Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Arkansas Post (1863)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 April 2025 [1].

Battle of Arkansas Post (1863)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm talk 20:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The origination of the Arkansas Post operations is in some political shenanigans involving President Lincoln, John A. McClernand, and Henry Halleck. McClernand, a political general, managed to get what he thought was an independent field command, but Halleck and Ulysses Grant managed to divert his troops to William T. Sherman, in an operation that led to defeat at the Battle of Chickasaw Bayou. McClernand finally takes the field, and both him and Sherman independently come up with a plan to reduce a Confederate stronghold near Arkansas Post, Arkansas, with McClernand in charge. Along with David Dixon Porter's navy, the Union forces move up the Arkansas River. Awaiting McClernand's 30,000 men at Arkansas Post are 5,000 Confederates commanded by Thomas J. Churchill; one recent author of a biographical chapter about Churchill titled it "Not fortunate in war". Hog Farm talk 20:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042's drive by comment

[edit]

Image review

[edit]

Support Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Union General-in-chief Henry Halleck". I think that should be 'Chief'.
  • "Both Sherman and McClernand had independently come to the conclusion that Arkansas Post should be attacked." Why? Militarily, what did Arkansas Post do?
    • There were mixed motives here, probably self-serving to some extent. I've tried to distill this down to a short statement for the lead
  • No rank for Porter?
  • "Union Navy leadership decided that". Maybe a definite article at the start of that?
  • "In September, Major General John A. McClernand had discussed with President Abraham Lincoln about a campaign down the Mississippi River". Delete "about".
  • "an arrangement was reached where McClernand was permitted". Suggest "where" → 'whereby'.
  • "Vicksburg, Mississippi" doesn't need linking twice in one section, nor "Mississippi" at second mention.
  • "as well as the condition of the roads that further movement by his column would be using." Is it me, or does this not quite work somehow?
  • "Sherman had command of over 30,000 men ... Sherman's operation, which contained over 30,000 men". Do we need this information twice in one section?
  • In describing the fort, you jump from ditch to parapet, without describing the wall. Is that deliberate?
  • "Sherman and McClernand had separately come to the conclusion that the Confederate position at Arkansas Post should be reduced. Separately, McClernand had also decided on a movement on Arkansas Post." The second sentence seems to duplicate the second. And maybe not use "separately" twice?
  • It may be worth briefly explaining somewhere what a division and a corps is.
  • "On the morning on January 10, Lindsey's troops landed ashore". Suggest deleting "ashore".
  • "while the Union cannons on land joined in as well." I am not sure that you need both "joined in" and "as well".
  • "Porter's warships were to open fire on the Confederates as the signal for the attack, which would be followed by a bombardment by Sherman's artillery. Once Sherman's guns ceased firing, the assault was to begin ...The Union land artillery had orders to fire for thirty minutes after the naval bombardment opened, which was to be followed by an infantry attack three minutes after the thirty-minute firing interval." We may be into overkill territory here.
Much.
  • My settings show images larger than default, but even so the Vicksburg map, bombardment, battle map and flag images seem unduly small.
    • I've enlarged the latter three. On my screen the Vicksburg maps fills its entire section, and I've been told before that it's best practice not to have images break into a second section. Although I don't know if that's policy or not. Hog Farm talk 02:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On my devices they show much better now.
  • "... the historian Ed Bearss ... The historian Richard L. Kiper ... The historian Michael B. Ballard ..." Maybe delete "The historian" from the last two? The chances of confusion seem minimal.
  • "3,000 stands of infantry weapons". How many weapons are there to a stand?
Interesting. In the UK a stand of rifles is three.
Looking further I'm seeing things that imply three as well. I don't think I've ever actually seen this defined in a ACW context. I'm going to ask around. Hog Farm talk 22:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Nice work, as usual. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Thanks for your review! How do the changes made look? Hog Farm talk 03:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - This hasn't had any substantive activity in over two weeks and has only a single support after nearly a month, so it's clearly in danger of stalling out. I'm about to get busy enough with work over the next 1.5 - 2 weeks that I would have difficulty engaging with any potential reviews in a timely manner anyway, so this may as well be closed now and have the two-week clock start while I'd be busy anyway. Hog Farm talk 18:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Hog Farm. Be sure to ping me when you renominate. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Arkansas_Post_(1863)/archive1&oldid=1286140361"