Talk:Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter

Good articleHome of a Rebel Sharpshooter has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2025Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 5, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter was staged by moving a corpse?

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph by Timothy O'Sullivan
Photograph by Timothy O'Sullivan
Created by Hog Farm (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 74 past nominations.

Hog Farm talk 02:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Everything seems to check out here. Good quality article, no evidence of copyvio, and the hook checks out with the source (and is cited in-article). QPQ checks out too. Good to go! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source access

Hey @Hog Farm: great work here. I am interested in taking up the GAR but I do not see a way for myself to access the Frassanito source. Any tips there? Czarking0 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarking0: - it looks like the copy on Internet Archive has been taken down. I own a print copy and can provide quotes from the text if there's something specific you would like to spot-check. With the way the book is bound, I don't know that it would scan very well. Hog Farm talk 17:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I'll hit you with some and then myself or anyone else can start the GAR. First can you provide the quote indicating the wall was rebuilt by NPS? As an editorial point you may want to add the date to this note. Czarking0 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote for part of little round top is visible Czarking0 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The location itself [the site where the photograph was taken] was ideal, complete with massive boulders, with the wall and even a portion of Little Round Top appearing in the distance Hog Farm talk 22:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wall was rebuilt as early as the '70s when Frassanito wrote, but I don't think much detail on the history of the rock structure is visible. Hog Farm talk 16:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote for Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter was likely photographed on July 6. By the time the photograph was taken, most of the corpses on the battlefield had already been buried. Czarking0 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The views recorded in the Den area on the morning and early afternoon of July 6 were the last of Gardner's Gettysburg scenes depicting human corpses. In fact, the sixteen different bodies photographed in the Den were probably among the last to remain unburied on the entire field.
Quote for Frassanito notes that this particular claim is not plausible, as the corpse and rifle would have been removed by burial parties and battlefield scavengers, respectively, long before November. Czarking0 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The body would have been long since buried, and the rifle would have been picked up either by Union forces or relic hunters Hog Farm talk 22:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the second one - it was obvious to me when I was writing this that this photograph was one of the Den photographs Frassanito was referring to on p. 32, but having been away from the sources for couple weeks I see how that isn't as obvious from a plain reading of the sources. I'll throw in another page number that ties it down more explicitly; I can go through another check of all of the citations sometime tomorrow. Hog Farm talk 22:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other verification

Related to the above thread I am making note here of some verification of source material I did. Normally I would do this as part of GAR but I want to wait for quotes from Hog Farm to start the GAR.

  • Gardner's principal focus with his Gettysburg photographs was, as Jonathan Snyder writes in an article in War, Literature & the Arts, "recording the horrors of war". Aware that when his photographs were marketed, his audience would respond emotionally to photographs of corpses, he sought to take photographs that cause those emotional reactions. Snyder believes that Gardner's desire to document war's horrors led him to "take certain liberties" with his photographs. The source (available through Proquest WP:TWL) indicates this is really Frassanito's analysis. Maybe it is better to cite him (or at least additionally cite him) here. regardless verified.
  • I also verified several claims from FN1 such as the body was moved.
  • Gardner's views of Confederate dead consistently portrayed them as traitors to the United States (Union), with the caption he wrote for A Harvest of Death describing fallen Confederates as having been killed while fighting "an army of patriots". verified source availible through muse WP:TWL
  • Can we double check the Fink source? I can verify Fink and Heiser both believe that the soldier was killed on July 3, although heavier fighting had taken place in the area on the previous day, as Confederate soldiers occupying the area on July 3 would have buried as many of their fallen comrades as possible.[20] After researching Confederate soldiers who were killed in the area on July 3, and noting facial resemblances in a known photograph, Fink suggested the fallen soldier may have been John Rutherford Ash of the 2nd Georgia Infantry Regiment. However I found the source here which I am unsure of the reliability of. If it was published in Civil War Times and I verify that it would help the sourcing.
    • @Czarking0: - I got ahold of this through TWL, which indicated that it was originally published in the (now-defunct) Civil War Times. The HistoryNet website is owned by the same group as the company that owned CWT until the magazine was shuttered. HistoryNet has since reprinted some of the old CWT articles; that's a separate republishing of the Fink article, not where it originally appeared. Hog Farm talk 20:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I'm going to call that good Czarking0 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I would pass this but I still want the quotes

Czarking0 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Include steroview

In some of the source material I saw additional photographs including what I think is the steroview mentioned in the article. Maybe that should be included?

Also since this is page on a photo maybe it is appropriate to display a much larger rendering of it? Czarking0 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarking0: - I've enlarged the main image. I don't know about adding the stereoview - Frassanito describes it as "unsuccessful". The version published in Frassanito of this really only has the difference of the background beyond the wall appearing as a dark band without details, there being a checkered blanket visible under the corpse, and the top half of the photograph being much more grainy. Hog Farm talk 16:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 17:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 23:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


taking this one. Czarking0 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]




Box

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • looks good
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • looks good
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Looks good, FYI I fixed how the quotes work you may want to double check we are on the same page there
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • see talk page for verifications
2c. it contains no original research.
  • no issues
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • made one minor change
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • loved this article, I have never heard of this and do not know much about the Civil War. I feel like I learned so much about hte culture from the photo.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • no rabbit holes
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • looks balanced
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • looks good
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • wonderful, thanks for your photo contribution
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • good job
7. Overall assessment.

Easy review as Hog Farm has done a great job. Maybe FA next?

On a personal note a learned a lot and loved the article this is exactly what I love WP for.

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Home_of_a_Rebel_Sharpshooter