Talk:Ambrose Burnside

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleAmbrose Burnside was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 12, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
July 21, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 26, 2014.
Current status: Delisted good article

Ironic comment[edit]

General Burnside wins the prize for the most ironic man to ever exist.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/joeblade/irony.jpg

It's not irony, the term "sideburns" comes from his name.

General Order No. 38[edit]

Burnside's imposition of illegal military rule under General Order No. 38 warrants a section on controversy, does it not?119.224.13.116 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ambrose Burnside/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Concurr wiht B-ranking. Article needs persondata, but may otherwise be qualified for a GA-nomination? I'm especially glad to see such good references. -Duribald 17:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 17:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ambrose Burnside. 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) 05:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ambrose Burnside/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

A rather lacking article on a rather important figure, poor sourcing, doesn't seem comprehensive, outstanding maintenance tags. I'll drop a note in the relevant places, hopefully there's interest in improving this. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing a number of citations. I found then old 2007 GA review in the article history, and it was very lacking compared to modern standards. Hog Farm Bacon 19:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over a week has gone by, and nobody has volunteered to resolve the fairly substantial issues present. De-listing. Of course, if the issues raised here are resolved, any editor can re-nominate the article at WP:GAN. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]