Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grant's Canal/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 October 2021 [1].

Grant's Canal edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 05:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In mid-1862, the Union decided that the city of Vicksburg could not be taken with the forces on hand, so they decided to bypass Vicksburg with a canal (in the process breaking local law which forbade messing with the river's path). Disease and low water levels doomed that attempt. In early 1863, another attempt on Vicksburg had fizzled out and the canal idea was tried again. This time, there was too much water and everything flooded, in addition to another round of disease. After the war, the Mississippi perversely cut a similar path on its own, although the government has since reverted the river back. This article passed GAN in January and WP:MILHIST a-class review earlier this month. Hog Farm Talk 05:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up the Vicksburg defenses map
    • Done
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • I've replaced this with |upright=1.4
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done
  • File:The_head_of_the_canal,_opposite_Vicksburg,_Miss.,_now_being_cut_by_Command_of_Gen._Grant_(cropped).jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added an Internet Archive link to confirm that this was indeed published in March 1863. I've also added (which is supported by the link added for the date) that this comes from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Harry edit

This is an interesting article. I like transport and military engineering but hadn't heard of this.

  • Do we need such precision as (2.01 km) or 1.33 miles (2.14 km) with a depth of 13 feet (4.0 m) [...] as short as 0.75 miles (1.21 km) in a non-scientific article? You can set the concert template to round as desired.
    • I've set this to round to one significant figure; is this better? The more exact mile figures are meant to be approximations of fractions in the sources Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • one Union doctor to state that the swamps contained "as much death to the square inch as would be possible for the laboratory of nature to compound". If the doctor's opinion is significant enough to mention here, you should name him. Also, you need a ref straight after a quote.
    • I've removed the quote, as on second thought I'm not sure that it's significant enough to call out directly. (the source simply attributes it to "a regimental surgeon"). Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the impression that the canal didn't ultimately have much effect on anything but was an interesting side project, though the article doesn't seem to quite seem to spell this out. Is there a source that can be used to support such a statement? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HJ Mitchell: - Looking for something. It's a consensus of RS to call this a failure, but none seem to take the direct step of saying that this accomplished nothing (which is true). I've added a quote from Sherman to kinda underscore that nothing came of it. Sources generally move straight on from discussing this one to the next one, without much retrospective, except for Bastian, who views it as something that almost worked. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

I supported this article at A-class, and affirm that I believe that it meets the Featured Article criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from David Fuchs edit

Forthcoming, marking here so I remember to circle back :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Overall I think this is a solid article and a decent shot from FA quality. Especially being from Virginia my Civil War history in regards to the Western Theater is weak, so I quite enjoyed this little vignette of civil engineering failure from Vicksburg :) General thoughts:[reply]

  • I think File:Grants Canal detail.jpg makes a much better lead image than File:The head of the canal, opposite Vicksburg, Miss., now being cut by Command of Gen. Grant (cropped).jpg, given that it explains the lead text geography much better.
  • My major stumbling block on the prose throughout is what I think is overuse of passive voice, e.g. the following example: Another attempt on the city was made in June. This time Williams brought a 3,200-man force. Williams's infantrymen, Farragut's navy ships, and a group of ships armed with mortars commanded by Commodore David Dixon Porter left the city of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 20. Five days later, the Vicksburg area was reached. I don't really see the reason for the passive constructions given what's being said, so "Williams attempted to capture the city in June with 3,200 men" or "They reached the Vicksburg area five days later" would be simpler.
    • I've adjusted "they reached the Vicksburg area five days later". I've gone with something a little different for the Williams one, to prevent giving the impression that Williams actually directly attacked Vicksburg
    • "and that the enough infantrymen would not be released "—the "needed" infantrymen? Required? "Enough" doesn't seem the right word here.
      • How about "the needed number of"?
    • "However, Williams actually only intended" this "however" doesn't really scan as the previous sentence disrupts the flow from the talk about emancipation. I would move the "treated them harshly" bit after this sentence about completing the canal for their freedom, instead.
      • Done
    • "A river current would cut through the sand, but not the clay, it was thought, " you've already got an 'it was thought' in the sentence before so this sounds clunky.
      • Rephrased
    • It's unexplained in the text, and I'm left wondering why the river's height was decreasing—was this just a usual summer occurrence?
      • It was expected to rise in June, which I've added
    • "The steamboat Catahoula was sent to the area in January 1863 under the command of a Lieutenant Wilson to scout the remains of the canal cut." Not entirely clear whether this is a Union or Confederate steamboat/soldier (I presume Union, but the last named party are the Confederates.)
      • Clarified
    • "Grant sent a message to Halleck on March 4 stating that the canal was only days from completion, and the second dredging boat arrived the next day.[50] The dam holding the upstream end of the canal failed on March 7, inundating the canal.[37]" this paragraph meanders, and I don't think it does an adequate job demonstrating how big or small a setback the failure of the levee was; if it was small, it should probably be shortened, and if it was bigger it should have greater emphasis.
      • I've added a bit, and tried to tie together the various items better. Is this an improvement? Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Grant wrote on March 22 that he doubted that the canal would be useful, and noted that Confederate artillery had been positioned to fire down the exit end of the canal.[53] Two days later, the dredges were withdrawn. Grant's canal had been a failure.[54] On March 27, Halleck was informed that the project had ended.[55]" It's weird that we get news that the dredges were withdrawn (which presumably would happen concurrent with or after the project was ended, and it's weird that it doesn't actually tell us if it was Grant's decision or not (again, unclear passive constructions.)
      • I've tried to clarify that by this point, the dredges were the main arm of the project, which is why their withdrawal was significant. Sources aren't clear as to who specifically authorized the dredges to withdraw, but it was because their civilian crews objected to coming under fire, and I've added that. Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After Vicksburg surrendered, the Confederate garrison of Port Hudson, Louisiana, followed suit, giving the Union full control of the Mississippi River.[60] In April 1876, the Mississippi River changed course"—it's weird to me the article doesn't detail how important the fall of Vicksburg was to the course of the war or mention when the war ended before jumping ahead more than ten years.
      • I have expanded upon this
    • "Historian Shelby Foote included the canal in a list of seven failed attempts before Grant successfully took Vicksburg." This sentence reads weirdly to me, like it's just a left-over trivia factoid from a listicle. The relevance to me seems to be demonstrating how the canal was just one approach Grant took (relateing to the Bearss mention in the previous sentence) so I feel like that should be emphasized, perhaps by merging the sentences together or otherwise making them flow better.
      • I've tried to phrase these two together in a more coherent way, is it an improvement?
  • References: on the whole, quality reliable sources seem to be used and generally don't neglect much of the subject.
    • In a cursory search of my library databases and Gscholar/books, I did notice Campaigns for Vicksburg, 1862-63, The: Leadership Lessons (Kevin Dougherty, 2011), which I note from the snippet previews I can generate seems to have some useful content to better frame some of the action described in the article; it mentions Grant's initial reticence about the course of action, and also does a bit of a better job in terms of framing the action (it suggests that the levee breach was catastrophic setback.) It also has a bit more on the other canal projects beyond the Duckport canal, which seem like they would be useful to summarize in the "Aftermath" section. Given that some elements I spot there don't seem to be reflected in the usage from the other sources, it feels like this might be an important inclusion for comprehensiveness.
      • I was able to access an e-book copy through the university I graduated from and have added some material from it
    • As a random aside looking through contemporary papers saved in Proquest, it seems like everyone assumed Grant's canal would be a success (The Richmond Daily Dispatch was estimating in early February it'd be done in three to four weeks.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @David Fuchs: - I think I've made attempts at all the requested changes. Are they all to your satisfaction, or is further work needed? Hog Farm Talk 23:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Hog, I've gone through and done a line edit pass—do check and make sure I didn't change any meaning. My remaining point is with this passage: "After Farragut's determination, a canal known as Williams's Canal that was being built across De Soto Point gained new importance [...]" The following paragraphs give an indication of why De Soto Point was chosen for the canal, but the prose goes from the government prohibiting anything from altering the course of the river, to the Union attempt to make a canal there. I'm left wondering what this "William's Canal" actually is (was there a plan to put a canal there that was shot down by the mandate from Mississippi?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @David Fuchs: - I've removed the bit about the law and it is liable to be confusing and is somewhat irrelevant, as the Union could just ignore Confederate state laws. I've tried to clarify what Williams's Canal was; is this better? Hog Farm Talk 21:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did some additional rewording to try and make it flow a bit better. I believe my concerns have been addressed so am supporting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-

Source review - pass edit

Recusing to review.

  • Shouldn't Bastian 1974 be before Bastian 1995?
    • Reordered

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: - Thanks for the review! I couldn't find much more in the way of additional sourcing, either. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: - As this one is coming along smoothly (passed image and source reviews and three supports), may I have a dispensation for a second one? Hog Farm Talk 17:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review:

  • "Winfield Scott, Commanding General of the United States Army developed the" Comma after Army
    • Added
  • "a move that proved to be politically unpopular." -> a move that was politically unpopular?
    • Added
  • "Nevertheless, both Farragut and the commander of the ironclads, Flag Officer Charles Davis," Delete "Nevertheless, both"
    • Done
  • "In 1853, engineer Charles Ellet Jr. had determined that the Mississippi" Delete had
    • Removed
  • "and supplies of quinine ran out." -> and supplies of quinine to treat malaria ran out. This allows the reader to understand what quinine is without clicking on the link.
    • Done, linking malaria in the process
  • "Yet another digging project" Delete yet, starting to get into editorialising in Wikivoice that these are a lot of projects, and the word is unnecessary.
    • Done
  • I checked the lede to ensure everything was in the article and found no concerns.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: Thanks for the review! All of these should be addressed now. Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2021 (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/Grant%27s_Canal/archive1&oldid=1054761794"