Article promoted by Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list[reply]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)
Fort Southerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What I believe to be a comprehensive article on a minor ACW fortification in southern Arkansas. Built by the Confederates, it was then strengthened by Union forces during the brief occupation of Camden, and later again by the Confederates. It's now a city park and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but there is some doubt as to if the named used on the historic register is historically accurate. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Kges1901
[edit]- It emplaced three cannons In the article you wrote that it could emplace that many cannons. Did Sterling Price ever have artillery actually manning the Camden defenses?
- Shea says that it "held only three artillery pieces" so I guess so. Have taken out the "could" language based on Shea
- Hundreds of soldier and slave labor were used to build the positions - This isn't grammatically correct as written
- Confederate artilleryman William Jeffrey Bull served in the Camden fortifications in 1865, and provides details as to the fate of the fort in his edited diary. This also provides the detail that soldiers at the time called it Fort Southland, which makes sense as to the name
- I'm a bit hesitant to use that - I'm not seeing a connection between Fort Southerland there and Redoubt E, and the modern sources note that the Fort Southerland name may have been Redoubt D so there's no guaranty that the diary and this article are referring to the same redoubt
- The city's defenses were not occupied at this time - Wasn't the reason for this that Price decided to defend Washington instead of Camden?
- Yes, added (and sourced to Castel's bio of PricE)
- The Union forces withdrew - the context that this was due to Steele's inability to supply his troops from the devastated region is missing
- Christ speculates that the post-Camden Expedition Confederate work on the defenses was a make-work project, which seems relevant
- I feel like some of the information in the description section might be better covered in the construction section, like the details about how it was defended by a ditch. The details on the modern park seem like they could be adequately summarized under the paragraph describing the NHL listing
- I've moved much of the information into the history section, to the extent that I'm now wondering if there's even a need for the separate description section
- Out of curiosity, is there a period map of the Camden defenses available? Kges1901 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The only one I've seen was made by Shea for his article, and would be copyrighted
@Kges1901: - preliminary responses above, sorry it took so long for me to get to this. Hog Farm Talk 23:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fort Southerland, also known as Redoubt E" --> "The Fort Southerland, also known as Redoubt E"?
- That doesn't really work in AmEng
- "Slave labor and hundreds of soldiers" What kind of slave labour was this?
- "It emplaced three cannon, although the" --> "It emplaced three cannons, although the"
That's anything I could find. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Pass
[edit]Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901 and Hog Farm:: Where is this nomination at? Have Kges1901's concerns been met? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hawkeye7: - I think they've been met, although I'm waiting on Kges to be able to get around to it. They've been busy IRL I believe and have only been editing sporadically since July. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 6 September 2022 (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.
