Talk:Battle of Grand Gulf/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Images appropriately licensed
• As part of the Vicksburg campaign of Major General Ulysses S. Grant, elements of the Union Navy commanded by Admiral David Dixon Porter bombarded Confederate fortifications at Grand Gulf, Mississippi. Porter's force consisted of seven ironclad warships. Combine these along these lines: As part of Grant's Vicksburg campaign, seven Union Navy ironclad warships commanded by Porter bombarded Confederate... with the appropriate expansions.
  • Done
• Grant and Porter decided it was not feasible I'd suggest leading off with something like "The determined/fierce resistance to the bombardment caused Grant and Porter to conclude..." because you've got to show the link between the battle and the decision.
  • Rephrased
• the fortifications at Grand Gulf were rendered untenable rendered untenable doesn't work. Try damaged/slighted/demolished/destroyed. Also no need to restate the location. So reword along the lines of "May 1, they demolished the fortifications and then abandoned them.
  • Done
• Summer
  • Fixed
• Link field artillery, rifle pit
  • Done
• Watch for overlinking as you've got links duplicated in the lede and in the first para of the body.
  • I've removed all links in the Background section that were linked in the lead.
• However, construction of Confederate batteries with heavy artillery resumed in March 1863. March 12, 1863, Confederate troops commanded by Brigadier General John S. Bowen reoccupied the works at Grand Gulf and began to strengthen them. Combine these two sentences
  • Done
• Tell the reader what types of ships Hartford and Albatross were. And don'd use "the" immediately followed by USS. You can use the sloop-of-war USS Hartford forex, but not the USS Hartford.
  • Done
• primary works in April 1863 battle missing "the" and remember what I told you about years
  • Done
• Convert all measurements into metric
  • Done
• The ironclads were casemate ironclads
  • None of the sources directly mention this, and I'm having trouble finding a source that verifies this for other than Carondelet and Pittsburgh.
    • Just to show you what a nice fellow I am, I added one for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Many thanks.
• Only use full name and rank on first use; after that it's last name only.
  • The only instances of this I can find are Porter and Grant being introduced in the lead and in the section of the prose. My personal opinion is that it's far enough after the lead it's okay to reintroduce, but I can reduce that if you think as a reviewer it should be reduced.
    • On a much longer article, I might be tempted to reintroduce rank and first name, but generally there will be enough intermediate mentions so that the reader won't forget.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Removed the rank and first name from the second introductions of Porter and Grant
• Did the ships attack from up- or down-river? If the former than mention that they passed in front of the forts before turning to attack them.
  • Added
• determination of the Confederate resistance reword or substitute troops in lieu of resistance
  • Reworded
• The surrender of Vicksburg was more than a major setback for the army, but affected the entire Confederacy--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Replaced "Confederate Army" with "Confederate war effort", does that help?
    • Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel: - Well, I've addressed everything except for the casemate ironclads point, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the sources. Hog Farm (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: One remaining niggle to be dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, I think. Hog Farm (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)