Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Lake Providence/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2024 [1].

Battle of Lake Providence

edit
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a long-term goal to get all of the articles related to the Vicksburg campaign to featured article status, in the manner of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Guadalcanal Campaign. Hopefully this will become the fourth FA of the direct project, after Battle of Grand Gulf, Battle of Raymond, and Battle of Helena, with Grant's Canal and Duckport Canal as supporting FAs. This isn't the meatiest article of the group, but I believe it is as comprehensive as can be. This winter, when I have more time on my hands, I hope to tackle some of the bigger ones. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from CMD

edit

Thanks for the read. The comments below are part clarificatory questions, rather than being a point by point list of needed actions.

  • Is there a pattern behind the name abbreviations of Hugh T. Reid, Paul O. Hébert, and E. Kirby Smith? Just convention among historians?
  • "Bartlett's force crossed Bayou Macon two days late" does not come with context as to what the expected time was. Coordination with the other prongs? Same in the body.
    • This is addressed in the body - "Major General John George Walker's troops reached Richmond on June 6, and Taylor planned a three-pronged strike for the next day: Confederate troops were to attack Milliken's Bend, Young's Point, and Lake Providence". I've added to the lead a statement that the attacks were scheduled to take place on June 7. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Confederate were forced to halt" in the lead doesn't seem to align with "Bartlett halted his cavalry at the bridge in order to allow the infantry to catch up" in the body, with the latter implying it was a choice rather than something forced.
  • Without going into a huge amount of detail, could Background provide a bit more context as to the situation in Louisiana at this time? The Union forces are described as attacking Vicksburg from Louisiana, which is to the west, and Confederate forces also come from the west, including apparently taking over Richmond.
  • What sort of place is "Caledonia"? The article seems to append ", STATE" to towns and cities, which made me curious what Caledonia was, and I was unable to find it in a quick search (outside of this unhelpful mention in civil war coverage).
    • After quite a bit of searching, I turned up this which calls it a "post-hamlet" as of 1902, but there's no way of knowing if this was a post-hamlet in 1863. The only detail I can find about Caledonia in the various sources related to this battle are references that it had a brick kiln and "Negro quarters". I've delinked it, as there's essentially no chance that an article on this place could be developed. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map in "Battle" is not too helpful, but perhaps better than nothing. The caption could use some expansion, "Walker's operations in support of Vicksburg" makes me assume it would show Milliken's Bend and Young's Point, which are described as the three operational prongs, but instead it shows Richmond (and Vicksburg of course).
  • What was the "Union outpost at Bunch's Bend", just a few troops smaller than a picket?
    • Winters has "Bartlett crossed Bayou Macon and moved over to Bunch's Bend on the Mississippi, capturing the Federal outpost at that point". Bearss does not mention this, nor does Reid or the NPS source. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Confederates reached the wrecked bridge", does this mean the infantry, given Bartlett was already there?
  • Would it be possible to explicitly mention the shooting engagement was across the Bayou Tensas?

Best, CMD (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, on a fresh reread, I think the article meets the FACR. It certainly more comprehensive than Grabau 2000. Best, CMD (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

edit
  • Link Milliken's Bend, Louisiana in intro and article body?
  • "Grant still kept minor supply points at there, Young's Point, and Lake Providence in Louisiana" The placement of "at" seems a bit off, perhaps before Young's Point would be better?
    • This was a suggestion by Zawed in their review. The "there" here is referring to Milliken's Bend. I don't know that there's a way to get around the awkward phrasing here without the frequent use of Milliken's Bend in this section. Hog Farm Talk 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Zawed

edit

Background

Battle

That's about it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good so have added my support. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

edit

Pulling up a chair...

Just for myself, I would think that if a reader has no clue as to where New Orleans is, adding "Louisiana" is (highly) unlikely to help them, so you should feel free to skip it. Others may disagree. @Sammi Brie: for info. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly comma fixes and one or two copy flow items. Ping when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: - Thanks for your review! I'm not very good with comma usage - I blame the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education somewhat. Hog Farm Talk 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

edit

Will leave comments. 750h+ 10:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Feel free to refuse the suggestions with justification.[reply]

lead
background
battle
aftermath
  • the field by a different ==> "the field in a different"
    • I prefer this as it is. At least in my mind, "by a different way" would generally be referring to a different route back, while "in a different way" could more naturally refer to getting back by a different method. Hog Farm Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all i got. fine work. 750h+ 11:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: - Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 21:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. 750h+ 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Shelby Foote seems to be a somewhat questionable source; was this accounted for when the article was written? John D. Winters raises similar doubts but to a lesser degree. "The Civil War Battlefield Guide" is being cited in two different formats. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - as to the Battlefield Guide matter, are you talking about Bearss 1998 and Winschel 1998 vs Kennedy 1998, this is due to a peculiarity of this work. The more important battles receive longer writeups from established and recognized historians like Bearss and Winschel, while the smaller battles have no byline and I guess were written by Kennedy? The smaller ones sometimes are pretty similar to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission battle summaries. I agree that Foote should probably go; his work is still respected as probably the single best piece of pure writing about the war, but is non-scholarly and is getting dated. I'm aware from my books right now, but once I get back I'll find replacements for the two citations to Foote. I will defend the usage of Winters, though. Winters is very heavily cited, even and is still being cited in post-2019 works. The main factual problem that I'm aware of is that his estimate of free blacks that served in the Confederacy is rejected by modern scholarship, but that error does not have any bearing on the topic at hand. Winters' views on certain subjects are not politically correct, but I've intentionally avoided using Winters for anything directly involving the USCT. As much as Winters is cited in the late 20th and 21st century literature on the war in Louisiana, I'm worried that it would be a WP:FACR #1c issue to not use Winters. Hog Farm Talk 02:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think, but am not positive, that INTEXT attribution should be used or perhaps additional sources to corroborate Winters' claims if they are both questionable and yet necessary for completeness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of anyone who has questioned Winters' combat descriptions. I think this is more of a circumstance where Winters is only FA-usable for certain classes of statements, and the material Winters is cited for falls into those classifications. Hog Farm Talk 03:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus - both citations to Shelby Foote have been replaced - one by a citation to Miller, and another to a book written by Timothy B. Smith (one of the leading experts on the campaign) and published by the University of Kansas. Hog Farm Talk 22:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Hog Farm, my comments:

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: - Thanks for the review! My replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 28 September 2024 (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_Lake_Providence/archive1&oldid=1249068312"