Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Big Black River Bridge

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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!

  • Ref #57 should have a "p" rather than "pp".
    • Fixed
  • Ref #64 should have a "pp" rather than "p".
    • Fixed
  • Ref #83 should have a "pp" rather than "p".
    • Fixed
  • Consider archiving online sources.
    • Done
  • "..important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi was still.." While I know you think MOS:GEOCOMMA is a "load of crock", it remains part of the MOS :P
    • Added
  • "A Union attack on December 29, was defeated decisively.."}} No need for that comma.
    • Removed; I find myself guessing a lot as to if a comma is needed or not
  • Conversely, I think "On April 29, the Union Navy's Mississippi Squadron commanded by David Dixon Porter attempted to bombard.." would benefit from commas around "commanded by David Dixon Porter".
    • commas added
  • "..on May 14, with the Union taking the city.." Consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Repheased
  • "..to prevent Loring from being cut off of from the main.."}} To many words. Remove the of?
    • Removed "of"
  • Wl "enfilade" to Enfilade and defilade
    • Done
  • "This position was manned by.." This sentence feels weird for two reasons; first starting a paragraph like this makes it feel like a run-on from the previous paragraph, so maybe the paragraph structure needs adjusting. Secondly, the final sentence of the previous paragraph also started "This position.."
    • Rephrased
  • "..considered this unit to be his best troops.." Maybe switch "to be" to "to contain" or "to comprise".
    • This has been rephrased already by Nick-D to remove "troops" - is it better now
  • "Vaughn's men and the 4th Mississippi were position in an area.." Should be "positioned".
    • Fixed
  • "..with Benton's men taking up.." Again, consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Rephrased
  • "One of Green's regiments, the 1st Missouri Cavalry Regiment (dismounted) had remained.."}} Needs a comma after "(dismounted)".
    • Added
  • "Lindsey advanced his brigade ahead along the railroad.." "ahead" feels redundant to "advanced" (particularly as it goes on to say "placing his men ahead of the rest of the Union line."
    • Removed "ahead"
  • "..and had three regiments |}the.." Stray code, should it be an endash to match the one later?
    • Fixed; that's what happens when you type {{end}} instead of {{snd}}
  • Wikilink "swale"; I had no idea what it meant.
    • I've rephrased to avoid the word - I wasn't using it as a technical term and instead in a sense of a generic depression in the ground. The link for it uses it as more of a technical term, so I don't really want to link it. I guess maybe it's an Americanism?
  • "This advance was accomplished without significant numbers of casualties." You could probably get rid of "numbers of" if you wanted.
    • Done
  • "..with men either running away or surrendering." Again, consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Done
  • "..which has been positioned.." Should be "had", not "has".
    • Fixed
  • Switched back up to the lead: "After defeating Confederate forces in several battles intermediate battles.." Too many words.
    • Removed a stray word

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, nice work, I'm happy with the changes made. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

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

  • "Bowen's men had been roughly handled at Champion Hill" - I'd suggest using more specific language here
    • I've clarified this
  • "Pemberton decided that Johnston's orders were not compatible with previous directives that Pemberton had received" - I'd suggest replacing the second 'Pemberton' with 'he' or similar. More broadly, 'Pemberton' probably appears too many times in this para.
    • I've edited out three of the uses of Pemberton in this paragraph
  • "from a region disloyal to the Confederacy" - perhaps say where
    • Clarified - East Tennessee
  • "Two cannons positioned themselves " - I'd suggest tweaking this to note that the guns 'were positioned'
  • "Union casualties were 279 men" - was this the total killed, wounded and prisoners?
    • Yes, I have noted this
  • The article notes the poor state of the Confederate force, and it would be helpful to note somewhere that the Union force was of a much higher quality to help explain the very lopsided result of this battle. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: - I haven't seen much in the literature discussing the state of the Union forces at Big Black River bridge (and none of the sources seem to know at all what Union numerical strength was, as none of the sources I've used and a few others I didn't provide a figure). I've clarified this a bit - Bowen's men were Pemberton's elite troops, but were badly exhausted. The ensuing rout seems to be simply due to the attack striking Vaughn's men, who really shouldn't have been put in a key rear guard situation anyway. Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Further reading uses a different style from Sources
    • Switched over to match
  • "Campbell, CA" Can we write the name of the state in full? American state abbreviations can be very confusing.
    • I've actually removed this one; a review of the table of contents suggests that none of the essays in this work deal directly with this battle
  • Link Jay Luvaas
    • Done
  • Sources are of good quality.
  • Spot checks not done.

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

  • During the American Civil War, the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was a key point on the Mississippi River.
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]
  • On April 30, 1863, a Union army commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant began crossing onto the east side of the Mississippi River.
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]
  • After [engaging and] defeating Confederate forces in several intermediate battles, Grant's army defeated Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton's Confederates at the decisive Battle of Champion Hill on May 16.
Consider the above change
Done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One division of Pemberton's army, commanded by Major General William W. Loring, had become cut off from Pemberton's main body during the retreat from Champion Hill.
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]
  • Pemberton did not know of the location of Loring's division, and [he] held a bridg[e]head on the east side of the Big Black River on the morning of May 17 to cover Loring's anticipated withdrawal across the river [on the morning of May 17].
Consider the above changes
done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Union Brigadier General Michael Kelly Lawler advanced his troops into an old meander in advance of the main Union line on the north end of the battlefield.
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]
  • Th[e]is withdrawal became chaotic and roughly 1,750 Confederate soldiers and 18 cannons were captured; with the cannons [were] captured due to an error that left their [because the teams of horses [horse-drawn cannons were erronouesly] positioned on the other side of the Big Black River.
  • 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
  • The surviving Confederate soldiers entered the fortifications at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and the siege of Vicksburg began the next day[;] , [it] end[ed] ing in [the] a Confederate surrender on July 4, [1863].
Consider the above changes
Done

Background

  • The strategically important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was still in Confederate hands, [and it served] serving as a strong defensive position that commanded the river and pr[e]vented the Union from separating the two halves of the Confederacy.[4]
Consider the above changes
Done
  • An attempt to cut Williams's Canal across a meander of the river in June and July, bypassing Vicksburg, failed.[7][8]
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]
  • Grant ordered a retreat after a supply depot and part of his supply line were destroyed during the Holly Springs Raid on December 20 and Forrest's West Tennessee Raid.
  • 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
  • [Then] A [a]fter diverting up the Yazoo River, Sherman's men began skirmishing with Confederate soldiers [who were] defending a line of hills above the Chickasaw Bayou.
Consider the above changes
Done
  • The advance along the west bank of the Mississippi began on March 29, and [it] was spearheaded by Major General John A. McClernand's [XIII Corps] troops , the XIII Corps.
Consider the above changes
Done

Prelude'

  • On April 29, the Union Navy's Mississippi Squadron, commanded by David Dixon Porter, attempted to bombard the Confederate defenses at Grand Gulf, Mississippi, but the resulting Battle of Grand Gulf failed to drive the Confederates away.
attempted [?] to bombard
rephrased
  • On the morning of May 12, McPherson's encountered Confederate troops near Raymond, Mississippi, bringing on the Battle of Raymond.
McPherson's or McPherson?
I was missing a word here
<>Okay! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A delaying action was fought on May 14.[26]
A bit of context here would help?
I've added some context for this
  • However, Johnston then marched his army away from the area in which a combination with Pemberton could easily be made.
Could "have been" easily made
Corrected
  • While Pemberton favored making a stand behind the Big Black River, he was convinced by some of his subordinate officers to make an offensive strike towards where Grant's supply line was believed to be.[29]
Is towards necessary?
Removed Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pemberton did not know that Grant had forgone utilizing a traditional line of communications during his movement inland.[30]
  • 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]
  • While the Confederates began a difficult march, Grant moved west in three columns towards Edwards.[31]
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

  • [In preparing for what was likely to transoire,] Pemberton had a portion of his army hold a [the] line east of the Big Black River , in order to prevent Loring from being cut off from the main Confederate body at the crossing.
  • 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]
  • In early May[37] the Confederate defense line had been laid out by Samuel H. Lockett.[38]
  • defense line, or defensive line?
  • Change had been to was
  • The works were made of cotton bales and dirt.
  • 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)
  • To the south lay a body of water named Gin Lake[,] ; the Confederate right flank was at the lake , with the line running north to the Big Black River, which made a bend east of the bridge across the Big Black River.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The [tracks] path of the railroad ran on a raised [roadbed] embankment.
  • 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]
  • The Confederate line was just west of the bayou, and trees were felled at the bayou to form abatis.
"an" abatis
Done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bowen commanded this 5,000-man force, which he deemed insufficent to strongly man the entire Confederate defensive works.[44]
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]
  • The Confederates had 18 cannon.[35]
Why is cannon sigular?
Not sure, changed. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaughn's men and the 4th Mississippi were positioned in an area north of the railroad where the enemy was least expected to attack, and Brigadier General Martin E. Green's brigade held the far left.[49]
Change enemy to the Union
Done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Confederates were forced to retreat, they would have [had] to cross open ground to the bridge and Dot, which would become bottlenecks in a retreat.
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]
  • Early on the morning of May 17, McClernand's troops advanced through Edwards, and then encountered the Confederate line.
Drop the comma after Edwards or add they after then
Comma removed Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Illinoisans encountered the Confederate lines,[51] and then took up position in the woods facing the north end of the Confederate line.
  • Add "they" atter and
  • took up "a" position
  • Benton's men took up a position in the fields east of the woods to on the Union right, and Brigadier General Michael Kelly Lawler's brigade formed south of the road.[52]
is it "to" or "on'
"on"; corrected. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This movement worried Carr, who shifted Lawler to Benton's right, while Brigadier General Peter J. Osterhaus's division deployed to the south.
Drop the comma after Carr
done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two cannons positioned themselves in a small clearing between the right of the woods and the Big Black River, with the 22nd Iowa Infantry Regiment in support.
  • Two cannons positioned themselves -> how can this be?
  • "and" with the
  • This position allowed Lawler to enfilade the Confederate position east of the bayou, as well as part of the primary defensive works.[60][61]
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]
  • The two regiments sent from Garrard's brigade to the right took the position previously occupired by the 22nd Iowa, who [and they] also moved in[on]to the meander.
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
  • Colonel William Kinsman, the commander of the 23rd Iowa, proposed to Lawler that his regiment should attack the Confederates[;] , [Kinsman] reasoning [was] that the Confederates would only have time to fire one volley before the Union soliders reached the defenses[,] and that the Confederates might not put up a stiff fight after the Champion Hill defeat.
  • 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
  • Lawler ordered a charge by his whole brigade[;] , with the 21st and 23rd Iowa in the front rank while the other two regiments charged behind.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 49th and 69th Indiana joined the attack[;] ,[67] while Lawler's men advanced at an angle across Green's front, [and] striking one of Vaughn's regiments, the 61st Tennessee Infantry Regiment.[68]
Consider the above changes
Done, with some other changes as well Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawler's men stopped to fire once they reached the abatis[;] , and the Tennesseans [were] routed, and the defenders either ran away or surrendered.[68]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He then formed a new line west of the river , [by] using the brigades of Brigadier Generals Stephen D. Lee and William E. Baldwin, who had arrived from Bovina, Mississippi, and part of Landis's Missouri Battery [that] , which had been positioned on the west bank before the battle.
  • Two other Confederate steamboats, Charm and Paul Jones, who had been located downstream from the bridge, were also burned.[74]
Consider the above changes for these two sentences
Done

Aftermath and preservation

  • Albert Lee's men spent the afternoon [add date and year] in low-intensity fighting across the river against [a] the Confederate force there, while Carr and Smith's men patrolled the field.[75]
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]
  • The Union reported the capture of 1,751 Confederates, as well as 18 cannon[s].[76]
  • 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]
  • The Confederate artillery losses [came about because] were due to the horse[-drawn] teams for the cannons [had been erroneously] being moved across the river before the battle for unclear reasons.
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]
  • Green reported having suffered 485 casualties, while two of Vaughn's regiments combined for 546 losses.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these casualties were in prisoners or [those] missing in action.
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]
  • Pemberton ordered several outlying positions withdrawn into the main lines and the Vicksburg defenses were also physically improved.
Consider the above changes
I'm not sure what the above changes are? Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was much outrage against Pemberton within the Confederate army due to the events of the past several days.[85]
What events?
Clarified Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loring had noticed light from fires in Union-occupied Edwards on the morning of May 17, and with the way blocked [he] , instead marched his men to Jackson , joining [where they joined] forces with Johnston on May 19.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sherman sent a cavalry regiment towards Snyder's Bluff, where the Confederate fortifications were found to have been abandoned; [while] Grant's army had regained a connection to the Union Navy elements [on] in the Yazoo River.[87]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Big_Black_River_Bridge&oldid=1214791831"