Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Raymond

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Raymond[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Raymond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A smaller battle that had a large effect on the Vicksburg campaign. A single Confederate brigade underestimated Union strength and attacked what turned out to be an entire Union corps. The inexperienced Union commander performed very cautiously, and the battle drug on for hours despite the numerical mismatch. Eventually, the Union advantage in numbers and artillery began to tell, and the Confederates were driven off. The action at Raymond led Grant to decide to move east to drive the Confederates from Jackson before turning back west towards Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 06:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe[edit]

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 06:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—pass I believe all the sources meet the minimum standard of reliability, although some of them I would query at FAC for the higher "high-quality RS" standard. No spot checks done. (t · c) buidhe 03:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: - Which ones would you have concerns about at FAC? Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they all look pretty good. If I was seeing something I don't remember what it was. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect to have to defend Grabau 2001 at a FAC, and it is cited in the majority of the post-2001 scholarly literature on this topic, so I would say that it is fine. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, the siege of Vicksburg has cn issues but is still rated a GA (since 2009)... (t · c) buidhe 23:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the siege article definitely needs work, although I wouldn't really be able to attempt it without access to Ballard
Prose review by Buidhe
  • "After unsuccessful attempts to capture the strategic Mississippi River city of Vicksburg, Major General Ulysses S. Grant of the Union Army led another attempt, beginning in late April 1863." "Grant began moving east, with the intention of later turning west and attacking Vicksburg" these are awkwardly worded, although I'm not sure how I would rephrase them.
    • I've taken a stab at rephrasing both of these
  • "As part of this movement, Major General James B. McPherson's 10,000 to 12,000-man XVII Corps moved towards Raymond." From the map I can see that McPherson's units were moving northeast, as part of Grant's larger movement, but I did not grasp that by reading (I thought this was a separate force)
    • I've tried to make it clearer the direction of the movement and that McPherson was part of Grant's command.
  • "Modern historians" Is this verifiable? Which ones should at least be specified in the body. Keep in mind WP:RS/AC
    • I've dropped the phrase from the body and name dropped three of the more prominent ones in the lead
  • "Prelude" I would find this easier to digest if subheadings were put in somewhere; possibly separating the first two paras from the last three
    • Split into subsections
  • "Attacking across the river would have risked heavy casualties, and pulling back to Memphis could be interpreted as a retreat, which would be politically disastrous, leaving Grant to choose the southward movement." A bit run-on
    • Split into two paragraphs
  • "Confederate blocking force" is blocking force a technical term, and if so is there somewhere it could be linked to?
    • It is not a technical term
  • Battle—This section would also benefit from subheadings
    • Split into three subsections

More later (t · c) buidhe 23:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "this report Gregg's belief that he was facing at most a brigade" missing word?
    • Added missing word
  • "which would make the Confederate position less tenable" I removed this as it does not seem to be adding information, any loss of military strength is likely to make a position "less tenable"
    • Makes sense

That's it. (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe: - Thanks for the review! These should all be addressed now. Hog Farm Talk 06:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on A1, A4, and A5 with the caveat that I did not do any source checks. Please ping me if this article or the Glasgow one goes to FAC :) (t · c) buidhe 07:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA[edit]

  • "The fighting opened on the morning of May 12 when" Date needs a comma here.
    • Added
  • "arrived and attacked the Confederate line.[44][34]" Switch refs here?
    • Done I think
  • "was exposed to fire from the 31st Illinois Infantry Regiment.[62][26]" Same as above.
    • Done
  • "individually with less direction from high-ranking officers.[37][23]" Same as above.
    • Done
  • "Michael B. Ballard and the writer Winston Groom;[20][83][27]" Same as above.
    • Done
  • "but only 936.42 acres (378.96 ha) were still listed in 2010" Maybe round the acres here?
    • Done

That's it from me. Nothing crazy really. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CPA-5: Thanks for the review! I was getting worried that this wasn't going to attract enough reviewers. Hog Farm Talk 20:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long time no see! Yeah it is indeed a bit quite here. I might take care of some in the near future especially for those which are inactive for months. I've asked Gog if he wants to have a look here in exchange for me reviewing his work. Also here everything is okay still feel depressed but I'll try to be more progressive. And support. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "to capture the strategic Mississippi River city of Vicksburg". Suggest 'strategically important'. Likewise in Background.
    • Done
  • Infobox image caption: why all the upper case initial letters?
    • I don't know; that image has been in the article since 2006 and the caption has always been in title case. I've moved it into a more sensible capitalization and fixed some other weird things with the infobox image markup
  • "ending the Siege of Vicksburg. The site of the battle was". It is not clear which "battle" is being referred to.
    • Done
  • "Grant again began planning operations". Optional: "again began" reads oddly to me. Perhaps 'Grant planned further operations' and delete "ideas" from the next sentence?
    • Done
  • "This left Grant to choose". Do you mean "left" → 'led'?
    • Done
  • "and the advance frightened local residents." This seems a bit trivial.
    • Done
  • "Pemberton believed that ... any advance against Raymond would only be a feint ... Pemberton believed that any movements towards Jackson via Raymond were simply feints." Do we need the repetition?
    • I don't think so, I've removed the first one
  • "He had interpreted Union movements from earlier in the battle as indicating that he was facing a small force." Do we really need to be told this yet again?
    • Removed
  • "The brigade was then ordered by McPherson to support Dennis and Smith when the Confederate attack hit." Was the order given as a consequence of the attack, or was it a coincidence of timing?
    • A reaction. Clarified.
  • Not, so far as I am concerned, an ACR issue, but MOS:TENSE suggests that historians' written opinions are present in the present tense. Eg 'Bearss describes' and 'Miller also states' etc. (This would be an FAC issue.)
    • I (think) I got all these.

Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: - How does this one look now? I'm anticipating this one going to FAC once the ACR is closed, so please be picky. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going away for a couple of days wild camping and this is the last support the nom needs. So I will support without giving it a full FAC-level second read through and will come back for that once it is nominated there. It looks entirely FACable to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2022 (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_Raymond&oldid=1084882155"