Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Grand Gulf

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Grand Gulf[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Grand Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of my 2020 GAs I just gave a thorough revamping too. The battle itself isn't much to write home about - a few ironclads shoot up a couple forts, the forts shoot back and beat up three of the ironclads pretty good. The context of the battle is one of the most important events in American military history: Grant's famed crossing of the Mississippi River. The original plan had been to cross at Grand Gulf, but the inability of the ironclads to take out the fortifications led Grant to cross at Bruinsburg instead. Hog Farm Talk 05:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias[edit]

Overall, a really nice article that was enjoyable to read. A few small niggles, nothing more:

  • "..between the Confederate defenders and the Union Navy ships the sloop-of-war USS Hartford and the schooner USS Albatross." I found this a little difficult to keep track of on the first read. Maybe split the sentence a little more, something like "..between the Confederate defenders and two Union Navy ships: the sloop-of-war USS Hartford and the schooner USS Albatross."
    • Have rephrased, I think I had meant to write "two Union navy ships" instead of "the Union Navy ships"
  • "..with the Union having.." Avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Done
  • "..which saw Union warships and transports loaded with infantry move up the Yazoo River on April 29, skirmish with Confederate forces the next two days." This is either missing a word, or should be "skirmishing".
    • It looks like Nick-D has fixed this
  • "The stronger was known as Fort Cobun, and the other bore the name Fort Wade." "bore the name" seems a bit laborious, and I think could just be cut: "The stronger was known as Fort Cobun, and the other as Fort Wade."
    • Done
  • "..a 40-foot (12 m)tall bluff.." Missing a space. I should have just sorted this myself, but...
    • Fixed
  • "..was located 0.75 miles (1.21 km) downriver.." Unless we know it is really this precise, drop the precision of the conversion to one decimal place.
    • Rounded off
  • "..and 0.25 miles (0.40 km) away from it.." Same here.
    • Rounded off
  • "..suggested that the army march further south, with the navy's ironclad warships to cover.." Add a comma after "warships".
    • This seems rather out of place to me, but I'm not very good with commas. pinging Gog the Mild as the great arbiter of comma usage. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, it depends on the meaning of the sentence. Is the army marching south to cover the movement of the transports, or are the navy's ironclad warships covering the movement of the transports? If the first, it needs the comma. If the latter, it would suggest making it slightly clearer, something like "..accompanied by the navy's ironclad warships to cover the movement of the transports." Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatically it looks fine to me and seems to convey the meaning you want it to. However, I agree with Harrias that "with" is a bit futsy. Their suggestion seems good. Possibly tweaked to end '... its transports' in order to tie the transports to the army? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The naval forces also had the advantage in size of cannon.." Is there any detail on this?
    • Clarified
  • "..while the other three focused on Fort Cobun." Maybe add "remained" before "focused"?
    • Done
  • "However, Fort Cobun fought on." Not keen on this very short sentence. Maybe blend it into the end of the subsequent sentence: "The four Union vessels that had silenced Fort Wade moved upriver to face the remaining Confederate fort, which fought on."
    • Rephrased the sentence out of existence; that's probably a relic of the worse-written 2020 version
  • "warhips" Typo.
    • Ugh. Fixed
  • "Port lost one man in the affair.." Should this be "Porter"?
    • Corrected
  • Out of interest, Fort Wade was presumably named after its commander, Colonel William F. Wade. Do we know whether Fort Cobun was commanded by a Colonel (or otherwise) Cobun?
    • I haven't seen any references to a Cobun being involved in the battle, and cannot figure out where the name is coming from. Bearss, Shea & Winschel, Ballard, Miller, and even Wright's archaeological report don't say anything, and general sourcing isn't bringing it up. Not even the source I usually turn to in sorting out obscure Mississippi basin place names has anything. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the top, a really good read, thanks. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: - I've rephrased the one outstanding issue (the comma one), so hopefully I've been able to resolved everything. Hog Farm Talk 00:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: really good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

The Vicksburg campaign is such an interesting and under-remembered part of the US Civil War, so it's great to see high quality articles on it. I have the following comments:

  • The first para of the lead doesn't really establish the significance of crossing the Mississippi
    • I've fleshed out the first paragraph of the lead a bit to better establish this
  • The sentence starting with 'Early in the American Civil War' would benefit from being split into two sentences
    • Done
  • "Grand Gulf, Mississippi, which was located along the Mississippi River" - I've suggest giving its location relative to Vicksburg
    • I've stated it was to the south of Vicksburg, can hunt in the sources for a distance in miles if desired.
  • "By the next morning, 24,000 Union soldiers had crossed the river without opposition in an amphibious operation that would not be exceeded in size in American military history until the Normandy landings" - this seems unlikely given the large size of the Operation Torch landings in 1942 Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: Miller p. 365 has It was the largest amphibious landing in American history until D-Day, June 6, 1944 (without an obviously-placed footnote for that specific claim) Kennedy p. 158 has the much weaker In one of the America's largest amphibious operations prior to World War II, the 24,000 men [...] Bearss p. 346 calls it the greatest amphibious operation in American history up to that time but doesn't make any claims about World War II. It looks like Housecarl merged the claim over from the Vicksburg campaign article, where it is apparently pulled from this NPS page with no byline. Given that the two most thorough-going historians I've checked on this - Ballard and Bearss - don't make such a claim. Gonna apply the Sagan standard here and remove the claim as I don't think a NPS piece with no footnotes or byline or an unfootnoted claim in Miller are enough to support that claim. Hog Farm Talk 02:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes all look good, and I'm pleased to support the nomination. Sorry about my slow response here. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • "File:Vicksburg Campaign April-July 1863.pdf". What is the source of the information shown in this image?
    • No clue where Hal Jespersen got his info from, but it correlates very well to a map in Miller, with the only differences being Miller's map doesn't show Walker's attack, the date for Milliken's Bend, give the crossing dates of the Mississippi River, and has Grand Gulf evacuated on May 2 instead of May 3. The latter points are sourced well enough in the article and I can find a map in Shea & Winschel or somewhere that covers the Milliken's Bend ancillary movements if you'd like. Thoughts? Hog Farm Talk 02:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding Miller as the main source with a note that Shea and Winschel are relied on for the Milliken's Bend stuff should do it.
@Gog the Mild: - turns out that Shea & Winschel don't have the map I thought they did have. Have checked 7 books and poked around online and can't find a good map of Walker's approach to Milliken's Bend. Because the file is a PDF, I can't just crop that part out. Would it be acceptable for me to provide a page range for a chunk of text describing Walker's general approach to Milliken's Bend? Hog Farm Talk 03:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - I have (belatedly) gotten around to adding this info to the file page. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cites need to be in full, just like any other citation. I have amended them for you, but you may wish to check them. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text?
    • Gog the Mild - Added for the infobox image, but I have no idea how to possibly describe either of those complex maps in an alt text-friendly way. Hog Farm Talk 02:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See what you think.
  • The first map creates a sandwich with the infobox.
    • Have moved images around, which resolves the issue, at least on my screen)
  • "File:Grand Gulf Battlefield Mississippi.jpg". Any further information on the source for this? "National Park Service" is a little broad for anyone wishing to verify it.
    • I have no clue. I cannot find the file anywhere, searching for elements of the file's text description (which read like they're pulled from the NPS document this thing came from) brings up nothing. I've removed the file - it's not super useful due to drastic changes in the river course, and without a real source (and the image appearing to have been made by overlaying a topographic map in Microsoft Paint), I don't think the pros outweight the cons with it. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • References and References (?) consistently formatted
  • While I'm not aware of any specific issues in Konstam's book, I did note some mistakes in another book on British battleships of WW2 that he wrote. So I don't think that he's highly reliable. I'd suggest that you find another source to replace him.
  • All the other sources appear to be highly RS--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sturmvogel 66: - I've fixed the duplicate header name and have removed Konstam outright. Konstam had been added several years ago to support that the Union ships were ironclads, but that's supported in other ways now, so Konstam was no longer necessary. Hog Farm Talk 02:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Place my chair here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An attempt to cut a canal across" MOS:EGG here.
    • Tweaked link
  • "the Chickasaw Bayou. A Union attack on December 29" --> "the Chickasaw Bayou. A Union attack on December 29,"
    • Done
  • "a skirmish occurred on March 19 between the Confederate" --> "a skirmish occurred on March 19, between the Confederate"
    • Done
  • "at Grand Gulf: two 8-inch pieces and three 32-pounder rifled cannon" No conversion for the inches? Also British plural cannon here?
  • "Francis Cockrell across the river on April 4 to counter" --> "Francis Cockrell across the river on April 4, to counter"
    • Done
  • "Yazoo River on April 29 and skirmish" --> "Yazoo River on April 29, and skirmish"
    • Done
  • "Two more cannon and the 1st Confederate Battalion were" British plural cannon.
    • Switched over
  • "A total of 81 cannon were carried by these vessels" Same as above.
    • Switched over
  • "the majority of the Confederate cannon were 30-pounders or smaller" Same as above.
    • Switched over
  • "The lead Union vessels opened fire at about 7:50, with Fort Cobun responding" Add am here?
    • Added
  • "On the morning of April 30, the Bruinsburg crossing began. McClernand's corps and a portion of Major General James B. McPherson's corps led the way. By the next morning, 24,000 Union soldiers had crossed the river without opposition.[51] More of McPherson's men crossed on May 1.[52] Late on April 29, expecting" Maybe make it chronocally?
    • Moved some stuff around
  • "The Siege of Vicksburg began on May 18 and ended" --> "The Siege of Vicksburg began on May 18, and ended"
    • Added

That's it for me. Cheerss. CPA-5 (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @CPA-5: - I've made all of the changes, expect the 8-inch conversion. That's come up before, and there's apparently some opposition to converting the number in that context because it is the proper name of the gun. Hog Farm Talk 01:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @CPA-5: Ready to support now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:09, 29 June 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Grand_Gulf&oldid=1162890512"