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.
  • I have clarified this, although this adds a new source (pinging the source reviewer as a courtesy) although I don't expect Welcher to be controversial as a source. Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping. No issues with the new source - just a minor tweak on the formatting (which I sorted). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "any baled cotton marked with "CSA"". You should add "(for Confederate States of America).
  • I've added this. None of the sources directly say this, but it's fairly obvious so I think it's fine. Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Steele's troops left the Young's Point, Louisiana, area late on April 2," The location needs more explanation than a red link.
  • I've put this as a footnote to keep the digression out of the main text - is this sufficient or do you think I ought to move this into the main article text? Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "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.
  • I don't think this is possible. The closest I can find is Bearss calling the regiments "understrength"; I've tracked down the primary source that Bearss used and the relevant quote (from a document prepared by Steele on April 5) is "The gunboat Prairie Rose will remain there with the transports. I have left two small regiments as a guard, and have ordered six of the steamers back to report to Commander Graham". Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• How about a footnote giving the standard strength of a regiment and stating that they were understrength? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: - well, this isn't the greatest solution either. The standard size of a regiment when the war started was 1,000 men, but that didn't hold up for very long due to disease, casualties, etc. There was no real standard strength by 1863. Bearss's listing of the units that accompanied Steele on this expedition includes 15 infantry regiments, two companies of cavalry, and two batteries of artillery. Even if you exclude the cavalry and artillery, that's less than 400 men per regiment on average. So the average unit of Steele's was at less than 40% of the nominal standard strength - the two understrength ones must have been particularly bad, but the 1,000 man standard strength would be a bit of a red herring here. Hog Farm _Talk 19:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that what you say here is well worth inclusion in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me think about the best way to accomplish this. I really don't want that 1,000 figure in there without significant context. Hog Farm _Talk 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Henry Halleck had written to Grant". You should state Halleck's position.
  • I have added some context for this. Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The article looks fine. Just a few nit picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: - Thanks for the review! How do the changes made look? Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have made a suggestion above, but whether you adopt it does not affect my support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - May I have another nomination, or would you rather that I determine what to do with Dudley's final suggestion first. Hog Farm _Talk 22:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given Dudley's comment I don't think we need wait, feel free to start another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-expert prose review:

• I made some copyedits as I read the article, but spotted no concerns. Did a lead check, and all of that facts there are cited in the body of the article. No other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]