Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Port Gibson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Port Gibson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No sources

[edit]

Alas, the author cited no sources for this article. It would be interesting to know what they were. Djmaschek (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since almost the entire article is uncited, I am about to attempt a rewrite. (I've already rewritten and expanded the introduction.) Wherever possible, I will try to save the original text, though this may not be possible if I'm using different sources. Djmaschek (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor suggestions

[edit]

Looking over per the B-class review review request at the MILHIST assessment page. Have a few minor suggestions:

  • Snyder's Bluff, Grierson's Raid, and the Greenville expedition are lumped together, but I think it would be worthwhile to note that Greenville and Grierson were to distract from the march down the LA side of the river, while Snyder's Bluff was specifically to distract from the Grand Gulf crossing
 Done Smith lumped all 3 together, so I did also. I re-arranged the paragraph to put Snyder's Bluff last and added "in order to draw Pemberton's attention away from Grant's imminent crossing".
  • The USS Benton was hard-hit, losing 19 killed and 56 wounded - this is a mis-reading of a badly worded passage in Winters. That's actually Winters's # of total Union casualties on all vessels at Grand Gulf (other sources give slightly different total loss numbers, but it's essentially the same across sources)
 Done Thanks for pointing this out. I have fixed this. It did occur to me that those casualties seemed excessive for a single ironclad.
  • footnote 1 - it seems odd to mention the number of brigades in the XV corps divisions when the XV corps wasn't engaged here
 Done I removed note1 and included the number of brigades under the Forces section.

@Djmaschek: Other than that, this looks fine for B-class. If you ever want to try to push this beyond B-class, I've got vol. 2 of Bearss's big and hard-to-find work on Vicksburg (lucked out and got it for less than $20), Ballard's Vicksburg: The Campaign that Opened the Mississippi, and a few other sources and am willing to help out. I'll be too busy IRL until September or October to really do heavy research but should have more time after that. Hog Farm Talk 02:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Lucky me, I'm retired. See my comments in the space above. I included a lot of info before the battle, but since this was the first battle of Grant's east bank campaign, I thought it was necessary. Djmaschek (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed Confederate losses from 2 to 4 guns. NPS reported 4 guns lost but Smith only mentioned 2 guns lost in his account of Port Gibson. But Smith noted that the Botetourt battery was missing 4 of its 6 guns at Champion Hill. This confirms that the NPS source is correct. Djmaschek (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to check Bearss tonight before I head out of town for a week. He has a very detailed OOB with losses, and spends multiple chapters just on Port Gibson. Hog Farm Talk 19:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bearss p. 407 also supports the loss of four guns, so I will pass this article for b-class. I've found that those NPS pages often relying quite heavily on Bearss's gigantic work, which isn't surprising given Bearss' relationship to the park. Hog Farm Talk 22:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Port_Gibson&oldid=1199641955"