Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Plum Point Bend/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Plum Point Bend[edit]

Battle of Plum Point Bend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 18 June 2024, 23:52 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few general fleet actions of the American Civil War. Military technology was greatly changing at the time of the Civil War, and this battle is perhaps an example. The Union was using early forms of the (then-)modern ironclads, while the Confederates had brought back the ancient idea of the naval ram with their cottonclads. The Confederate cottonclads defending Fort Pillow (upriver from Memphis) surprise the Union fleet and sink a couple ironclads, but the battle is in the end largely meaningless as both sunken vessels are repaired and the Confederates were forced to abandon Fort Pillow due to the fall of Corinth, Mississippi. Hog Farm Talk 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC

Image review; pass by comment[edit]

  • I'm very new to image reviewing so take everything with a grain of salt.
  • Defending the Arteries of Rebellion: Confederate Naval Operations in the Mississippi River Valley, 1861-1865 needs ndash for year range. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Therapyisgood: - I have improved the documentation for the NavalBattleOfFortPillow image and have resolved the dash issue

Matarisvan[edit]

Hi Hog Farm, some comments:

  • Add a space between "c." and "On dozen"?
    • Done
  • Fix the double linking to Missouri State Guard?
    • Done
  • Link to superstructure?
    • Done
  • "The battle was one of the very few fleet actions, even rarer Confederate offensive and some historians considered it the first fleet action in the war. As a result of the battle, the Union navy ships were strengthened at the waterline": Shouldn't these facts be included in the lead, which can thereby be expanded to 4 paragraphs? They seem significant to me.
    • I've added a bit to the lead. I think that a four-paragraph lead would be too long for this article; it's only 15 kb of readable prose including the lead.

That is all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Matarisvan: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 01:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to support. Just one minor comment I forgot to add earlier: do we have any photos of what the site looks like now? If yes, consider adding? Matarisvan (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I don't think there's any freely licensed images available of the site. Hog Farm Talk 12:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Are the publication locations needed? Most publishers have the location name in their names (University of North Carolina Press, University Press of Kentucky, etc)
    • I personally prefer to include that information in the citation style I generally use.
  • Can links be added to some of these books? Perhaps from internet archive or google books. Just makes verifiability easier for the reader
    • I don't like linking to Gbooks as I've found the source previews available there to often be so limited as to not be useful. I've linked Calore, Fowler, and McPherson on Internet Archive. I did not link to the Internet Archive copy of Bearss as I think there's significant differences in parts of the recovery and restoration material between the 1966 edition on there and the 1980 edition I used a print copy of.

Spotcheck below, choosing randomly (AGF for sources I can't find online):

  • McPherson 2012: uses 5, 29 good
  • Calore 2002: uses 2, 3, 4, 8, 63, 66, 69 are good
    • I'm unsure about ref 68: from what I can see there's no mention of the General Earl Van Dorn nor is the First Battle of Memphis named on that page
      • The loss of all ships except for General Earl Van Dorn is supported by the description of the loss of the various other vessels and then the statement "Only the Van Dorn escaped, fleeing to join two other Confederate gunboats at Liverpool Landing on the Yazoo River". (General Earl Van Dorn and Van Dorn are variant names for the same ship. As to the exact name "First Battle of Memphis", yes, Calore never uses this exact phrasing but I don't think it's original research to be able to link and name a battle where the source text is obviously referring to that engagement. If it helps, I can include p. 143 in the citation range where it says the fighting occurred at Memphis.
  • Smith 2010: uses 42, 64 good
    • I am likely missing something, but could you provide the quote that backs ref 61?
      • "the captains of the Federal flotilla also learned, if they did not already know, that their vessels required additional waterline protection. Capt. Davis immediately ordered that each ironclad be strengthened with additional wood and iron protection".

That makes up a good bit of the refs, and I can't find most other sources in their entirety online anyway. Just some small fixed needed Hog Farm- otherwise, lovely work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - thanks for the source review! I always appreciate seeing source reviewers doing spotchecks. McCaul and Tomblin are available through Project MUSE on the Wikipedia Library, and I have print copies of all the other book sources if you would like me to provide quotations for further spot-checking. Hog Farm Talk 22:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replies above are good- I'll look into Tomblin just for extra fun, but I trust the rest are good:
  • Tomblin: uses 13, 23, 33, 48, 51, 62 are good
    • Ref 37: could you give the quote? Again my eyes are likely deceiving me
      • @MyCatIsAChonk: - "Stembel, fearing the rebels would board his boat, ordered his men on deck with cutlasses, carbines, and hand grenades" Hog Farm Talk 01:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, all done here. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pass the source review then! Also, I need a source review at a nom of my own- would appreciate any comments if you get time! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Adding placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have only made trivial edits re prose. No grammatical issues.
  • Its not said in the lead that this was an American Civil War battle, nor does the lead give an indication as to its strategic importance in that war.
    • I've expended the lead a bit
  • For the layman, in the first instances (lead and body) make the visible pipe Ironclad warship rather than Ironclad
    • Done
  • Similar for "drafts" as in The Union ironclads had lighter drafts...laymen won't know, and a brief explainer in parenthesis would help...same with cottonclad rams
  • A few Union ships ran past the Island No. 10 defenses on the nights of April 4/5 and April 6/7, what is the 'Island No. 10?
    • Island No. 10 is stated to be a Confederate stronghold in the previous paragraph - is something else needed? There's not really much to say about Island No. 10 other than that it was a Confederate stronghold on the Mississippi River
  • Fort Pillow, which was 50 miles (80 km) north of Memphis, Tennessee, on the river - this a reoccurring minor 'is/was' tense issue...surely it is still 50 miles (80 km) north of Memphis?
    • I guess so. The river has changed course somewhat but its still probably fairly similar. Have switched to "is"
  • Redundancy: Union naval ships
    • Resolved
  • Enjoying reading, brutal stuff, more shortly. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Plum_Point_Bend/archive1&oldid=1229465817"