Talk:Armies in the American Civil War

Name?

From the article's name, a reader might suppose this article is about the military units called an "Army" during the Civil War, such as Army of the Potomac, but it's not. It's about the organization, equipment, and tactics of the ground forces in the Civil War. The lede doesn't even mention the title of the article, but instead says its about "the organization and tactics of Civil War armies".

Should this article be moved to something like "Weapons and tactics of American Civil War armies", or "American Civil War armies"? --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armies in the American Civil War. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921172408/http://www.history.army.mil:80/StaffRide/Antietam/Contents.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/StaffRide/Antietam/Contents.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armies in the American Civil War. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/StaffRide/Antietam/Contents.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213164508/http://civilwartalk.com/Field_Artillery to http://civilwartalk.com/Field_Artillery

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) 08:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Too much uncited text

This article seems to consist of large sections of uncited text, with a single citation to a book (unavailable online), without page numbers, at the end of the section.

Even if I had access to the cited book (there seems to be about three books used throughout), unless the passages in the article turn out to be straight lifts from the respective book, it would be the devil's own job to verify the article.

I think the article is way too long. Wikipedia is for ordinary people; this seems to be a scholarly article. I don't think a citation should be used to support more than a couple of paragraphs. Here we have citations supporting entire sections many pages long.

MrDemeanour (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)