Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Lucas Bend/archive1

Battle of Lucas Bend

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel we could get a GA out of it if I have a helping hand or two. At the moment it just needs some expansion from a couple more sources (I am on the look out) and attention from someone with knowledge of the context - both historical context of the conflict in 1862 and geographic context to assist me in working out which river and town is which. I'm not from the area. I have already requested this on the talk page and at WT:MILHIST and an IP has kindly made some of the changes.

But is has potential, some sources are out there and the image reservoir is good for such a topic. Needs a copy edit and prose check.

Thanks, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Finetooth. Would you be able to comment on the geography in particular? A bit away from me. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start and contains interesting information and a nice image of Essex. I have only superficial knowledge of the intricacies of naval battles of the U.S. Civil War, but that gives me a kind of advantage in that most readers will not know much about these details either. I agree that the geography in the article needs to be made more clear. I've made a few specific suggestions below, and I think that a map showing the four rivers and places such as Lucas Bend, Cairo, and Columbus would be especially helpful. It would also be helpful if you could give directions (principally upriver and downriver) when describing the ship movements. It at first appears that the ships of both sides went up and down these rivers past each others' ships and shore batteries routinely without getting sunk. I think it would be helpful to the general reader if the article included background material about the limitations of shore batteries, naval defenses, mine fields, and so on. How could the two sides infiltrate one another's positions so easily? Fog? Extremely wide rivers? Islands? Decoys? Or is Lucas Bend, as I am beginning to suspect, on the Mississippi River? If so, please say this in the first sentence of the lead. That would prevent a lot of confusion and make the other rivers much less important to an understanding of the battle. It would also be helpful to include the distances between key places. You can use road atlases, Google maps, and topo maps to sort all of this out. I find the USGS topo maps published by TopoQuest to be especially handy since the topo maps often have river miles (RM) marked on them. For example, here is the Arlington, Kentucky, quadrant showing that Columbus, Kentucky, is at roughly RM 937 on the Mississippi River.

• Metric conversions: Generally, imperial measures are also given in metric per WP:MOSNUM#Which units to use. I'd be inclined to give metric numbers for at least some of the imperial measures such as "11-inch Dahlgren smooth bores". I like to use the {{convert}} template, though you can also do the calculations by hand and enter them; e.g., 11-inch (280 mm). Ironclad warship, a featured article, has examples of similar conversions. I see that some imperial measures have been converted to metric in this article, but others have not.

Done S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "The Battle of Lucas Bend took place on January 11, 1862, during the American Civil War." - Which river? Exactly where is Lucas Bend? The geography is confusing because you mention four rivers (Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, and Cumberland). The Cumberland and Tennessee are tributaries of the Ohio, and the Ohio is a tributary of the Mississippi.

I'm not sure but am trying to clarify - no one seems able to tell me!

• Columbus, Kentucky, appears to be on the Mississippi River south of Cairo. If that's so, then the Confederate ships fell back by going downriver on the Tennessee River (I think), then the Ohio River, then the Mississippi River. It's puzzling to me that the Union ships would have been coming downriver on the Tennessee River rather than going upriver from Cairo. Also, didn't the Union forces have shore batteries at Cairo that would have made it difficult for the Confederate ships to slip by?

Prelude

• "The complex river network provided routes for the Union gunboats into the heart of the Confederate's forces, however often the water levels – particularly in the Tennessee river – were not sufficient for gunboats to pass." - Would it be slightly better to move the word "often" to later in the sentence, perhaps to "often were not sufficient" or "were often not sufficient"?

Done S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Lastly, the General Polk was a former site-wheel river steamer... " - Should that be "side-wheel" rather than "site-wheel"? Should it perhaps be linked to Paddle steamer#Types of paddle steamer?

Done S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Constructed in 1852, the Confederacy purchased it in 1861." - Misplaced modifier. Since the Confederacy wasn't constructed in 1852, perhaps: "It was built in 1852, and the Confederacy bought it in 1861."

Done S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The Union vessels arrived in October 1861, venturing up the Cumberland river on October 30." - I would mention here that the Cumberland River is a tributary of the Ohio River.

Done S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Over several weeks between December and January, the Union ships had regularly sailed towards the Confederates in both the Mississippi, Ohio and Tennessee Rivers... " - "Both" means "two", but you name three. Maybe "Confederates on the Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee Rivers" would be better.

Done S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• "to be frustrated by blank-cartridge shots from the latter's cannons which prompted the Union commander to telegram his opposing number to issue a challenge" - I'm not quite sure what this means. Does this mean that the Confederates fired blanks in order to scare the Union forces with noise, that this tactic succeeded, and that the Union commander, annoyed, sent a telegram to the Confederate commander that essentially called him a coward? If that's what it means, could this be made more explicit? Could the telegram be quoted, for example? (I see that you add this later, but perhaps you should add it here.)

This is left over from a previous re-write, the challenge was in fact after the battle. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• "moved off from their landings" - Where were the landings? Which place on which river? Which way did they move off, upriver or down?

I can't tell, lack of source and geographic info S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• "and by Porter moving off-route to investigate to suspicious, but later revealed to be legitimate, boats moored on the riverside" - Two problems here. (1) Porter is identified in the lead but should be fully identified here too on first mention in the main text. (2) Delete the second "to" in "to investigate to suspicious", or should this be "two"?

Done S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sighting and engagement

• "Having sighted the Confederate vessels early in the morning of January 11 in the Tennessee tributary" - Which Tennessee tributary?

Mistake from previous revision S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Other

• The citations have one dead url, and the images lack alt text, according to the tools in the toolbox at the top of this page. WP:ALT has info about alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images.

Will fix S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Finetooth, I shall get into this tomorrow after work. And I'll get to another article on the PR backlog. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)