Template:Did you know nominations/Douglas Putnam

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 Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Douglas Putnam

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Douglas Putnam served at the Battle of Shiloh during the American Civil War, and later published an eyewitness account of the battle? Source: Putnam, 1890, pp. 197-203
• ALT1 ... that Douglas Putnam published an eyewitness account of the Battle of Shiloh in which he took part during the American Civil War?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Charlotte Medal
• Comment: Source and Citation for hook can be found at the end of the Civil War section of article.

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 21:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and the article is neutral. I have added ALT1 which expresses the same facts in a different way. The text of the lead paragraph is rather too similar to the source: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• (source) - "... graduated from Marietta College in 1859, and in 1861 entered the volunteer army as Paymaster's clerk. After the battle of Shiloh he served on Gen. Grant's staff, then returned to Marietta and organized the Ninety-Second Ohio Volunteer Infantry, served as Adjutant, was wounded at the battle of Missionary Ridge, and was mustered out in 1864 as Lieutenant-Colonel."
• (article) - "... graduated from Marietta College in 1859, and in 1861 entered the volunteer army as Paymaster's clerk. He organized the Ninety-Second Ohio Volunteer Infantry, which he commanded during the Chattanooga campaign and served as Adjutant. He was wounded at the Battle of Missionary Ridge, and was mustered out in 1864 as Lieutenant-Colonel."

ALT1 has the order of events somewhat reversed. Putnam fought in the battle first, published the account later. Prefer original, esp since it says "served at the battle...", denoting a sacrifice. Saying he "took part" in the battle sounds too homogenized. While we're supposed to be encyclopedic, lets retain a little human color in the hook, which is more likely to draw the readers, esp history buffs, into the article. I will work on the paragraph in question here, even though there's no close paraphrasing to speak of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for improving the lead section of the article. I detected no other policy issues. I proposed ALT1 because your original hook used the word "battle" twice, but ALT0 is acceptable, the hook facts having inline citations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the first occurrence of 'battle' is used in the official title, i.e.Battle of Shiloh, which is linked, while the second occurrence simply refers to the battle in the generic sense, and at least imo, doesn't sound redundant. Hope this is acceptable to all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Taking part in the battle" and being an "eyewitness" say the same thing: He was there. How about tightening the hook?
• ALT2: ... that Douglas Putnam published an eyewitness account of the Battle of Shiloh which took place during the American Civil War? Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

ALT2 is a little too generic. We should specify that Putnam was a colonel so it's clear he was more than just a spectator. (There were many journalists and others present, watching and recording the events as they unfolded.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that Colonel Douglas Putnam published an eyewitness account of the Battle of Shiloh that occurred during the American Civil War?

• ALT3 sounds good, but there is no inline cite for the fact that he was a colonel during the battle; it says he was a paymaster at the time of the battle. Yoninah (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

(arrgh!) Yes, you are correct -- He became Colonel at a later date. At this point I would simply like to return to the original hook. "Served in the battle" tells us he was actually 'in' that battle, while 'eyewitness account' is an accurate figure of speech for the type of account he later published. 'Eyewitness account' by itself doesn't make it clear that Putnam was in the battle. Again, the hook mentions the events in the order they occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• ALT4: (original hook) ... that Douglas Putnam served in the Battle of Shiloh during the American Civil War, and later published an eyewitness account of the battle?

• @Gwillhickers: Yes, that's reasonable. What about Cwmhiraeth's point about repeating the word "battle"? How's this:
• ALT4a: ... that Douglas Putnam served in the Battle of Shiloh during the American Civil War, and later published an eyewitness account of it? Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the first occurrence of 'Battle' is used in the official title 'Battle of Shiloh', a phrase, while the second occurrence is used in a stand alone generic capacity, and doesn't really sound redundant. If we had used 'Battle of Shiloh' twice there might be a redundancy issue. I don't believe there's any rigid grammatical rule that forbids using a word twice in some cases. e.g.He fought in the American Civil War and later died during that war. Using 'it' at the end of the sentences sounds empty. Also, using 'it' in the hook could be taken by some of the readers as a reference to the war, not the battle, so we should be clear about that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• No prob. Restoring tick per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Wow, that was quick -- seconds after my last save. Anyway, MANY thanks for the review and your patience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)