Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Grand Gulf/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 September 2023 [1].

Battle of Grand Gulf[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 04:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly a ship vs. shore naval bombardment, there's not a whole lot to the battle itself, but it is inseparable from one of the most significant events in American military history: Grant's crossing of the Mississippi River during the Vicksburg campiagn. Hog Farm Talk 04:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up all of the images (using upright not px)
    • Have set the one that was previously fixed px to upright=1.8; the other is at upright=1.4 now and both seems to be more readable
  • File:Vicksburg_Campaign_April-July_1863.pdf: see MOS:COLOUR.. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - I have made a request at the graphics lab to see if this is resolvable. This is, quite honestly, the best map we have for the campaign and is from a professional Civil War cartographer who donated these to Wikipedia. So if this isn't fixable - do we put in a poorer map and in the end make it less useful for everyone involved, or do we just close the FAC? The Wikimedia color pallete linked at MOS color also seems to denote dark red and dark blue as OK colors if I'm reading it right. Hog Farm Talk 16:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Wikimedia colour palette is concerned with branding for Wikimedia products, not accessibility in Wikipedia articles.
      • An alternative, which is already partly in place, is to use non-colour-based differentiation - eg have Confederate lines all be dashed and Union lines all solid. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hopefully graphics lab can come through. As to the dashed/solid lines, the map is currently using dashed lines to indicate retreats and the solid lines to show offensive movements. Creating a new map is beyond me, and I don't know that there's a great alternative map at this point, so I guess let's see what happens with the graphics lab. Hog Farm Talk 01:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Popping in from the graphics lab! Two things: you don't actually seem to say anywhere what the patterns mean and the confederates seem to have spent almost the whole time retreating because the only solid red arrow I can find is Walker, top left. Assuming I'm correctly interpreting your request, it’ll take 5 minutes to fix once you decide what you want it changed to. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 15:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Argenti Aertheri: - the Confederates did very little offensive action, so yes, there are few solid lines for the CSA. The dashed lines for CSA may well be better than trying to fix colors, so I'm okay with going that route. One further request though - out of deference to the original file creator, who kindly donated this file to Wikipedia, could the changed file be created as a separate file, rather than overwritten? Hog Farm Talk 00:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            Ok, I’ll play with it and see if I can’t find a way to distinguish union advances, confederate retreats and confederate advances. If I’m going to be uploading it as a whole new file though do you mind if I spend a couple days optimizing some things? For example the rivers are currently a total of almost 1,500 tiny lines, making it a royal pain to select anything else. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 07:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            @Hog Farm: How’s this look as a rough draft? ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 04:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Argenti Aertheri: - certainly looks better with the letter overlap from the first draft fixed and I think the image is good so long as Nikkimaria thinks the MOS:COLOR issues are resolved. Hog Farm Talk 03:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm just looking at the file in B&W and struggling to understand what is meant to mean what, unfortunately. But I recognize that this is a challenging issue for complex maps so am not going to oppose over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've switched over to the new image and have indicated that the dashed lines represent CSA. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

Nice to see you back here. Source review in progress, please ping in a few days if I forget about it. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, a little nitpick here: the battlefields.org source does not say that Vicksburg was the "linchpin between the two halves of the Confederacy". Rather it says that this was the opinion of Lincoln and Davis. The source is a bit more narrative and less encyclopedic so perhaps there is something else that could be cited for this information? (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hog Farm: I'm having trouble believing that both "Raymond, Mississippi" and "Battle and Siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi" are both on pp. 164-167 of the Civil War Battlefield Guide. Please re-check. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - that's what I get for copying the citation syntax for each long citation for the book chapters. Raymond was right, but the long citation for Vicksburg was that of Raymond, and Champion Hill's was that for Vicksburg. The short citations inline were correct though. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The Battle of Grand Gulf was fought ..." Is the upper case B the consensus of the HQ RSs?
    • I'm not sure - the sort of sources I've consulted for this don't really use the specific "battle of grand gulf" phrasing all that much. I reckon it's a proper name though.
Very few battles are considered by HQ RSs to be proper names, although if there is a lack of references I won't push it.
  • "... during the American Civil War. During ..." Synonym time?
    • This issue has been rephrased out of existence
  • "During Major General Ulysses S. Grant's Vicksburg campaign, Union Army forces had failed". Reading this carefully, I note that I am not told either which side Grant commanded, nor the name of the force opposing him.
    • Should be resolved how
  • "Grant decided move his army south, cross the Mississippi River, and then advance on Vicksburg." This presupposes that a reader knows where Grant's army was relative to Vicksburg to begin with.
    • Have rephrased this a bit
  • I am a little unsure which parts of the lead describe the "Battle of Grand Gulf". Clearly some of the information is outwith its scope, but just which bits are considered part of the battle?
    • Have tried to clarify this
  • Perhaps state that there were two fortifications at the first mention of Confederate fortifications rather than the second.
    • Done
  • Why are neither of the units involved in the battle named in the lead?
    • Well, Bowen's people didn't really have an official unit name - Confederate brigades and divisions rarely had permanent names. Have named the two forts though. Have also added in the name of Porter's fleet
Bowen's force - that's what I thought, but they are named in the infobox.
I've made it clearer in the body when Bowen's brigade was upped to a division and have identified the Confederate force in the lead as a division. I can change the infobox to stated "one division" instead of "Bowen's division" if you think that better
  • Why is the Confederate commander not named in the lead?
    • Have added a mention

Um, that's quite a bit for a shortish lead. I'll take a break to give you a chance to come back at me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - I'm evidently a bit out of practice after three months away from FAC. I've made improvements to the lead per the concerns above; is it looking any better? Hog Farm Talk 03:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!
  • "but the Confederates held". What does this mean? And does it refer to Fort Wade, Fort Cobun or both?
    • Rephrased
  • In other respects the revised lead looks good.
  • "a move that was ultimately unsuccessful." Optional: delete "ultimately".
    • Done
  • "an amphibious assault across the river against Vicksburg." Optional: 'an amphibious assault across the river directly against Vicksburg'?
    • Done
  • The last paragraph of "Prelude" is very long.
    • Split
  • "no suitable crossing point north of Grand Gulf could be discovered". Should "north" be 'south'?
    • Actually not, Miller says Grant sent James H. Wilson north of Grand Gulf to look for one. Have rephrased this section
  • "Grant suggested another feint: this one to be made by Sherman up the Yazoo River." What was the outcome of this?
    • this is the operation described in the next two sentences - does it need clarified a bit to make it clearer these are the same thing
Yes. This bit starts "Hoping to further distract the Confederates ..." and you then give the nuts and bolts, but don'r say whether or mot the Confederates were indeed distracted. (My understanding is that they weren't, but what do I know?)
  • "seven Union Navy vessels led by Porter moved down the river". Down the river - from where?
    • Have added
  • "of which about 10,000 were on transports." 'of whom'?
    • Done
  • "The men on the transports, which had pulled away from the landing and were sheltered behind a peninsula, were intended to cross the river and occupy Grand Gulf once the Confederate batteries were subdued. USS Pittsburgh was in the lead, followed by USS Louisville, USS Carondelet, and USS Mound City." Are the ships named the transports mentioned in the previous sentence?
    • No, have rephrased some stuff
  • "repulsing a landing of the transports." Perhaps 'repulsing a landing from the transports'?
    • done
  • "Confederate fire had focused the heaviest on". I don't think that's grammatical. Perhaps 'The heaviest Confederate fire had focused on'?
    • I think it works in AmEng
Good grief! Ok.
  • "Grant's men swung inland towards the railroad supplying Vicksburg, but after the Battle of Raymond on May 12, Grant decided to swing east to". "swung ... swing"?
    • have split the sentence to avoid the issue
  • "divided the Confederacy along the Mississippi River, and along with the Union victory". Suggest deleting the second "along".
    • Done
  • "marked a turning point in the war". a turning point, or the turning point?
    • Definitely "a". There's no consensus to a single turning point, although the combination of Gettysburg on July 3 and Vicksburg on July 4 is generally considered to be the two big ones. Also cited sometimes are the fall of Atlanta, Stonewall's fatal pneumonia, and A. S. Johnston bleeding to death after being shot in the back of the knee by his own troops. Hog Farm Talk 03:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60,000+ casualties equates to one dead general. Ah well.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 03:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just my picky point about distraction left. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - Have added a sentence from Bearss related to this. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not enthusiastic about what seems to me a hand-wavey "particularly", but am not going to delay my support for another fine nomination over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

No spotcheck needed, will focus on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ballard 2004: Wouldn't the first "The" be lowercase, since it's not part of a title? The second the is lowercase too.
    • Upon a second look at the way this source is named in other sources, I'm thinking the comma should be a colon and have made that change, so the capitalization issue should be moot now.
  • In the various citations, what're the years in brackets? Quite honestly, this is just a question, as I've never seen this used before.
    • These are used when you are citing a reprint or other later edition of a work. For instance, the copyright info of my copy of Bearss 1991 indicates that while the edition I have was printed in 1991, it was originally published in 1986
  • The inclusion of states in locations is inconsistent; for example, Bearss 1991 and Weeks 2009 have the city and state, but Kennedy 1998 and Silverstone 2006 do not. Also, I advise against including two cities; there's some MoS guideline that says you should only include one city, but using it is always up for debate
    • Have made it consistent to where all now list the state as well. The Boston/New York issue has come up with this source before at FAC. Essentially, the copyright page of the book itself literally lists "Boston/New York" as the publishing location so it's impossible to narrow it down to one
  • All ISBNs should use version 13- this tool is helpful for conversion
    • I strongly disagree with doing this. I'm a very big stickler for correction pagination, and I've seen too many instances of the ISBN-13 referring to a different edition than the ISBN-10, with the two having different pagination. So I just use the ISBN listed on the physical copy of the book that I consulted. (Silverstone I consulted via Google books, so I that one may end up being a little different from the others in my approach, but all the rest I own physical copies of except the Wright report).
  • If ref 7 uses the "Last updated" date on the website as its date parameter, then 66 should do the same
    • Done. I don't think that website use to include a last updated date, but maybe I never noticed it.

Hog Farm, all done, very nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - I've hopefully fixed all of the formatting issues noted above with the exception of the weird Boston/New York things which I've explained above and then the ISBN issue which I'm uncomfortable with on pagination grounds. I can provide quotes for anything you would like spot-checked although I probably won't be able to respond to any request for that on August 24 (USA time). Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fair enough on the ISBNs, and didn't know about the original date thing- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Will review soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image caption in the infobox seems a bit unhelpful, just repeating the title of the article. Could it be more specific, with date and description of what it depicts?
    • Have specified a bit
Perhaps also add links to that caption? FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps also give a date in the caption for the other historical map?
    • @FunkMonk: - I've made some improvements to the image captions - do they look better now? Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "| image = File:Battle of Grand Gulf second position.jpg" in the infobox, I don't think the "File:" part is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • "Early in the American Civil War, the Union military leadership developed the Anaconda Plan, which was a strategy to defeat the Confederate States of America" In the first sentence of the article, link all these key terms?
    • Linked; I'm not sure why they weren't
  • Link Mississippi River at first mention in the article body?
    • Linked; I must have been really off my linking game
  • "on the same day as the Holly Springs Raid" Since you mention the day again, I wonder if the exact date should have been stated first time around?
    • Have added the date for this one
  • "An attempt to cut Williams's Canal across a meander of the river, bypassing Vicksburg, failed" Give date?
    • Done
  • " Bowen's troops and a number of slaves were working" Link Slavery during the American Civil War?
    • Done
  • "1st Confederate Battalion were position on a bluff" Positioned?
    • Oops, fixed
  • "while historian Donald L. Miller and Shea and Winschel states" State, plural?
    • Done
  • "The capture of Vicksburg divided the Confederacy along the Mississippi River, and with the Union victory at the Siege of Port Hudson, gave the Union control of the Mississippi River" Is the last "Mississippi" needed? Could just be "control of the river", to avoid repetition?
    • Done
  • "Union forces crossed the Mississippi River at Bruinsburg, Mississippi." Likewise, do we need the first "Mississippi"?
    • Done
  • "The site of the battle is preserved by Grand Gulf Military State Park. The park contains the land where forts Wade and Cobun were located, as well as an observation tower, a museum, and the remains of the old town of Grand Gulf." Worth showing images of any of these?
    • I've added a photograph of some of the earthwork remains; I'm probably going to be vaguely in the area in November and can hopefully stop by and get a better picture taken.
  • "Grant decided move his army" Missing "to"?
    • Added
  • The interesting term "beachhead" is only used in the intro, perhaps also use it in the article body?
    • I had used the similar "bridgehead" in the body; rephrased to use "beachhead"

@FunkMonk: - Thanks for the review! Replies above. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - looks good to me, and looking forward to a new photo! FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments[edit]

  • As the GA reviewer three years ago, let me say it's nice to have the opportunity to review it here.
  • You missed a comma after Memphis, Tennessee
    • It's always a struggle for me to remember to add those
  • suppress the Confederate forces suggest "guns"
    • Done
  • Provide a conversion for 8 inch to the nearest millimeter
    • Done
  • You're using cannon an awful lot, find some synonyms to add variety
    • Have rephrased some of the uses to "pieces", "guns", or "artillery" as appropriate
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Grand_Gulf/archive1&oldid=1175128610"