Battle of Big Black River Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As of 16 November 2024, 22:41 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
- Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 19:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After Raymond, Grand Gulf, and Lake Providence, here comes the next article in my Vicksburg series. Loring's division of Pemberton's Confederate army had been cut off after the disastrous Battle of Champion Hill. Pemberton, not knowing that Loring had found himself unable to rejoin Pemberton, held the crossing of the Big Black River with John Bowen's elite but decimated division and John Vaughn's brigade of inexperienced conscripts of dubious loyalty. Michael Lawler's men used a dried-up river channel to draw closer to the Confederate lines, and when Lawler's men charge, they hit the part of the line held by Vaughn's conscripts. Vaughn's men don't put up much of a fight, Bowen's troops on the flanks are forced to retreat to avoid being cut off from the river crossing, and it takes about three minutes for the entire Confederate line to collapse. Over 1,700 Confederates are captured, and the Confederate lose their artillery because the horse teams needed to move the guns were left on the wrong side of the river. Pemberton falls back into the Vicksburg campaign and surrenders about a month and a half later. Hog Farm Talk 19:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Hi Hog Farm, my comments:
- Why do we not have the casualties and losses in the infobox when we do have them in the lead and body? Also, are the strengths of the units before the battle known?
- I haven't seen a good estimate of Union strength at the battle in any of the sources I have consulted for this. I don't know how relevant it is to post casualties when there's no strengths listed in the infobox for proportionality comparisons and the Confederate loss records are so incomplete. Hog Farm Talk 13:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fewer than 300 Union soldiers became casualties": Sounds a little odd, consider rephrasing to "The Union army suffered less than 300 casualties"?
- "capture" of New Orleans, Louisiana: Link "capture" to "Capture of New Orleans"?
- Consider linking to field of fire?
- "Osterhaus replaced by": "Osterhaus was replaced by"?
- Might we consider adding the DOI and JSTOR ID for Smith 2024?
- It isn't yet for non-hard sciences articles but I think it should be. JSTOR IDs and DOIs allow direct access to the source if you're logged in through The Wikipedia Library. ISBNs on the other hand are relatively tougher to access. Matarisvan (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this book on JSTOR? I thought JSTOR was more for journal articles. I tried to bring up the Wikipedia Library JSTOR but my internet connection is not great at the moment and I couldn't get the library to load properly. My understanding is that doi's are used to point to online documents - would this be helpful for a print hardcopy book? Hog Farm Talk 01:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this is not a deal breaker at all. Adding my support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In Smith 2013, is the first editor Stephen Woodworth or Steven Woodworth? Google Books lists the latter. Guess this is a passing error.
That is all from my end. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Matarisvan: - Thanks for the review! I have one question above. Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A small protest on the use of men as an equivalent for troops, soldiers, forces etc -- we know that at least a small, but very much real, slice of the fighting forces were not covered by that label, before we even start to think about the ones we haven't been able to spot. Per MOS:GNL, gender-neutral language should be used when doing so does not sacrifice precision, and I think there are enough good synonyms here that the guideline should be applied. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've caught all of these. Hog Farm Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I made two small edits on GNL, but otherwise have no further concerns. As ever, the article is thorough, detailed, accessible and scholarly, and in my view meets the FA criteria soundly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few more:
- During the retreat from Champion Hill: I struggled to get my head around the movements here -- I think I was hampered by ignorance of the directions involved. Do I understand it right that Pemberton and co were retreating westwards, that the main body of the force had crossed the BBR, and that he told a small force to wait behind so that any Union advance wouldn't cut off the opportunity for Loring's division to do likewise?
- I've tried to clarify this a bit - Loring was cut off during the retreat from the Champion Hill field (trying to cross a creek, but not really detail for the lead of this article), and I've noted later in that Pemberton was falling back westwards when he held the BBR bridgehead. Is this better? Hog Farm Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- an old meander scar: is there such thing as a new meander scar? By their very nature, they have to have a certain antiquity.
- The collapse of this portion of the Confederate line forced the troops on either side to withdraw: possibly ambiguous, grammatically if not by common sense, as to whether we mean "the rest of the Confederate troops" or "both the Union and the Confederates".
- On May 18, the Union army crossed the Big Black River. The surviving Confederate soldiers entered the fortifications at Vicksburg: does this include Loring's troops?
- the Union military leadership developed the Anaconda Plan, which was a strategy to defeat the Confederate States of America.: I think we generally take as read that military planners seek to defeat their enemies: perhaps add "by blockading it" or something to clarify the anaconda-ness of this particular plan?
- a joint army-navy: MOS:DASH wants an endash in this and similar.
- An attempt to cut Williams's Canal: I wonder whether cut might be misread as "interdict" rather than "build"?
- In late November, about 40,000 Union infantry commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant began moving south towards Vicksburg from a starting point in Tennessee.: any idea roughly how far this was?
- and was spearheaded by Major General John A. McClernand's XIII Corps troops: troops seems superfluous, unless we mean that it wasn't all of them, in which case I think we need elements of Major General John A. McLernand's XIII Corps or similar.
- Any reason why the Vicksburg campaign map is left aligned? MOS:ACCESSIBILITY advises right, for a consistent left margin, unless there's a good reason to vary.
More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- the lead elements of Grant's army, McClernand's corps, crossed the river at Bruinsburg, Mississippi.: two comma-ed off phrases are a bit awkward. Suggest "McLernand's corps, which formed the lead element of Grant's army, crossed...", or else putting dashes around "McClernand's corps" instead of commas.
- Why doesn't David Dixon Porter get a rank -- almost everyone else seems to?
- McClernand advanced on the Union left with his corps, Sherman and the XV Corps in the center,: whose corps is this? Looks like McClernand's troops are in two places at once.
- Pemberton decided that Johnston's orders were not compatible with previous directives that he had received from the Confederate president.: any idea what those directives were (and, incidentally, should we name that president?)
- forgone utilizing is a tautology: simply forgone. What had Grant done instead?
- towards Edwards: suggest the town of Edwards; it reads like a person's name here.
- Let me look into this a bit further when I get back to my sources; I think it was more of a rail depot/station than anything else at the time. Our article suggests that it wasn't an incorporated town proper until 1871. Hog Farm Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To the south lay Gin Lake, the Confederate right flank was at the lake with the line running north to the Big Black River: first comma needs to be a colon or semicolon, or a full stop. Personally, I'd favour the first.
- I know they're comparatively junior, but should we name the commander of the 4th Mississippi Infantry Regiment, as we have for other formations deemed important enough to name-check?
- Even Bearss' magnificent trilogy, perhaps the most detailed work ever published on this campaign, only mentions the commander of the 4th Mississippi's name at BBR in an order of battle that lists all regimental commanders in the action, so I don't think this would be due detail. I've generally been mentioning the regimental commanders' names when the sources do. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- as Carter L. Stevenson's division: for consistency, would give his rank.
- Added, although it's a bit annoying as I've had to add an isolated page number from the beginning of the source to support that Stevenson was a Major General
- the East Tennessee region, which was loyal to the Union: would rephrase was loyal to the Union, which most naturally reads as "which had not seceded" rather than "in which most people supported the Union, despite it being part of the Confederacy"
- Is "heavily pro-Union" better? I'd had "disloyal to the Confederacy", but someone had objected to that phrasing at the A-Class review on the grounds that the Confederacy itself was disloyal. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but you might want to make absolutely that it was the population rather than the government of the region to which this applied. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Have clarified this further. Hog Farm Talk 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While they were fresh their loyalty to the Confederacy was uncertain: comma needed after fresh, and I would change while to although to remove ambiguity (were they more dependable when they were exhausted?).
- Bowen's division was the elite unit of Pemberton's army, but they were exhausted after hard fighting at Port Gibson and Champion Hill and had suffered nearly 1,000 casualties in the latter battle: I think we need a sense of how big this division was to begin with to put that number into context.
- held the southern portion of the Confederate line and the area where the Jackson Road crossed the line: crossed it?
- Lindsey advanced his brigade along the railroad 300 yards (270 m),: might be a BrE thing, but don't you normally give the distance before the direction: 100 miles to the north?
- This advance was accomplished without significant casualties: might consider adjusting significant to many or similar: do we mean "few people died" or "nobody important died"? As a frequent flier around here would ask: what did they signify?
- In the 1st Missouri Cavalry (dismounted): I would rewrite the bracketed word as a clause: "which was employed as dismounted infantry"? At the moment, it seems like (dismounted) is part of the name. If it is part of the name, shouldn't it be capitalised?
- Strange, but you're right to follow the sources. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 90 men and the unit's commander, Colonel Elijah Gates, were captured: my overarching point on "men" notwithstanding, here we've implied that Gates was a woman.
- Two other Confederate steamboats, Charm and Paul Jones, who had been located downstream from the bridge were also burned: I don't think we use who for ships, even if we're going for she.
- I think so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The 4th Mississippi, one of Vaughn's regiments, and Cockrell's brigade: could this be reworked: it's currently a bit unclear whether we're talking about two units or three.
- not report losses: does this mean that they reported that they had suffered none, or that they made no report as to their losses?
- Should Fred Grant be named as Frederick? We wouldn't talk about Abe Lincoln or Ike Eisenhower in a formal context.
- I think using "Fred" is appropriate per the sources. See Ballard, pp. 316-317 Fred Grant, the general's twelve-year-old son, strayed too near the river and received a slight wound in the leg. Fred insisted he "had been killed", but he recovered quickly enough his reassured father showed little concern. Smith 2024 p. 367 Fred's enthusiasm was quickly dampened when a Confederate sharpshooter hit him in the leg. Also, I've found and corrected some pretty blatant errors in Fred/Frederick's article as a result of this. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Grant launched significant attacks on May 19 and 22.: another significant where I think we need to distinguish big from important.
- I think it would be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider linking the West Point Atlas map further up as external media? It looks, to me at least, much clearer than the PD map we already have.
- I've actually added it as a map (I moved the burned-out bridge map down to the aftermath section to make room) and have removed the EL. The map was on Commons and is I believe PD. (heads up Nikkimaria that something has been added post image review). Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's my lot for now: mostly nit-picks, as ever, but I hope some of them are helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @UndercoverClassicist: - Thanks for a very detailed review! I've replied above; this led to me finding and correcting issues in the David Dixon Porter and Frederick Dent Grant articles. Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can do a source review here Eddie891 Talk Work 21:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources all seem high quality and reliable. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming there's nothing worth adding from the Further reading? I checked a newspaperarchive to see if there was anything super relevant about preservation of the battlefield but didn't find anything. Hoping to head to the library tomorrow just to confirm that there aren't any relevant books missing. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I own a copy of the Fullenkamp further reading source. Those battlefield guides are usually just primary source quotations and then some description about how what you have just read from the participants' writings relates to the stop at the battlefield that you are currently at. I will check tonight after work to make sure there isn't anything useful to add though. I've looked at Grant's Lieutenants (don't remember where; I don't have a copy) before and didn't think it looked useful - it's just biographies of various officers Grant interacted with. I'll try to verify that that isn't going to be useful either, though. Hog Farm Talk 20:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed Grant's Lieutenants as it doesn't have a whole lot to say about this battle based on Google Books preview. I've left the guide in for now, although it doesn't have anything worth adding to this article. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just spot-checked some of the citations to Woodworth, Ballard, Smith 2013, Shea and Winschel, and every citation lined up how it should. This makes me very happy :) Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, I've looked at Schultz The Most Glorious Fourth and Groom Vicksburg, 1863 (which, after skimming, are less academic than I had anticipated), and neither had anything really to offer, and I'm reasonably satisfied that this is a sufficiently comprehensive account. Source review - Pass Eddie891 Talk Work 14:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Crisco 1492
[edit]- 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. - Is it necessary to repeat "Confederate/s" in this sentence?
- The withdrawal became chaotic and 1,751 Confederate soldiers and 18 cannons were captured. The cannons were captured because their teams of horses were erroneously positioned on the other side of the Big Black River. - Suggestion: "The withdrawal became chaotic and 1,751 Confederate soldiers were captured, as were eighteen cannons, their teams of horses were erroneously positioned on the other side of the Big Black River."
- I'm not quite sure that the proposed phrasing is grammatical. Also, I think it's best to keep it clearer that the teams of horses had nothing to do with why the soliders were captured. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- entered the fortifications at Vicksburg - Vicksburg is already linked in the first paragraph
- The Union won the battle, but the fighting at Raymond led Grant to change his plans to swing over towards Jackson, Mississippi, to disperse a Confederate force gathering there. The Confederate commander at Jackson, General Joseph E. Johnston, decided to abandon Jackson. - Any way to avoid repeating Jackson?
- When planning this offensive, Pemberton did not know that Grant had forgone a traditional line of communications during his movement inland. - Did he not have a line of communications, or did he use a non-traditional approach?
- I've put together a footnote on this. This has been disputed in the scholarship for years, one of the older views being derived from Grant's claim in his memoirs that he "cut loose from my base". The footnote notes that this has been disputed in the scholarship and uses an explanation drawn from the most recent high quality work on this matter. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 5,000-man force - Given the above comments, going to highlight this one.
- strongly man - Same as above
- Early on the morning of May 17, McClernand's troops advanced through Edwards and then encountered the Confederate line. His advance was led by the division of Brigadier General Eugene Carr. Carr's lead brigade was led by Brigadier General William P. Benton; the 33rd Illinois Infantry Regiment led the way as skirmishers. - Three leds in two sentences
- two of Garrard's regiments, the 49th Indiana Infantry Regiment and 69th Indiana Infantry Regiment - Suggestion: two of Garrard's infantry regiments, the 49th Indiana and 69th Indiana
- three regiments – the 11th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment, the 21st Iowa Infantry Regiment, and the 23rd Iowa Infantry Regiment – - Any way to avoid repeating regiment four times in one sentence?
- Any reason for the two spaces after the periods? It's not consistent, which is why I ask.
- I was taught to use two spaces after a period in freshman keyboarding class, although I've mostly broken the habit the more years since high school. The mixed usage reflects a bit of that and bits of me adding in material in between existing sentences without re-adding the extra spaces. I don't think it affects anything, so I don't consider it to be worth messing with. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, very well done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492: - Thanks for the review! I've implemented everything above except for one of the phrasing suggestions, which I'm not sure about. Apologies for taking longer to reply to this than I would like. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "After a day of fighting, the Confederates were defeated, and Grand Gulf was abandoned on May 3": suggest "... and abandoned Grand Gulf on May 3". The active voice makes it unambiguous who is doing the abandoning.
- How about "After a day of fighting, the Confederates were defeated; they abandoned Grand Gulf on May 3"? I'm a bit worried that it the other could be misunderstood as stating that the day of fighting was on May 3. Hog Farm Talk 22:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "McClernand advanced on the Union left with his XII corps": the map in the "Prelude" section shows the XIII corps on the left.
- "the fighting at Raymond led Grant to change his plans to swing over towards Jackson, Mississippi": suggest rephrasing: I initially parsed this as saying his plan was to swing towards Jackson, but he changed his mind. Perhaps "the fighting at Raymond led Grant to change his plans; instead of X, he swung over towards Jackson, Mississippi", inserting whatever X was.
- "The Union took the city and then destroyed military facilities within it." I think you could cut "then".
- "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". Suggest "which made a bend east of the bridge across it".
That's all I can see to complain about. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: - Thanks for the review! I have replies above - I do have one query. Hog Farm Talk 22:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
