Col. Jordan is what is in this article, he is not notable enough to warrent his own article. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maj. McGrain.
    • Capt. George Lahue.
    • 2nd Kentucky & 9th Tennessee regiments.
      • No article exists for either of those two units, red links would not be of any value to the reader. Those links could be added when such an article exists. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 'cannon' an appropriate wikilink for an 'artillery section'? Done
    • The "artillery" were four small cannons of the 1860s time period. Cannon is the most accurate article. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the Indiana legion and Col Jordan after the Battle? I think this is something that the reader may want to know. Done
    • The legion went on to later become the Indiana Guard Reserve as several other name changes. That information is available on the Indiana Legion article. None of my sources give any information about what happened to Col. Jordan. The people just went back to their farms after the battle. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may also like to mention about the ultimate futility of Morgan's raid, despite his tactical victory at Corydon, in a closing sentence about Morgan and his Confederates. Done
    • The article describes how is army was later defeated and captured in the aftermath section. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Prelude, you may like to add a little information about state of Indiana's preparedness before the raid and whether they expected operations to extend onto Hoosier territory.Your response to this one?  Done
  • Is mention of Cedar Glade required? If so, then qualify it with a defining clause so that a person understands what it is., e.g. Cedar Glade, a large residence to the northwest of Corydon, still in existence today and which is a declared National Heritage building. Done
    • Done. Is notable because they actually have the spot were the shot landed marked. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to add details of composition of the 6th Regiment at the beginning of the section 'The attack'. The reader gets confused when he hears at the end that cavalry and mounted infantry of the Legion were also present and were/were not captured. This raises questions - Were these part of the 6th Regt? Attached? Regular Union detachments? Did they have artillery? etc. Done
    • Clarified. A small calvary group arrived before the battle, no information on how many. The infantry that escaped on horses were those who rode away on whatever horses they could grab or had rode into town to join the militia. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Larry Steepleton? What is the significance of his death that he is mentioned by name, especially as his name does not appear before or after? If he is notable, he should be introduced into the text. If not, don't mention his name but just mention that the Confederates had a casualty. Done
  • Instead of: Done
On the east wing of the works, the men were equipped with Henry rifles capable of firing 14 rounds before reloading. The effects of their superior rate of fire allowed the company of the thirty men on the far eastern end of the works to hold back the Confederates for twenty minutes, preventing an easy flanking maneuver.
this may work better:
The initial attempts of the Confederates to outflank the Legion positions at the far eastern end of the works from the East were delayed for twenty minutes principally due to the superior rate of fire of the thirty Legion soldiers, who were equipped with Henry rifles capable of firing 14 rounds before reloading.
  • Any Congressional Medals of Honour? Other medals? Public Commendations by the President or Governor? Done
  • Isn't Corydon part of the Indiana state's John Hunt Morgan Heritage Trails? You could mention this in addition to the factoid about Battlefield being a memorial. A link to the website be added in external links. Done
  • Please order the references alphabetically as per surnames. The Terell reference needs to trail its initials. Done
  • Please move the full form of the Bush, Jenkins and Wolfe links to the references section. In the <ref>..</ref> inline footnoting give abbreviated references only.Pending Done

More later...

AshLin (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still more

  • Reference check by me.  Done
  • NPOV.  Done
  • Check image licenses.  Done
  • Stable. Checked.

* OK, just kill that pending point of texts mentioned in footnotes to be shifted to references so that I can wrap up the assessment. Additional images may be added later. GA is only a step forward to FA so please keep up the good work.

AshLin (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a GA!

Congrats, please bring it up to A class soon! AshLin (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded A class review

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Corydon

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)


I have spent a couple weeks working on this article along with help from other editors. It is comprehensive now and I believe should pass an A class review. I am working towards FA class and am hoping to identify any remaining content problems with the article. Detailed sources on the battle are few, although there are many which give a brief mention of it. The two sources I have relied on the most, Funk and Conway, are both the work of the local historical society or the Corydon area. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Initial comments Support. Looks good! Cool3 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cool3
    • Is it relevant in the first sentence to state that Corydon is the former capital of Indiana. This leads to the (incorrect) assumption that Corydon was the capital at the time of the battle.
    • "It is the last battle that occured within Indiana" This doesn't read right to me (style-wise). The phrasing also seems to suggest that it was the "battle to end all battles" so to speak (i.e., that no future battles will occur). I'd recommend changing this to something like "No battles have occurred in Indiana since"
    • I'd recommend linking "and launched an unsuccessful flanking movement against the Legion's works" to Flanking maneuver.
    • "northward from the Confederacy." This is awfully vague. The Confederacy was a big place. Where exactly?
    • "but to not cross the Ohio River into Union territory." In my opinion, this would read better as "but not to cross." Also, why didn't Bragg want Morgan to cross?
    • "the Federal government had put a regiment regular cavalry troops in Harrison County for defensive purposes, but they had been withdrawn in March leaving only the local militia for defense." Why was the federal cavalry withdrawn?
    • "Morgan had his men tap the Union telegraph lines and sent conflicting reports about his strength and destination and most officials believed his target was Louisville, Kentucky." I'd suggest breaking this into two sentence. At the very least, you need a comma after destination.
    • "He did not find the support he was looking for, and had been pursued by the elements of the 6th and 8th Regiment of the Indiana Legion who killed three of his men and captured several others before the remainder escaped back into Kentucky." Did this incident have a name? Also, was it not a battle?
    • "and requiring the Confederates secure ships to transport their men across" Should read "requiring that"
    • "Indiana militia leaders learned of Morgan's occupation of Brandenburg, ten miles south of Corydon, and his intent to cross into Indiana." Did they have an inside source for his intentions or was this merely an inference?
    • "the third one hitting the upper deck of the McComb and " Shoulnd't this be McCombs?
    • "and the second shot land just short of the cannon" should be landed.
    • "With the resistance seemingly at and end, Morgan began crossing his men" I assume this means on the two steamships, but that should probably be made explicit.
    • "Once the landing was completed, the Alice Dean was set ablaze and sunk in the river between Morvin's landing and Mauckport." Any idea why?
    • Which side of the river was Hobson on? It seems that it was the Kentucky side, but it would be better to make this clear. In the sentence "he learned that Union forces of Brig. Gen. Edward H. Hobson with a force of 4,000 cavalry were advancing on his position." just tacking on where Hobson was advancing from would be quite helpful
    • "In the house Morgan stayed in" would read better as "in the house where Morgan stayed"
    • "a nearby house were they assumed the shot had came from" would read better as "from which they assumed the shot had come"
    • "Corydon was the county seat of Harrison County and the former capitol of State of Indiana" I think it would be helpful to state the years during which it was the capital of Indiana
    • "the 3rd Regiment Kentucky Calvary, the advance elements of the Confederate forces under the command of Col. Stovepipe Johnson, were sighted moving north along the Mauckport Road towards Corydon. " The subject and verb don't agree ("regiment" and "were"). This should probably read "the 3rd Regiment Kentucky Calvary, the advance element of the Confederate forces under the command of Col. Stovepipe Johnson, was sighted moving north along the Mauckport Road towards Corydon."
    • "Capt. George Lahue, a veteran of the Mexican-American War, was in command of the east wing. Most of the men behind the works had never seen battle." This would perhaps read better as "Although their commanders were experienced, most of the men behind the works had never seen battle," but I suppose that's a personal style choice.
    • "Morgan’s artillery could have quickly dispersed the four hundred farmers-turned-soldiers," According to whom?
    • "crossing the river in his rear in the night." would read better as "during the night"
    • "Morgan’s main body was still en route" How far away were they?
    • "and it was decided that the Legion should be engaged by the advance forces." Who made this decision?
    • "At about noon, the Confederates were in position to attack the works" Does this just mean that they had arrived there? Or was there some other way in which they had prepared?
    • "Morgan threatened to torch three local mills, and demanded amounts ranging from $700 to $1,000 from each to save them from destruction." Does this mean $700 to $1000 to save each mill? If so I would rephrase "from $700 to $1000 to save each of them from destruction." The from is, IMO, confusing.
    • "stealing things ranging from" Is there a better word than "things" that could be used here? Perhaps items?
    • "learned of the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg, two blows from which the Confederacy could not recover." This needs better citation/attribution. It is certainly a majority view among scholars today that those two events were crucial turning points in the war, but I wouldn't present them as just simple facts. Also is there any evidence that Morgan thought at the time that the battles were "blows from which the Confederacy could not recover"? Many Southern leaders at the time did not necessarily consider the defeats catastrophic.
    • "began to formulate plans for a safe return to the south." I'd make this "formulate new plans"
    • I think the placement of the paragraph on casualties is strange. I would tend to either place it at the very beginning of the Aftermath section or even at the end of the section above.
    • "ten–twelve wounded" this should probably be written out as "ten to twelve".
    • "Additionally, two civilians were also killed" I don't think you should say both "additionally" and "also"
    • "Because Corydon was the former capitol of Indiana the defeat was symbolic and many people saw the attack as an assault on the state's pride." This doesn't flow particularly well from the previous sentence. Also who is "many people"?
    • "He then turned his force east towards Ohio as his raid turned into flight. He continued his raid eastward into Ohio" You say the raid turned into flight and then refer again to a raid. I believe the second instance should be "continued his flight"?
    • "In the official government records of the war, the Battle of Corydon and the Battle of Gettysburg are the only two battles that are recognized as occurring on Northern soil." What does this mean? Would you mind posting an exact quote from the source?
  • More to follow, but those should give you something to chew on for now :). Cool3 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a bit more. Great article. Cool3 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.
  • I think it is notable that Corydon was the former capitol of Indiana. It made the defeat more symbolic. I will add a note about that in the aftermath section.
    • In regards to Hines reconnaissance mission: reconnaissance mission is linked to the Hines' Raid article. The incident itself is mentioned in that article. My sources do not give the action any name.
    • Your final point regarding the intent to cross: They knew he had ships and was on their southern border and that his plan was to cross from the reports from the escapees from Brandenburg.
I have addressed all your other concerns in the article. Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to gettysburg and vicksburg: I just removed that part. The primary point was, he realized he needed to get back to the south asap.
    • I have placed the casualties where they are for chonology, it ends with Morgan leaving his wounded men in town, which carried well into the next section with his continued raid. I will try to rearrange a bit.
    • In regards to being the one of two northern battles: I will get that exact quote when I arrive home later, that is where my book is. But the gist of it is that there were many skirmishes is the north, but only Corydon and Gettysburg were termed and listed as "Battles" in the offical war department records.

I have addresed your other comments in the article. Thanks agains! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heres the exact wording of my source regaurding the battle:

The Battle of Corydon, registered by the War Department of the United States Government as an official battle of the Civil War, was one of only two such battles fought on northern soil.* The other battle was the most celebrated one of the war - The Battle of Gettysburg. However, the Corydon battle has been all but forgotten save by those who live the area. Hopefully this book will help the "almost forgotten" Civil War battle, fought on northern soil, to regain its rightful place in Civil War history. Within these pages the Battle of Corydon is relived.
*There were various skirmishes in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but only Gettysburg and Corydon were termed Official Battles by the War Department.

That is introduction to the book by Conway. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't know quite how to treat this; in general I don't find the introduction of the book quite as "reliable" as the actual text. I think the problem here is that relies on definitions of both "battle" and "northern soil" that are neither intuitively obvious nor widely shared. If northern soil is taken as the soil of the Union, then battles like Antietam clearly qualify. Also, looking at the official union records [2], Corydon is referred to as a "Skirmish at Corydon, Ind." in just the same way as a number of other engagements in Morgan's raid. I'm inclined to say that the quote from the introduction is something along the lines of a flourish designed to sell books. Cool3 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I don't think it really would take anything away to remove that statement from the article. I will do that. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a United States Navy ensign commandeered the tinclad Springfield , armed it with three 24-pound howitzers, and sped down river to stall the crossing" Did he actually commandeer it? Commandeering is an act whereby the military seizes private property. According to the article, USS Springfield (1862), the Navy already owned the steamer prior to the battle. Also, there should be no space between Springfield and the comma. Finally, it would be more appropriate to link to Union Navy rather than United States Navy
      • In regards to commandeering the steamer: that is the wording used by Conway. He indicates it was a private ship which a Navy Ensign who with the army command in Louisville took, then armed with three guns, and then took it downriver. I presume it is a different ship from the article that it is linked to. I had noted that earlier, but was unsure what to make of it. I tend to think they are different ships because the incident is not mentioned on the Springfield article, it is mentioned there as having six guns, while the boat in this article had three. But then again, why would a civilian boat be tinclad? I am going to see if I can cross reference this anywhere.
        • I believe I have addressed your remaining concerns, except for the Springfield. I have not been able to fully reconcile what is in my source to the USS Springfield article. I am quite certain now it is in fact the USS Springfield, but the discrepancy regarding the guns still makes me wonder a bit. I am going to go ahead and make it read as though it is the USS Springfield, and will footnote the possible discrepancy. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you haven't already done so, you should probably look at this [3], which certainly seems to confirm that the Springfield was the boat involved; I still don't know what to make of the matter of the guns. Cool3 (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I had read that, but it does not specifically mention this incident, but is refering to salinville and buffington island. But.. given it was in the same area.. had the same name, it seem more than a coincidence, and they are likely the same ship. There is still a little doubt to me that possible they are differnt, but I am 90% sure they are in fact the same. I think at this point, the possibility warrents a note. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no problems on my read-through save one; what is "paroled"? Is there something you could link to? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I have mispelled it, will attempt to find an article to link to. Parolled as in, he captured them, took their guns and broke them, then let them go on the promise they would not take up arms again for a given period of time. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an interwiki link to wikt:parole? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - the heavy reliance on one source might be a problem at FAC, because of the criteria that expects a wide range of literature YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conway gave the msot detailed description of the battle and I actually removed alot of the other various refs and moved the sources into furhter reading, but I can certainly re-add more citations from the other books to beef it up. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transcluded FA review

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 14 July 2009 [4].

Battle of Corydon

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have put about three weeks into this article, made a few trips to the library, visited the battlesite, and used a book of my own for sourcing. It has passed a GA review, and an A class review from the Military History project. I beleive it is now comprehensive and ready for this process. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A fantastic article. The article is fully referenced, and I'm not asking any questions. I did some copyediting myself, and I find it to be well-written and illustrated. Reywas92Talk 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I believe that this article is appropriate for FA status, but have the following comment:
    • in the References section you have a subsection called "notes", however, just above there is also another section called "Notes". I like the way you've separated the two, but feel that they should have different names to avoid confusion. Perhaps the aside points should remain "Notes" and the actual page number references could be called "Citations"? Just a suggestion. Anyway, good job. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have taken your advice, and changed the page notes to "citations". —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image issues as follow:

  • File:John Hunt Morgan.jpg: copyviolation. In short, although it was taken during 1860s, it was never published until 1999 (creation is not publication). By US copyright laws (see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/), this means that it is copyrighted until 2047. Use File:The Late Rebel General John Morgan.jpg or File:John Hunt Morgan portrait.jpg.
    • I was under the impression that images were also public domain at 70 years after the creators death. If this image was taken in 1864, and the photragrapher was say 18 at the time, he would have had to lived to age 93 (highly unlikely in those days) for this image to still be protected. And in any case, each year that scenario becomes less plausible. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Alice Dean (1863).jpg: no information of its publishing, author, or date of creation? Is this a photo, a scan of an engraving? Lexington Rifles have not provided the source for this image, and it is doubtful they are the publishers of the image since Riverboat Daves has a worse but wider perspective scan.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where this image is taken from, (I have seen it in books and know it to be accurate) but the same rational would apply as above - since the ship was destroyed in 1863, if the photragpher was 18 at the time the image was taken, he would have had to live to age 94 for this image to remain protected. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above, US copyright is concerned mostly with first publication, not year of death. Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know how to make an SVG, but anyone who does is welcome to convert it, I have the original image in a PSD format and could email it, and it is layered if that helps. Or if someone could tell me how to make it SVG in photoshop, i could do it. And the image of the breakoutmap was taken from a PD image on the commons. I can remove it if you think it is a problem. And in any case, it won't hurt anything to remove the two images. I can get others that are PD, but not of the same relevance to the article. There will be a reenactment next week and I can get some good reenactment photos as well. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I have remove the two images in question and put two different user-taken photos in the article instead. Hope to get some more relevant photos later next week at the reenactment. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats great! I didn't about looking there. Thanks. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Query The current paragraph "With the resistance seemingly at an end, Morgan began crossing his troops in the captured steamers.[19] The first company to land moved up the ridge on the north shore and engaged the Legion defenders in a skirmish. Union commanders in Louisville dispatched the tinclad Springfield, down river to stall the crossing" Implies that the Springfield was sent to the crossing in response to the first landing. Considering the speed of such steamers I'm suspicious of this and would suggest that you recheck your source - it might be necessary to split out the paragraph and have one mention of the Springfield when she is sent and another when she arrives. Also I've made some copy edits, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 07:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to write that, you are correct, the springfield was dispatched the day before when reports of his attempt to cross first arrived in Louisville. New Albany is though only about a half hour upstream (20 miles) by steam ship from the place of the crossing. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done, I appreciate that troop numbers are a moveable feast but the plaque says 2,200, the info box 2,000 and the lead 2,500 cavalry. ϢereSpielChequers 09:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS 20 miles upstream would have been rather more than half an hour for the steamships of the day - that sort of speed wasn't achieved until decades later. ϢereSpielChequers 11:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the differences are for several reasons. The primary difference is over losses. he set out with 2500 from Tennessee, by the time he arrived at Brandenburg he was at closer to 2000 - according to both of my significant book sources. There is variance of about 500 men on the confederate side, and variance of about 100 on the union side depending on which sources you use. I went with what was in the two newest book sources (Horwitz and Conway). The figures in Funk matches what is on the plaques, and that book was published in the 60s. The plaque was placed in the 1960s, and I suspect that their information was fully accurate. I could place a note regarding the difference.
In regards to the steam ship speed, the sprinfield was upstream of Brandenburg, meaning it would be traveling downstream to reach it. The Ohio River is pretty swift, i would think you could float that distance in a couple hours. I might not have been clear with that. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses and good luck with the article. ϢereSpielChequers 06:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looking at the prose now, but it appears to be a bit overlinked throughout. Geographic locations are linked multiple times (ex. Laconia), and some fairly common terms may be linked. Also, you don't have a consistent strategy for linking city/state—sometimes you just write the city and pipe the link, sometimes you write out the city/state. Please check it over. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I have been traveling. I believe I have addressed your concerns. In linking to places, Once the text has made it clear they are in Kentucky, for example, I use only the town name until I need to make it clear they have left Kentucky and are then in another state. it seems repetive to keep adding the state in a string of places, but is neccesary to show the change of state at places. I have also tried to delink multiple linked terms. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attention to the matter. The article appears to have been promoted yesterday so I will have no further feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Reenactment

The battle reenactment will be held twice July 11 and 12, 2009 if anyone is interested in attending. I will be there, and hopefully will get some good photos for the article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I might get to go. Who knows, we may even meet?--King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be exciting! I expect it to be a couple hours long. I am going, probably even if it rains. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Corydon. 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.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horwitz & Conway

Charles Edward - Do you know which edition of Horwitz and Conway you were using for this? I was trying to trace The total amount taken by ransom and plunder was estimated at $26,450 back to my paper copy of Horwitz to look for any further details. It's cited to Horwitz p. 57 but p. 57 in my copy of Horwitz isn't about Corydon at all (it's about a skirmish at Pekin, Indiana and Eli Lilly. Page 67 of Horwitz details individual plunder items from Corydon, but those figures only add up to a little less than $13,000. After that, I thought I'd look at some more things:

  • " As the county commissioner exited the courthouse carrying a rifle he was shot dead, becoming the final casualty of the day" - cited on Conway p. 83. Can't find this in Conway. Horwitz p. 66 states that the county commissioner was mortally wounded (not shot dead), but doesn't mention that he was the last casualty or that he was carrying a rifle
  • "Morgan ate lunch at the Kintner House Inn where he read a newspaper and learned of the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg. The news caused him to realize his army was in serious danger; his hosts later said that upon his reading the paper he was "noticeably crestfallen."" - cited to Horwitz p. 59, is Horwitz p. 67 in my edition. As an aside, the quote looks like it should be "visibly crestfallen" instead of "noticeably crestfallen"
  • "At 11:30 a.m. on July 9, the 3rd Regiment Kentucky Cavalry, the advance element of the Confederate forces under the command of Col. Adam R. Johnson, was sighted moving north along the Mauckport Road towards Corydon" - cited to p. 65 of Conway. Conway mentions the Confederates meeting the Union forces, but neither Johnson nor the 3rd Kentucky are mentioned on that page or the several before or after. FWIW, the only 3rd Kentucky Cavalry in Horwitz's index is a Union unit.

For comparison, I'm using a paperback copy of Conway dated 1991, with the isbn listed as 0-925165-03-4. My copy of Horwitz is hardcover and dated 2001, with a listed isbn of 0-9670267-2-5. Hog Farm Talk 00:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have to be honest, I am not sure its been so long ago. I do recall it was a paper copy I had at the time of Conway. I had a copy from local library in Corydon, where I also took the pictures. But if I recall, Conway is probably the most important source I used for this article. I still have the copy of Horwitz and Funk I used, I can check those later and will let you know. Important note: I recall that reviewers at the Tippecanoe FAR found an issue with Funk, and this article is also using Funk as a source - the same book. I am not sure I agree, but the reviewers believed Funk was significantly inaccurate about the battle of Tippecanoe. I will try to take a look at those sources a little later and let you know what I find. I should probably also note, that although I wrote most of this article, I did not write it all. So I would have to dig through edits to figure out what was preexisting, etc. Most of the FA's I wrote were collaborative with other editors in WikiProject Indiana back then. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got the books I still have in my possession. Horwitz is the revised edition, its copyright is 2001.

  • Correct on the initial assessment, Horwitz p. 57 does appear to be an incorrect citation. Page 67 does appear to be the correct page, per your comment. And yes, also correct, it appears the math adding up the figures is incorrect and about $13,000 is the correct number. However, in checking other sources - in Funk p. 111, it gives another estimation of $100,00,
  • I don't see "last casualty of the day" either, but I think it is fair to say. He is the last mention of someone being killed.
  • Correct, it is page 67 in my copy too, not 59.
  • I am guessing this is a mix of Conway at also Horwitz p. 62 - however, I don't have Conway in front of my to compare. But does seem to partially be from Horwitz.

Hope that helps. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just worth pointing this out: the standards of FA has increased alot over time. There was a point where articles got penalized for "over citing". Generally, reviewers wanted to just see citations at the end of paragraphs, and not on every sentence. And then after the article was copy edited two or three times, sometimes the citation migrated even farther away from their original position. And these articles are really old at this point, they justly deserve a review. I am fine with FAR on these articles and redoing them to the new standards.

But its not really fair to insinuate that there is some kind of nefarious thing going on. (Not that you are.) You are evaluating old articles written to different standards, to present standards. Back then (2007ish), the overwhelming majority of articles on Wikipedia did not have a single citation. And me especially, the way I tended to write back then, was to write the article all out first from personal knowledge, and go back and add citations later. For example, I live in Corydon, I am a local historian, and I have participated in the reenactment of this battle many times. I can just tell the story from memory. Hope that helps explain how this article was first wrote. I don't do that anymore, but I have been around here since 2002 when Wikipedia started.

I am the primary author of over 2000 articles in this encyclopedia under this account and anonymously. And mostly articles like this that pretty well no one even cares they exist, but they are topics that interest me personally. It is ok with me if you want to demote this article from FA. But its not really fair to suggest (not that you are) that editors with topical expertise were operating out of a place of bad faith when we wrote that way in years gone by. The same with the battle of Tippecanoe which was FARed. It also has deep historical ties to this same community, and I am likewise very familiar with that subject as a local historian. (I also disagree that Funk is a bad source, he is another locally well known (now-deceased) historian. But I understand if he don't meet the standards of an FA anymore.)

So I guess my point here is, if you want to demote these articles that is fine, but please don't be displeased with me like I have done something wrong. I am not the one who reviewed these articles and approved them to be FA to begin with. If you have an issue with these articles being an FA, your issue is with the ones who didn't review these articles to your standards. Not the one who wrote the article. And it is really unfair to insinuate one of this communities longest serving editors has gamed the system or something to get articles to FA. (Not that you are... but I definitely sense that tone in some of the other threads on this topic) That said, I am glad to work with you in good faith and try to help you improve them or find the issues to fix. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to try to help get the citations hammered out down the road. I've done a number of FAs on the Civil War recently so I have a fairly good grasp of the sourcing expectations - I've been looking at the older Civil War FAs because I had to recently completely overhaul Thomas C. Hindman because it contained errors and significant omissions as a FA. It does look like Funk published a piece in the Indiana Magazine of History back in the 50s, which might help Funk's case. I just won't be able to do much until after Thanksgiving at the earliest due to work and real life commitments. Hog Farm Talk 22:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Edward and Hog Farm: have your concerns about the article been resolved? I see that there are a lot of sources listed in Further reading, possibly indicating that this article is not comprehensive. Is work still happening on this article? If not, should this article go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the further reading except Mingus and Mowery are tangential or primary sources, so that's not a huge concern. I don't know if Mingus would meet the FA sourcing standard from first glance. Mowery is focused on a larger campaign, so I don't know that it would have too much specifically for Corydon. Hog Farm Talk 03:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Corydon