Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Yazoo Pass Expedition

Yazoo Pass Expedition

This is a new article that I think meets B-class criteria, but I welcome independent opinions on the stuff I have written. PKKloeppel (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Saberwyn

A couple of observations following a brief glance:

• The lead section needs to be split into multiple paragraphs

Done. PKK

• What was the aftermath of the expedition? What happened to the forces on each side after the expedition? Did the events lead to any changes in Union or Confederate strategy/tactics? Was there an impact on other events of the war?

Strangely, the expedition had no particular consequences, at least that historians have commented on. It seems to be regarded as merely one of the probes that Grant initiated until he hit on the correct approach of attacking Pemberton's left flank. I have my own ideas, which is why I got interested in it, but (a) the effects were on the Navy after the war, and (b) (more importantly) it would interject a point of view into the article. PKK

• The article needs to be categorised: I'm no expert on US Civil War history, so I'll leave it for those more knowledgable.

Call this a blunder; I just forgot about categories. I have added some. PKK

More when/if I think of them.

-- saberwyn 05:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. See what you think of my corrections. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Liking so far. If you can't find any sourced info about the aftermath, that's fair enough, but keep your eyes open. You never know when you'll wander across a new source and be plesantly suprised. -- saberwyn 08:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a few comments from me. Otherwise looks quite good:

• The references could be formatted with the templates {{cite book}} or

My opinion is that the use of this template is more trouble than it is worth. PKK

• Should the date in the infobox be a range (e.g. 3 February – 12 April 1863)?

Dead right. Done. PKK

• Titles for works/books should be capitalised per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles

Done. PKK

Anyway, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for the attention. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Anotherclown

• The lead should be reworked as it is currently is a little lopsided. Perhaps turn it into two paragraphs
  
• More images would be nice (but not required for B class)
  
• Measurements should be given in both metric and imperial using the convert template, e.g. {{convert|2|mi|km}} ensuring that you use the adj=on parameter for adjectives
  
• Consider using the author, date, page number format for short references (i.e. notes), with the full citation in the References section
  
• Structure could be improved a little per WP:MILMOS. For instance many similar articles use the following headings:
  

1.The background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously?

2.The prelude. What forces were involved? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan?

3.A description of the battle. What tactics were used?

4.The aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?

Anyway that's it from me. If you have any questions please ask. Anotherclown (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

1. Am I being blindsided? I was criticized earlier for not having enough paragraphs in the lead.

2. I will look for pictures, but I have none at hand.

3. Metric conversions have now been supplied (unless I missed some). I will not use the {{convert}} template, however, because it has too many bugs.

4. I prefer to give a more extensive reference. So long as this is permitted by Wikipedia, I will continue.

5. I do not understand the last comment. I think the article has all the information you suggest; can you point out what you want?

PKKloeppel (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Anotherclown's concern re: the lead is that the first two paragraphs are a on the small side, while the third is a bit meaty. Instead of rearranging things, may I suggest that a little bit of the detail be stripped back from that third para and (if necessary) re-added to the body.

I personally prefer the "last, title, p. " format for citations; although while longer, it makes it much easier to identify the source. The style is accepted (AHS Centaur and Attack on Sydney Harbour made it to FA with refs in this style). Might be an idea though to split them up so that each individual citation has its own ref tag (so insead of <ref>Shea and Winschel, ''Vicksburg Is the Key'', pp. 68–69. ORN ser. I, v. 24, p. 258 states that the date of building the levee was 1853.</red>, you get <ref>Shea and Winschel, ''Vicksburg Is the Key'', pp. 68–69</ref><ref>ORN ser. I, v. 24, p. 258 states that the date of building the levee was 1853.</red>)... it'll make it eaiser when the article expands and you find the same citation being used multiple times. -- saberwyn 21:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey PKK, its a peer review and they are suggestions. Take them it that spirit... if you disagree whatever. Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To all of you gentlemen: Sorry if my words appear to be snippy, as I meant my comments to be taken in the same way that you have given yours - you have ideas, and this is why I accept or reject them. (The exception is that concerning the {{convert}} template, which I consider unworthy of the powder it would take to blow it to hell. But that's a different story, and this is not the place to present my argument.) Anyway, thanks to Saberwyn, I now see what Anotherclown was saying in his first suggestion. But I still do not understand the last. PKKloeppel (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries... I was being a big girls blouse anyway. Ok to clarify my final point: one way of structuring the article that you might consider is to use the format suggested in the WP:MILMOS (i.e. background, prelude, battle and aftermath). Although in may ways you have covered off on most of this already (except the aftermath), without actually using these headings. Anyway its a minor point and it is not something that would effect a B class rating etc.Anotherclown (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

One final point. There is inconsistency with ranks in the article, as in many places you write ranks in full while in other places they are abbreviated. Personally I would write them all in full as I think abbreviations detract from encyclopeadic style but I can't back this up with wikipolicy. What ever you choose it needs to be consistent. Anotherclown (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for full rank, because Average Joe Civilian isn't going to know what a lt cdr or a maj gen is without prompting. -- saberwyn 08:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning abbreviations of ranks: Both of you are correct, and I have written the ranks out in full. (The error was even worse than you implied. I did not use the currently approved form for the abbreviations, LCDR, MGEN. If you think people don't understand lt. cdr., what will you say about the newer usage?)

• I now must raise a question about something that puzzles me. I see that all three of you, Saberwyn, Australian Rupert, and Anotherclown, are Australians. Does this represent some kind of conspiracy? (By the way, I don't speak Australian. What does 'big girl's blouse' mean?)
• Anyway, thanks to all of you for your help. I hope we will work together again in the future. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I blame coincidence. -- saberwyn 20:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah coincidence I'm sure. Pretty much means being an emotional woman... argh that sounds bad when I write that doesn't it... sorry I mean no offence to our female contributors... Anotherclown (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hal Jespersen (talk)

Your articles are always well written, so I will limit myself to two formatting items. First, it is the almost universal style for Wikipedia American Civil War articles to use American formatted dates -- July 4, 1863, rather than 4 July 1863. Second, the vast majority of these articles use abbreviated ranks, just as most books, magazines, and newspapers do. For the one percent of English speakers who do not understand that Maj. Gen. is the standard English-language abbreviation for major general and would be mystified if they saw it in the New York Times, we link the first usage, such as Maj. Gen. or (Maj. Gen. for a Confederate). Some authors spell out the rank the first time, but use the abbreviations thereafter. Spelling them out in full each time is certainly allowable, but very rare in Wikipedia American Civil War articles. We do not use the modern DOD abbreviations because they are much less recognized by the general public. Refer to guidance in the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, section 15.15. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Hal: It's been a while since we have met, and I am always glad to read your comments, particularly when you put them in such flattering terms. As for the substance of your remarks:

• Personally, I would have used the abbreviations for ranks, and my original text did so, but when two of my advisers asked me to change, I did so. It is no big deal to me, they were being helpful, and so why not? It makes for some clumsy passages, but there are probably worse sins in my edits than being clumsy.
• You are correct about Wikipedia style concerning dates, and I will make the changes. (With protest. I think that the Wikipedia premise is faulty, that the month-day-year ordering is general in the US. That's the way it is in commercial transactions, but in a lot of other areas, such as the military, the customary order is day-month-year. Don't worry, I know that this is a battle that I have already lost; I just want to let off some steam.)

Well, this is not the place for a general discussion of date formats, but I would point out to you that the "American" version of dates corresponds directly to the speaking style of Americans. If you asked someone on Main Street for the date, they would reply in almost all cases "February 15th," rather than "15 February" or "15th of February," as might be the case in Europe. This is also the reason for the American MM/DD/YY style of abbreviated date. There are certainly alternative date formats used in the military, in spreadsheets, and in some commercial transactions, but we use these dates in ACW articles because they mirror the usage in the vast majority of histories of the war (as well as the historical documents from the war itself). Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to link to this article from the Vicksburg campaign by a {{main}} hook at the appropriate place. If you think that is not appropriate, raise your objections here.

PKKloeppel (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Make that a {{further}} hook rather than {{main}}; that is for consistency with other such links in the article. PKKloeppel (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. You might also consider using the bayou campaign overview map from that article in yours. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have linked the map into the article, thank you very much for the suggestion. Is the placement OK? PKKloeppel (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be my browser, but the map in the infobox seems too big... maybe set to 300px rather than 400px? The infobox currently takes up half my screen... If people want to see the map in detail they can just click on it. Anyway its just a though. Anotherclown (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You can adjust the size of the image using the "px" (pixels width) parameter there. I changed it to 300px to match the standard infobox size. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rin tin tin 1996

It doesn't seem to explain why the campaign was important enough to have an article

It is rather hard to answer this objection, as it was indeed an operation that did not accomplish its goals and had no profound effect on tactics. Yet, it is mentioned in almost all histories of the Navy in the Civil War, and that should count for something. The argument that sways me is that it is a marker in Grant's career, showing how he (almost uniquely among generals of his era) was willing and able to work with the Navy; I can't assert that in the article, because I don't find it stated in any of my sources, even though it is fairly obvious. PKKloeppel (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This expedition was one of seven failed initiatives that Grant attempted prior to his successful Vicksburg Campaign starting in May 1863, so it is notable as part of that group. Its failure is one of the reasons it is not very well known, but it is also very difficult to visit, so the average Civil War aficionado has little familiarity with it. (Although I might put in a plug for the Blue and Gray Education Society, which has a comprehensive series of Vicksburg trips, and this particular expedition is covered next month: http://www.blueandgrayeducation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167:grants-road-to-destiny-part-3-the-vicksburg-campaign-bayou-expeditions-1863-detailed-itinerary&catid=44:programs-general&Itemid=55.) Arguably, Steele's Bayou expedition was Grant's initiative that came closest to success. Close, but no cigar. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Buggie111 (talk)

The article looks great in terms of accuracy, spelling, format etc..., but I'd like to see some refs in the lead. If you look at nearly any article on en.wiki, theyv'e got about 2 or 3 refs in the lead section. No t to be harsh, but try to fix that. If that's already been brought up, than the entire thing is fine. Buggie111 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The standard that we use -- at least for the vast majority of American Civil War articles -- is that the lead section is a summary of the following text and therefore footnoted citations are very rare in that section. About the only time we deviate fromthat is when there is something really unusual or controversial that causes a lot of commotion among reviewers. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)