Talk:David Stuart (brigadier general)

David Stuart (brigadier general) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 30, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Politics and Government Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation. This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Chicago Low‑importance Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois Low‑importance Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Michigan Low‑importance Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress Low‑importance United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Military history: Biography / North America / United States / American Civil War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force

B class review

B class. There are a few issues that may arise if this article is submitted for GA class. See below. Djmaschek (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What was "his stance on the Kansas-Nebraska Act"? The article doesn't say.
  • Neither does the sole source I've found on this.
• "He ruined his reputation" sounds like he did indeed have an affair with his client. If it is unknown whether the affair actually occurred, then this sentence needs to be reworded.
• That both Stuart and Malmborg were "incompetent" is stated in Victor Hicken's Illinois in the Civil War (p. 241-242).
• Shiloh: Conquer or Perish by Timothy B. Smith is thorough but constantly jumps back and forth across the battlefield in a rather disorienting way. I skimmed the parts about Stuart's brigade and it seems to me that Stuart, Malmborg, and Kilby Smith did a reasonable job of delaying the Confederate advance, considering that the brigade was isolated on the eastern part of the field. The 71st Ohio fell apart, but the 55th Illinois and 54th Ohio held together and only retreated when the soldiers ran out of ammunition. And yes, they stupidly had their soldiers form square a few times. Stuart tried to accompany the brigade on April 7, but finally had to leave because of his wound (p. 378).
  • I cannot find the attempted return from wounding in my copy of Daniel - I'm not seeing it on any of the pages noted in the index for Stuart, and p. 378 is a series of footnotes (fn. 106 chapter 10 through fn 16 chapter 11) that do not mention Stuart unless I am not seeing it. Hog Farm _Talk 02:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Civil War Dictionary by Mark Boatner (p. 812) gives the various commands held by Stuart.

@Djmaschek: - Thanks for the review! While researching for the points above, I've become convinced that there is information regarding Stuart's 1850s political career that should be included for GA level but I cannot find a good source for most of this (Tagg also references a "biographer" but does not include footnotes for this or directly state who this is and I cannot find the source from which he quotes) so this won't be sent to GA class anytime soon. Hog Farm _Talk 02:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: 'Stuart was so weak from his wound of the day before that he could only lead his men onto the field in "an effort to excite the enthusiasm of the men" before turning back to a hospital.' (Smith 2014, p. 378) The only footnote after the section that included this was from the OR. Boatner 1959, p. 812: "At Shiloh he was wounded in the shoulder while commanding 2. 5th Div, Army Tenn (1 Mar-6 Apr 62). With his regiment at Corinth he led 4, Dist Memphis, XIII, Tenn (26 Oct-12 Nov 62). Promoted BG USV 29 Nov 62, he led 2, 2nd Div, Dist Memphis Right Wing XIII, Tenn (12 Nov-18 Dec 62). 2, 2nd Div, Yazoo Exp, Tenn (to 28 Dec 62). 2nd Div, Yazoo Expedition (28 Dec 62-4 Jan 63) at Chickasaw Bluffs. 2nd Div, XV, Tenn (4 Jan-4 Apr 63) at Arkansas Post." (I skipped some punctuation and added some abbreviations.)

Just noting for posterity since this did eventually go to GAN - I tracked down the "biographer" which ended up being a 1862 source which appeared to be of the laudatory writings about wartime officers sort. The 1907 historical society source added to the article states that little information is avialable regarding Stuart. Hog Farm _Talk 19:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Stuart (brigadier general)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 04:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will review, comments to follow. Zawed (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit delayed getting to this, got hit with the influenza A virus last week and it is taking me a while to get over it. Anyhow, comments as follows:

Infobox

• Add father to infobox, he appears notable?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Name father in lead (as above)?
  • I've done a piped link on "his father" Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stuart was appointed brigadier general: suggest "Stuart was provisionally appointed brigadier general"? That may set the scene a little better for the later rejection of the promotion.
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• on November 29, 1862.: drop the 1862 here, already established it is 1862?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

• Stuart passed the bar in Michigan in 1842: suggesting dropping "in Michigan" or replacing with "there" since mentioned move to the state earlier in the sentence.
  • Removed Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Career

• Editorial suggestion: have headings for political career and military career
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• of the 2 Division of the District of Memphis: just checking, is "2 Division" the proper name or should it be 2nd Division?
  • The source uses that as a form of shorthand, but I've gone with 2nd Division as that would have been the name it was known by. Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• this command was the 2 Division of the XV Corps.: this statement suggests to me that the divisional command that he took over from Morgan Smith (previous sentence) was not 2 Division; is it known what division was commanded by Stuart? The Morgan Smith article doesn't say.
  • There were some sizable reorganizations in the Union army structure during this time; I've added some background detail for this. Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stuart's promotion reached Grant's army: rather than name Grant, who isn't mentioned anywhere else, suggest saying "Stuart's promotion reached the Army of the Tennessee"?
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks

• Cite 4 (a to c) OK
• Cite 5 (both a and b) OK
• Cite 6 OK
• Cite 7 OK

Other stuff

• Image check OK
• Dupe links: American Civil War linked twice in lead
  • Removed the second link Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Earwig tool indicates copyvio unlikely

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: - I hope you get to feeling better! How do the above changes look? Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fine, passing as GA as I believe the article meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]