Talk:Battle of Jackson

Removal of content

I just removed a major part of the article that dealt with affairs after the surrender of Vicksburg. It was a copy&paste job from [1], including typos and a misspelling of General Johnston. To my knowledge, the Battle of Jackson usually means only the affair of May 14, so if we want this information, it should probably be included in the Jackson, Mississippi article, not here. --Huon 09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. . --Rosiestep (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Total Confederate Troops Available?

According to the Aftermath section:

Johnston's evacuation of Jackson was a tragedy because he could, by late on May 14, have had 11,000 troops at his disposal and by the morning of May 15, another 4,000.

Does anyone know if the total includes the initial 6000 troops? In other words, how many troops did Johnston have available: 15000 or 21000? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong link?

The CWSAC Report Update is devoted to Grand Gulf, not Jackson. Is this correct? Valetude (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Jackson, Mississippi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Intend to review. Ping if I forget. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• What's the thinking about 'Campaign' vs. 'campaign' this week? I note that our article is at Vicksburg campaign
  • lowercase is the norm as far as I'm aware. I've edited the first sentence of the lead and the heading of the campaignbox to reflect this.
• "Grant decided to move south of the city on the opposite side of the river, and then cross south of Vicksburg" I think one of these 'south's is redundant
  • Agree. Rephrased, but the new version is still a little awkward
• "would have been expected" by whom? Presumably not longer than the confederates themselves expected?
  • That was a bit of editorializing, so I've rephrased it to "prolong the battle"
• "bloodied men, although additional reinforcements were expected" I don't think it's clear what 'bloodied' here is intended to mean. Perhaps "recently defeated" is more explicit?
  • Rephrased. I was introduced to the ACW by popular history writers like Bruce Catton, so it's sometimes a struggle for me to avoid more florid popular history phrasing.
• The sentence beginning "Johnston decided that Jackson" doesn't seem to flow very well, imo. Could you take a stab at rephrasing?
  • I've cleaned up part of it, does that help?
• "Johnston sent Pemberton a misleading message" any idea why? was it intentionally misleading?
  • I've added some more detail on this.
• "Brigadier General W. H. T. Walker and Colonel Peyton Colquitt " suggest making clear at the outset of the sentence that they are confederates.
  • Done
• "Sherman's advance met less resistance. Only small amount of artillery fire resisted his advance, " perhaps replace one of the two variations of "resist" in such close succession?
  • Done
• I think linking African American is overlinking
  • Links removed
• "In addition to the seven cannons capture by " tense?
  • Fixed typo
• "destroyed infrastructure in the city. Factories, warehouses, and other military and economic sites were destroyed" could we find a way to not use 'destroy' in such close succession?
  • Done
• "For a time, Grant had is "?
  • Corrected to "his"
• "Estimates of casualties suffered in the battle vary somewhat. " you could lose the 'somewhat' and not lose anything, I think.
  • Removed
• "as does the National Park Service. " The NPS has the same estimate of confederate casualties, or those of both sides?
  • Both. Clarified
• "with 46,00 men to follow " tyop?
  • Yes. Corrected
• Sources are reliable
• Images are appropriately licensed
• some minor suggestions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Eddie891: - Thanks for a thorough review, as always. I'm just a naturally bad copy editor, which results in obvious errors like "46,00" sneaking in. Hog Farm _Talk 05:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Time to call it after 25 days, one relisting and no opposition. Fate of the dab page to be decided at a later stage. Favonian (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• Battle of Jackson, Mississippi → Battle of Jackson
• Battle of Jackson → Battle of Jackson (disambiguation)

– The battle in Mississippi is the primary topic for "Battle of Jackson". The Tennessee battle was a minor cavalry raid whereas the battle in Mississippi was a major battle during the Vicksburg campaign. Without any context, "Battle of Jackson" refers to the Mississippi battle, it is the Tennessee battle alone that should require disambiguation. The Mississippi article is getting ~5x the page views. Hatnotes can easily address the other topics; the dab page can probably be deleted but might as well move it for now. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Mdewman. Hog Farm _Talk 21:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.