Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steele's Greenville expedition/archive1

Steele's Greenville expedition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Steele's Greenville expedition/archive1

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a little-known operation during the Vicksburg campaign, not to be confused with the better-known Steele's Bayou expedition. Grant and Sherman sent Steele's division up to Greenville, Mississippi, and then down Deer Creek, destroying cotton and supplies along the way. Additionally, the operation served as a bit of a diversion of Confederate attention from the main show further downriver. Some historians have opined that this operation is evidence of shifting Union views on forced emancipation, the use of Black troops, and the application of total war. Ironically, Sherman, who has historically known as a proponent of hard war, objected to some of the actions against civilians during the operation. Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of making a few edits, which I am happy to discuss. There are a few other expressions that I think can be improved:

• Here "The naval historian Myron J. Smith and the historians William L. Shea and Terrence J. Winschel state that around 1,000 slaves were freed, while the historian Timothy B. Smith states that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville." Why do our US contributors always have to write "state that" instead of the simpler "said" or "say"?
  • I've rephrased these; it's an Americanism but I'm not sure why. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Here "Both Sherman and Steele believed that Union troops had gone too far in behavior that affected civilians, rather than just targeted the Confederate war goals." Should this be "targeting"?
  • Yes, I've fixed this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Going forward" is such a cliche!
  • Rephrased this sentence. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Here "although other operations such as Grierson's Raid also played a role in that." I think the "in that" is redundant.
  • Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might have more comments later. Graham Beards (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • I've added alt text, although I would appreciate if someone checked what I used for the maps. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest scaling up the second map
  • I've scaled it up to upright=1.6; please feel free to adjust to a different scaling if you think it would be an improvement. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Frederick_Steele.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: - Would this clear derivative of the photo published in 1893 be sufficient support for pre-1929 publication for a PD-US tag? Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Think so. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The next morning, the boats reached Smith's Landing; Smith's was 20 miles (32 km) south of Greenville. - Smith's ... Smith's
  • Rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• the Lee - Either missing a word or one too many
  • Should have been "that"; corrected. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• as at least $3 million - Value today?
  • Have used {{inflation}}; let me know if you think there's a better way. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd probably round to avoid being too specific. Adding |r=-3 to the template will round it to the thousands.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, done. I want to look to see what the source exactly says for the final point before making a rephrasing. Hog Farm _Talk 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks HF.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• notes that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville - Maybe "notes that an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the current phrasing; the way the source is wording is that Smith is noting that these are estimates made by other people, but he does not endorse a specific estimate here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose. Looks good.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review! I would review your FAC but I think the images would be hard to explain to my wife if she walked by my computer while I was reviewing it. Hog Farm _Talk 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL, no worries. Thanks for the offer, though! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "While much of Steele's force remained the Washington's Landing area": missing word?
  • Yes, fixed. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "continued on inland": I think "on" is unnecessary.
  • Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The presence of Lee's force became known to Steele": can we say how?
  • A scouting patrol; added. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "While Ferguson had withdrawn his troops, the Union soldiers found large quantities of supplies and cattle, which they brought back to camp": suggest "Ferguson had withdrawn his troops, but left behind large quantities of supplies and cattle, which the Union soldiers found and brought back to camp". I misparsed "while" as "During" on first reading.
  • Done. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "While the Union troops had been ordered to avoid disturbing local families who were peaceful and remained at home, these orders were ignored": suggest "The Union troops had been ordered to avoid disturbing local families who were peaceful and remained at home, but these orders were ignored".
  • Done. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we need the corn volume in four different units?
  • Have reduced it to US bushels and liters Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column": missing word or some editing debris here?
  • Have rephrased this a bit, is it better now? Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tweaked it a bit more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "rather than just targeting the Confederate war goals": is "goals" the word you want here? I would have expected something like "men and materiel".
  • I have rephrased this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All very minor, and I'll be supporting once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Will pick this up. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very straightforward one this. Formatting is consistent and appropriate. Sources are all reliable, appropriate and high quality. Source review pass. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Major General William T. Sherman hoped that Steele might reach to where Deer Creek met Rolling Fork". You mention Sherman four times, but never explain his position and role. This needs clarification.
• "any baled cotton marked with "CSA"". You should add "(for Confederate States of America).
• "Steele's troops left the Young's Point, Louisiana, area late on April 2," The location needs more explanation than a red link.
• "Two regiments and the Union Navy tinclad steamer USS Prairie Bird were left at the landing point to guard it". As you have specified the strength of the expedition as 5600 men, I think it would be clearer to give the strenght of the guards in number of men rather than regiments.
• "Henry Halleck had written to Grant". You should state Halleck's position.
• The article looks fine. Just a few nit picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]