Talk:Battle of Richmond, Louisiana/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 23:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Prelim

• No duplicated links
• No images to check, suggest adding at least one. If there's nothing else Mower, Ellet, and Walker all have portraits
  • I've added a map showing the relative location of Richmond, Delhi, and Monroe
• No edit wars
• Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

• "Walker's Texas Division" should be split out into a link for the division and a full name/link/rank for Walker, as well as noting for us non-experts whether this was the Union or Confederacy!
  • I've done this, and have also gone ahead and sourced in the body the common nickname of Walker's Greyhounds, so that is used as well
• "early in June 1863" we're already in June 1863, so suggest "earlier in the month" or similar
  • Done
• "still viewed the presence of Walker's men at Richmond" suggests the lede has already explained that Walker is at Richmond, but apart from the name of the battle we're not informed when/why they're at Richmond after the two battles
  • Clarified
• Can we label Mower's brigade as anything in particular, e.g. infantry?
  • Done
• "the Union had 7,000 or 8,000 men" would be useful to mention Walker's strength as a comparison to this false figure
  • Done
• "his wagons" perhaps a more specific term?
  • Done
• Not something to change now, but are we considering "Louisiana" part of the acknowledged name of the battle or a disambiguation? If the latter might be good at some point to change it into brackets
  • The current format is consistent with stuff like Battle of Jackson, Mississippi, Battle of Glasgow, Missouri, etc. At a move discussion for Battle of Carthage, Missouri it was suggested that putting the name of the state when it's a more obscure location sharing the name with a more prominent place is best to avoid confusion.
• Were either of the Union brigadiers considered to be in overall command?
  • Neither Bearss, Lowe, Winter, or Hearn say. Ellet's command was a really strange one - IIRC at least at times it was independent of the army and the navy, and for awhile there was confusion over who actually had jurisdiction over it. There was also some sketchy nepotism stuff going on there, too. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Background

• The civil war itself isn't actually introduced as it is in the lede, jumping straight into Vicksburg
  • I've added a couple sentences
• Give Kirby Smith his rank
  • Done
• "commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department" suggest adding something like "...which covered Vicksburg" as I assume is the case to make it obvious why Kirby Smith in particular is given the orders
  • I've noted that the Trans-Mississippi Department was the land west of the Mississippi River
• As in the lede Walker is never actually introduced, his name/link is just lumped into the division's name
  • Resolved
• Any link/location for Young's Point?
  • Unfortunately not.
• "Walker's men remained at Richmond after the attacks" suggests you've told us they were there before, but you haven't really?
  • Rephrased
• Link brigades
  • Done
• Seems to be some confusion as to whether Walker is meant to be relieving Vicksburg or just taking pressure off it
  • Reworded in several places. I hope this helps the confusion - By that point, Smith's people had no way to raise the siege entirely

Battle and aftermath

• The brigade in "Mower's brigade" is capitalised in the lede but nowhere else?
  • Removed the capitalization, it's not a proper name
• Link pickets
  • Done
• "Walnut Bayou" what/where is this?
  • It's part of a string of bodies of water in the area. I think it's the body of water between the canal at Duckport and Roundaway Bayou at Richmond in File:Milliken's bend and Richmond.png (which I've swapped into the article instead of the vaguer map showing Delhi), but the sources aren't very helpful with sorting out the exact location. I ran into similar problems with Duckport Canal. Hog Farm _Talk 20:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• New map looks fine.

• "led the Union advance" can we vaguely date when this is all happening? Still the morning?
  • Not entirely clear
• "burning the town to the ground" still the same day?
  • Yes, I've added a sentence of timing the Union return to the aftermath that should make this a little clearer
• Are the 25 Confederates listed as captured in aftermath the same group captured by the cavalry at the end of battle?
  • Per Winters, apparently so. Reworked a little using that source
• "the Confederates"
  • Fixed. I seem to make this exact error frequently
• "withdrew back to their original positions" what do we mean by original positions? Duckport and Milliken's Bend?
  • Badly worded on my part, clarified this using Bears
• Might be best to add "Delhi, Louisiana", to avoid some far-fetched assumptions
  • Done
• Link cotton plantations
  • Done
• "Confederate troops captured a small Union camp" are these troops part of Walker's force or perhaps one of the other "thrusts"?
  • Clarified that these are other Confederate troops
• It might be good to end the article noting when the Vicksburg campaign as a whole came to an end
  • I think "Vicksburg surrendered on July 4" covers it; there's not much to say otherwise

References

• Ref. #7 is "pp. 105–105"
  • One of the uses should have been pp. 104-105; the other should have been p. 105. Fixed both
• References look good. AGF with print sources.
• "ISBN 0-89029-516-6. Note: ISBN printed in book is 0-89029-516-3." interesting note, what's this about?
  • The ISBN in my print copy is apparently invalid. The 516-6 is supposedly the correct one, but I wanted to include the one from my print copy as well just in case it did get truly assigned and invalid ISBN.

@Hog Farm: That's all from me, sorry for the wait! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - sorry for the delay on getting to this, but I think I've replied to or actioned everything above. Hog Farm _Talk 20:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Hog Farm: I've made one very minor correction but otherwise am happy with your edits. Passing this as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)