Talk:Gettysburg Address

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Allen3 (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 23 December 2005 ({{oldpeerreview}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page


An event in this article is a November 19 selected anniversary

First round of Peer Review updates have been made

I made numerous stylistic and formatting changes to the article, based largely on comments received via the Peer Review process. BartBenjamin 21:04, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)


Spelling of "battle field"

What I wrote:

I reverted your spelling correction of "battle-field" because that is how Lincoln spelled it. I recall seeing this specifically referenced in a discussion of how the English language and spelling evolves over time. I, unfortunately, do not own an original manuscript of the Gettysburg Address to verify this, though the fact that it was originally transcribed with the hyphen would tend to back my sometimes faulty memory. The modern spelling is used in the text of the article, of course, but Lincoln's spelling should be used in the transcription of the document itself. Thanks. -- Kbh3rd 04:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To which BartBenjamin replied:

Thanks for the feedback on the Gettysburg Address article. Actually, page 1 of the Bliss document is referenced by a footnote in the article, which directs readers to http://www.papersofabrahamlincoln.org/images/GABliss1.jpg. By examining that page, you'll notice that in Lincoln's own hand, the word either reads "battlefield" or "battle field" depending on how you interpret his handwriting. However, it definitely does not read "battle-field." Bart 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that, I changed the spelling in the transcribed document in the article to "battle field". Surely this isn't the first time this has been looked at in 140+ years, so someone with access to more authoritative research please correct if needed. Below is the word clipped from that document. How do other manuscripts read? (Looking at that, it sure looks like "battle-field" to me.) -- Kbh3rd 16:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I now see how you could interpret the baseline mark as a hyphen. Perhaps it is ... perhaps it's not. I don't know. In any event, the word still means what we today spell out as "battlefield," so perhaps it's a moot point. This may simply be an example of the how certain words were spelled in the mid 19th Century vs. today. Any scholars of mid 19th Century etymology out there? Bart 03:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a hyphen to me, and the "e" in script would need a trailing line in that position to avoid being confused with "o". The near-gap after the downstroke of the "e" could be due to the pen moving up a little during the circular stroke. (SEWilco 05:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Very old discussions have been removed

I've removed the discussion points on issues related to very old versions of this page. It was becoming too difficult to separate recent comments with irrelevant old ones. By the way, according to Wikipedia style, are you supposed to post new talking points at the bottom of the page or at the top? From the way old pages are chronologically sorted (or lack thereof), it appears that there's little agreement among users. Bart 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule, but generally new stuff goes at the bottom. See: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. And thanks for cleaning up! Kaisershatner 13:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I should also have pointed out that typically we don't delete old posts - archive them instead. [[1]]

I'll restore it from the old versions, though, don't worry about it. Kaisershatner 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking down the drafts

This article has lots of well-sourced and interesting items about the history of the drafts. Might be worth including; no time for it right this minute but I didn't want to lose track of it: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/24.2/johnson.html Kaisershatner 16:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FAC checklist

Time for another peer review? Kaisershatner 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet

We incorporate images, hyperlinks to related history/Lincoln subjects, audiolinks, etc. Kaisershatner 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable.

I can't judge my/our writing objectively, but at least the grammar and spelling are correct. I think we are comprehensive - almost every detail I can conceive of has been touched upon in the article, although potentially consider: * more info on Wills or "the committee?" * expand the contemporary reactions section w/more citations from newspapers?

"factually accurate": this article is very well cited, IMO. "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) - the only potential area for NPOV probs would be the "textual analysis" section but even that is a stretch. I revised this section a bit, should be clearly npov if not wholly comprehensive. Kaisershatner 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day (apart from improvements in response to reviewers' comments) and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars; - remains to be seen. This article is not the subject of an edit war, and seems unlikely to be. Kaisershatner 15:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Style manual

It should comply with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having: (a) a succinct lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections; (YES) (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and (YES) (c) a substantial, but not overwhelmingly large, table of contents (YES)

It should have images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. (YES, lost of PD images)

It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles. (YES, IMO).

Only known photo caption

I reverted the changes by an anon user, which were unsourced, and suggested Brady took the photo himself, something contradicted by the sourced info I found (I may be wrong). The change should be supported by a reference in any case. Finally, I think the caption was too long even if correct (the WP:FAC article suggests "succinct" captions. See also: (Wikipedia:Cite sources) Thanks, Kaisershatner 17:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gettysburg_Address&oldid=32483766"