Speedway

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George B. Crittenden/archive1

George B. Crittenden

George B. Crittenden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 26 February 2025, 15:24 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a brief time, George B. Crittenden was an example of some of the greatest pathos of the American Civil War. He was the son of John J. Crittenden, who tried to stave off the Civil War as a congressman. When the war came though, George went south and became a major general, while his brother Thomas L. Crittenden stayed north and also became a major general - the highest ranking instance I can think of for brother against brother. George's time in the spotlight did not last long. He had been arrested multiple times while serving in the antebellum US Army for being drunk on duty, but his career was saved by his father's influence. His first Confederate field service ended in a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Mill Springs. Rumors of drunkenness followed, and his fairly incompetent subordinate whose fault part of the mess was had been killed and thus avoided the blame. Arrested for drunkenness again a few months later, and without a powerful father to stave off the consequences, Crittenden spent the rest of the war as an obscure staff officer. A touching story about Crittenden's actions in the Black Bean Episode, which is repeated in many biographical descriptions of Crittenden, is probably false. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. I assessed this at GAN to FAC standard, but I imagine I can find another nit or two to pick.

  • "In 1842, he traveled to the Republic of Texas". Optional: 'In 1842, he traveled to the then independent Republic of Texas'?
  • "In 1846, Crittenden rejoined the military for service in the Mexican–American War, and received a brevet promotion for his actions at the Battle of Contreras and the Battle of Churubusco. He had been arrested for drunkenness before his regiment saw service in the war" I assume that the arrest in the second sentence was before the second clause of the first sentence? If so, maybe rejig to put in chronological order? I struggled to wrap my head round just what had happened when here.
  • "Bachelor of Laws". Why the upper-case initial letters?
  • "n 1836, he commanded a company in the Kentucky militia." Perhaps better as 'By 1836, he commanded a company in the Kentucky militia.'?
  • "Crittenden later moved to the Republic of Texas". 1. A date is given for this in the lead. 2. Maybe insert 'then independent'?
    • Have done 2) but I've removed the date from the lead as there's not a specific year mentioned in the lead and Eubank's ambiguous phrasing leaves open the possiblity that this was before 1842. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the tale is not found in survivor accounts of the incident and that the prisoners were blindfolded". If you have "as the tale, you need 'and as the prisoners ...'
  • "Andrew Jackson provided critical assistance, by writing a letter to Santa Anna". Who might these two people be?
  • "gave Crittenden a bottle of alcohol". An actual bottle of alcohol?
  • In the last paragraph of "United States military service" "Crittenden" is used five times in the initial five sentences, including twice in the first sentence in the space of ten words. There are similar situations elsewhere.
  • "the family's firstborn son." Perhaps this could be mentioned in the first few sentences of the article?
  • "Crittenden decided to attack while his opponents were still separated and sent his troops on a night march to attack Thomas on the morning of January 19." Can we avoid "attack" twice in the sentence?
  • "Crittenden's men were poorly trained and badly armed". Is this a reference to Zollicoffer's force?
  • "had been drinking to some extent before the battle, although the extent of his insobriety". "extent" twice in seven words?
  • "Further allegations of treason and "constant inebriation" spread." The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
    • The source (Woodworth) is quoting a 19th-century source that is not directly named. Woodworth's citations are to pp. 849-850 of this, which does not contain the "constant inebriation" quote, and to pp. 256-257 of this, which does contain the quote in a letter written by J. G. M. Ramsey. So I can attribute this quote to Ramsey, but it's going to be a bit awkward of a citation - unless another editor is digging into Woodworth and his footnotes, it's going to look like I'm just cherry-picking quotes from primary source letters. Gog the Mild - how would you recommend handling this? Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good IAR case. I suggest leaving it as it is.
  • "to command a division,[55] which was known as the 2nd Division of the Army of Central Kentucky." Perhaps 'to command the 2nd Division of the Army of Central Kentucky.'?
  • "he submitted a resignation". 'he submitted his resignation'?
  • "Crittenden did not reach Johnston's army before it surrendered, and was paroled on May 5." This reads as if the army was paroled. Any details on when or where Crittenden surrendered, or who to?
    • Dammit - I've always been able to trick Google Books into giving me all of the pages to view through various ways, but I can't get the relevant page this time. This is a weird case where Prichard 2008 states that he did surrender with Joe Johnston, but Prichard 2010 disagrees and has more information. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If further details on the circumstances of his surrender are out there, they should really be included.
  • "was indicted in the federal court system for treason" Any date?
    • Neither of the Prichard works gives a date. Eubank doesn't mention this and glosses over his whole postwar career in less than a page. Cutrer relegates everything post-resignation into a single paragraph and doesn't give this detail either. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the last two - I can't easily answer these. The library of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield holds a print copy of Prichard 2010. The same library also holds a copy of the relevant volume of William C. Davis (historian)'s The Confederate General which I didn't consider using due to difficulty of access and the fact that Prichard, who wrote two longer and more recent works, used that as a source so I don't expect anything in there that would be preferable to Prichard. I'll reach out to the battlefield tomorrow and see about setting up an appointment to review that page of Prichard and the Davis work some weekend. Hopefully I can get something to work out, I've had mixed luck with getting source excerpts from NPS units before. The last time I went out to Wilson's Creek for something, the volunteer librarian expressed great frustrations with Wikipedia and and seemed to consider the whole project hopeless, so we'll see how things go this time. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, US librarians extend the same goodwill and bonhomie to those who sully their institutions with their physical presence as UK ones then?
Supporting on the understanding that details of his surrender will be included in the article as and when you can access the source. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - the NPS sent me scans today. The chapter in The Confederate General is two pages long, and devotes a paragraph and a sentence to his post-October 23 1862 resignation life, although it does clarify some points in his earlier career. All I have to work with on this from Prichard 2010 is the following paragraph: The fall of Richmond led Brigadier General John Echols, Breckinridge's successor, to abandon the department and march eastward in an effort to link up with Lee's retreating forces. Upon reaching Christiansburg he learned of Lee's surrender and set out to join General Joseph E. Johnston's Army of Tennessee in North Carolina. Unable to reach the army he once left in disgrace before it surrendered, Crittenden was paroled at Greensboro on May 5, 1865. This paragraph is sourced to pages 91 and 92 of this book and to Crittenden's Compiled Service Records. The book contains two references to "Crittenden" according to gbooks snippet view, one of which is to somebody else and the other of which is on p. 36. From the Gbooks preview, those pages are about Echols' march. The Sifakis source in the further reading devotes a paragraph to Crittenden's whole life and does not mention his parole at all. I know of no other usable secondary sources to work with (the Hafendorfer work about Mill Springs mentioned in Prichard 2010 is an out-of-print self-published book from 25 years ago). As a note - Johnston's surrender occurred on April 26 at Bennett Place near Durham, North Carolina. Johnston's men were paroled and sent home. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little surprised at the casualness of the secondary sources, but you can't help that. It appears that you have included everything that there is to include. Thanks for updating me. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

Happy to review this. If you could give me a ping when you're finished with Gog's comments I'll have a read through then. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Would you prefer to wait until after the Wilson's Creek inquiry to conduct your review? I emailed them this morning (USA time). Last time I had to reach out to Wilson's Creek for a source, it took nearly three weeks. The most recent time that I reached out to a different NPS unit they didn't respond. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Just let me know when you're ready. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I believe all of Gog's comments have been resolved as best as possible. Hog Farm Talk 04:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, time to earn my keep:

  • Very minor but to keep the infobox as uncluttered as possible I might suggest replacing follow up mentions of "Republic of Texas" with simply "Texas"
  • My understanding is we don't need to be capitalising ranks in the infobox, so Lieutenant colonel rather than Lieutenant Colonel
  • Suggest using Template:Tree list for the list of battles
  • First mention of the individual (in Early life here) should use his full name
  • Is the infobox image a photograph? I can't quite tell; File:Major General George B. Crittenden.jpg is far higher quality but only a drawing
    • I'm not quite sure either, or what exactly would be the best approach here. See also Adam Cuerden's comment above. Prichard 2008 and Hewitt 1991 both use a definite photograph of Crittenden in which he is wearing a similar uniform (minus the shoulder bars) but is clean-shaven (image credit to Louisiana State University in Hewitt), Warner uses a version of the image currently in the article with a missing area at the top that about has to be damage of an old photographic plate, and Prichard 2010 has a photograph of a more hollow-faced looking Crittenden with a receding hairline in what looks like a Confederate uniform (image credit to Hewitt's personal colleciton), but Hewitt's text includes the note that "No photo of Crittenden in what is undoubtedly a Confederate uniform has been found) while noting that the collar stuff found on the article's image, Adam Cuerden's image, the Warner image, and the Prichard 2008 and Hewitt 1991 images is almost certainly a retouch added by an artist. Hog Farm Talk 18:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that the one in article (and about the only image of him online) is an overpainting. There's also an engraving based on it. Now, this is going to be very speculative. I don't tend to do speculative on here, because I don't think it's generally helpful, but...
    If we presume the original image for the version currently in the article lead was a daguerrotype or other type of image that couldn't readily be reproduced, it was very common to take a photograph of that daguerreotype and use that as the reproduction. As this resulted in a loss of quality, it was fairly common to overpaint a bit to try to put back the lost detail. Now, add to that that during and after the ACW, there was quite a demand for works documenting everyone involved. For example, https://www.si.edu/object/statesmen-and-generals-confederacy:npg_S_NPG.84.430 and there's ones that use photographic montages, etc. We don't tend to use those, but books similar to ones used as sources in this article also existed back then, and had photographs. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if https://www.si.edu/object/felix-kirk-zollicoffer:npg_S_NPG.2012.6.33 was from a book or photo album, and it actually has a lot of artistic similarity to the one of Crittenden. Given their connection, it wouldn't even be surprising.
    Which leads me to my big speculation: This is a version of a photograph of Crittenden with the overpainting taking liberties to make it fit in better with images of people who had photographs in uniform and who had better photographs than he did. The similarity to Zollicoffer's image supports this speculation, since we know he died very early in the war, so likely never had a photograph in uniform.

More to come. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now, Hog Farm. An interesting article about a man who probably should have stayed a lawyer! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Thank you for a very thorough review! Replies are above - I don't have a strong opinion either way on the photograph vs engraving. I used a postwar engraving for William Y. Slack because the original photograph of Slack was in quite bad condition. Hog Farm Talk 04:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Hog Farm: I've taken the liberty of doing a quick restoration of the lead - hate to have a featured article where the lead image looks like it's a third generation photocopy, y'know? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 17:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi Hog Farm, my comments:

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: - Thanks for your review! My replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 02:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, looks good now. Happy to support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

On the icons question, I wonder if hidden comments would help. I must say that "Indicted for treason upon his return, he was pardoned in 1867" is a weird formulation - was he convicted before the pardon or not? Unrelated, but Crittenden Compromise seems to be an euphemism... "Eicher, John H.; Eicher, David J. (2001). Civil War High Commands. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-3641-1." is it just the links or do the authors specialize in a completely different field from the article topic? Why does "Confederate Generals in the Western Theater" have a Google link and a volume? Nothing else that jumps out to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - The booble link for the Confederate Generals in the Western Theater has been removed - the volume link is becuse U Tenn published three collections of essays with this title as a series; the cited book is from the second volume of it.The indicted for treason --> pardon is about all that I can glean from the secondary sources; there may be some archival matter at the University of Kentucky that could shed some light on this but that would be a primary source and is inaccessible to me anyway. This is not an unusual thing for high-ranking Confederates - some of my other FA work with these includes Thomas C. Hindman (treason indictment 1865, fled to Mexico, returned in 1867, arrested when he started to get back into politics in 1868 but was allowed to remain at liberty, assassination before trial) and John Bullock Clark (wanted, fled to Mexico, arrested upon return, released without trial). Not even Confederate president Jefferson Davis was actually put to trial. I think this was a way to keep prominent ex-Confederates from politically challenging Reconstruction. The Crittenden Compromise euphemism is indeed used in modern sources, it would have seemed less one-sided in 1860 than it does now, but in hindsight it's obvious why it was rejected. The Eicher books has been favorably reviewed - see this and this among others.Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK. I remember that a few years ago Wikipedia's coverage on WWII drew significant negative attention because, among other things, verbiage that made it sound like war criminals had been deemed such without a trial even though a trial definitively took place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - That was a very different historical situation - there were trials (Nuremburg, Doctors' Trials, etc.) and there was the Geneva Convention in place at that time as well that defined things. See Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 pp. 190-191 Despite talk of punishing traitors, the President [Andrew Johnson] embarked on a course of amazing leniency. No mass arrests followed the collapse of the Confederacy; only Henry Wirz, commandant of Andersonville prison camp, paid the ultimate penalty for treason. Jefferson Davis spent two years in federal prison but was never put on trial [...] At first, the President granted pardons cautiously, but by September they were being issued wholesale, sometimes hundreds in a single day. By 1866, over 7,000 Southerners excluded from amnesty under the $20,000 clause [see p. 183, a more general pardon in 1865 had excluded high-ranking Confederate leaders and those who owned over $20,000 in property] had received individual pardons. Re-reading the sources, I've rephrased slightly in the article as its not entirely clear whether the indictment happened before or after his return to Kentucky. Really all we can go with is what the RS tell us here - he was paroled in North Carolina in May 1865, at some point an indictment for treason was placed against Crittenden in the federal court system in Kentucky, and Johnson pardoned him in 1867. The RS do not mention a trial or imprisonment, which is not unusual given that most Confederates were not imprisoned or tried. I don't think there's anything else we can say here. Hog Farm Talk 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/George_B._Crittenden/archive1