The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Big Black River Bridge[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Big Black River Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A brief, and rather lopside, battle during the Vicksburg campaign. The Confederate commander, Pemberton, was concerned about Loring's divison, which had been isolated from the rest of the army during the retreat from the Battle of Champion Hill the day before. To hold a bridgehead east of the Big Black River, Pemberton positioned Bowen's division, which had been mauled the day before, and then Vaughn's brigade of inexperienced conscripts from a region hostile to the Confederacy. McClernand's Union corps appears and deploys in front of the Confederate line. One Union brigade commander on the far right, Lawler, moves his troops into an old river meander, and then unleashes a 3-minute charge that routs Vaughn. The remainder of the Confederates fled to avoid being cut off, and roughly 1,750 Confederates and 18 cannon are captured. Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

Nice to see you around and submitting articles for review again!

A nice piece of work. Nothing major identified, just copy edits really. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above - everything should be addressed now. As is probably obvious, grammar/syntax/spelling is not my strong suit. Hog Farm Talk 05:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in good shape, and I have only minor comments:

Support My comments are now addressed. Sorry for the slow response here - I thought I'd responded last week. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JJE[edit]

Didn't notice anything particularly problematic (are books the only sources available?) but "Grant's 12-year old son Fred was wounded in the leg while following the pursuit of the routed Confederates" makes me kind of wonder what a child was doing in this war zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - Yes, books seem to be the only sources (I've checked JSTOR and Project MUSE for journal articles and didn't see anything useful), which is fairly common for coverage of the Vicksburg campaign - the best stuff is all in books. As to Fred - I've added a brief bit explaining that he followed his dad through the whole campaign. The 1860s certainly were a different time - John Clem was a non-commissioned officer at age 12. Charles Edwin King was mortally wounded at Antietam at age 13. The Confederates had an organized unit of high schoolers charge a battery at the Battle of New Market. Hog Farm Talk 20:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: For your infomation: Child soldiers in the American Civil War Pendright (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All okay Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - thanks for the review! I've addressed the various concerns. Hog Farm Talk 19:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good - passing - great work! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

@Hog Farm: I expect to start in a few days! Pendright (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I leave you with a passel of comments and look forward to your responses. Pendright (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Since the ACW is spelled out in the previous sentence could abbreviate it to 'war' here
Done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why - add just a bit of context?
I've added a bit - is this better? Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Yes - Pendright (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above change
Done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this version: During the retreat from Champion Hill, one division of Pemberton's army, commanded by Major General William W. Loring, was cutoff from Pemberton's main body.
Mostly done - I've been under the impression that "cutoff" is a noun, and "cut off" as two words is correct for when it is being used as a verb. I may be wrong though. Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Your impression is correct - my apology! Pendright (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes
done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
advanced his troops to an old meander on the river?
Well, the meander wasn't "on" the river anymore. It was formerly part of the river but was by then no longer part of the river. I'm not sure what the best phrasing for this is. Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>As a verb, my dictionary says, meander is
a river or road that follows a winding course.
<>As a noun, my dictionary says, meander is
a winding curve or bend of a river or road.
If either definition fits as it's now phrased, so be il. If not, rephrase it as you understand either definition. Pendright (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I see the issue now. Meander scar is a more accurate description of the geographic feature in question, so I've made changes in the article to refelct meander scar, not meander, which should resolve the issue
<>Great! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the above changes
  • Partially done, except for the last part - the cannons were where they were intended to be; it was the horses that were out of place
<>Okay Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number reported under "Aftertnath" is 1,751?
  • I've used this number in the lead now
Consider the above changes
Done

Background

Consider the above changes
Done
Consider: An attempt during June and July to cut-across Williams's Canal, a meander in the river, that bypassed Vicksburg failed.
I don't think I agree with this one. The proposed phrasing could suggest that the canal itself was a meander, which it wasn't
<>I stand corrected!Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Grant did not order a retreat until after the his supply lines were destroyed this might be a better way to phrase it?
  • I don't think I'm understanding what the needed change is here
<>My point is that readers are told he ordered a retreat before they knew why. If you are more comfortable with it as is, let it stand. Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-arranged things. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the date apply to both raids?
  • Rephrased a bit
Consider the above changes
Done
Consider the above changes
Done

Prelude'

attempted [?] to bombard
rephrased
McPherson's or McPherson?
I was missing a word here
<>Okay! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of context here would help?
I've added some context for this
Could "have been" easily made
Corrected
Is towards necessary?
Removed Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of this to readers
  • I've tried to rephrase this - essentially Pemberton was trying to attack something that didn't actually exist Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence above does not seem to transition well with the one below?
  • I've tried to ease the transition a bit - is it better now? Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the march difficult?
Bad roads and a washed-out bridge - I've added this Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Good! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

  • cutoff is one word
  • What crossing?
  • The river crossing, have clarified that in the article text Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • defense line, or defensive line?
  • Change had been to was
  • works seems more like a collective noun?
  • The defensive line of the previous sentence seems to be the works in this sentence, and the works is also used in some sentences that follow - in which case readers need some clarity of the term.
  • I've tried to rephrase some of the usages of "works" to make this a little clearer Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Great!Pendright (talk)
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the above changes
  • I'm unable to find how this sentence relaates to any other sentence, fact or idea?
  • I think it's helpful to describe the effects of the railroad on the terrain of the field of battle, but I'm okay with removing it if you feel strongly that it is irrelevant Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"an" abatis
Done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
insufficent -> sp?
Good catch - I wish there was a spell check feature in the wikitext window Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is cannon sigular?
Not sure, changed. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change enemy to the Union
Done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above chabge
I'm not sure that fits the tense structure of the rest of the sentence, although my grasp of grammar isn't always the best (thank you, Missouri public schools system) Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the comma after Edwards or add they after then
Comma removed Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "they" atter and
  • took up "a" position
is it "to" or "on'
"on"; corrected. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the comma after Carr
done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two cannons positioned themselves -> how can this be?
  • "and" with the
Instead of enfilade, how about the ordinary words of a dictionary: direct a volley of gunfire along the length of a target, or something similar?
I don't know. I think it's good to use technical terms when appropriate. I've added another link to enfilade here, as I think the duplicate link is excusable. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Let it stand, but Wikipedia tells us to be clear, concise, and reader friendly. Plain english should be used without jargon. Pendright (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes
Done, except for the into/onto; I think that part works better as is with the feature identified as a meander scar now. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • occupired -> sp
  • Consider the above changes, but since this sentence is over 50 words you might want to split it?
  • Done in a mostly equivalent form; I've also split the sentence Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • soliders -> sp
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes
Done, with some other changes as well Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes for these two sentences
Done

Aftermath and preservation

Comsider the above changes
I've gone with "after the battle" instead of putting in the date and year of the battle again and have made the other change Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the above changes
  • It's reported above at 1,750?
* The lead figure was a round number that has been replaced by the actual count. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes
Mostly done, although see my reply in the lead section about the distinction between the cannons themselves and the horse teams Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Mississippi, one of Vaughn's regiments, and Cockrell's brigade did not report losses, but [they were] are known to have suffered heavily in men captured.[79]

Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes
I'm not sure what the above changes are? Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What events?
Clarified Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A close reading of the content of the aftermath part of the above section suggests that much of it might not fall within the ordinary meaning of aftermath.
  • See Section headings and Article titles of the MOS - Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  • The new Oxford American Dictionary defines the meaning of aftermath as "the consequences or aftereffects of a significant unpleasant event, and it further defines aftereffects as "an effect that follows after the primary action of something.
What do you think?
Pendright - I'll see what @WP:MILHIST coordinators: have to say. I've used the "Aftermath" heading in a number of other GA/FA articles about battles before, so I'd like additional opinions as this change would affect a number of articles. Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm:: Unfortunately, there seems to be problems between what I said and your understanding of it. The issue I raise is not at all about the use of the Aftermath heading, it's about some of the content contained within the Aftermath part of the section that seems more relevant to the Battle section.
Oh, okay - I've moved the first paragraph about the casualties and battlefield cleanup out of the aftermath section - does this resolve the issue? Hog Farm Talk 14:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So chew on this for a bit and then you decide whether or not any changes seem necessary.Pendright (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: @Nick-D: @Donner60: This aftermath thing seems to have gotten out of hand, so let's bring some perspective to it by reviewing the facts. Initially, I stated that - A close reading of the content of the Aftermath part of the above section suggests that much of it might not fall within the ordinary meaning of aftermath. I followed up by asking - What do you think? Your response to this was - "I'll see what @WP:MILHIST coordinators have to say. They had plenty to say, however, it seemed as though they were responding to something other than the question I put to you. In our most recent exchange, I stated - Chew on this for a bit [the Aftermath content] and then you decide whether any changes seem necessary. To which you replied - Oh, okay - I've moved the first paragraph about the casualties and battlefield cleanup out of the aftermath section - does this resolve the issue? There was no issue to resolve - my comment merely asked you to decide whether changes to the content were necessary. You opted for change, so consider the matter closed. Pendright (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of the suggested heading names in articles on battles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Battles, and is widely used. It seems to be in line with the Oxford dictionary definition noted above. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nick-D. It is in the manual of style, provides context and almost all of the events have further developments in a war or at its end. I am not going to go back and look but it would be safe to assume that all 99 military history articles that I have written would need to be changed, and the end would usually be left dangling with the question, so where do I look to see what happened next if the dictionary definition were to be strictly and narrowly interpreted and used to cut off these sections. The manual of style, along with common and accepted practice for military history articles, provide a sufficient basis for continuing to use these sections in military history articles. Donner60 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: This is it for mow - Pendright (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I move to support - Pendright (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More