Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Duckport Canal

The following discussion 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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Duckport Canal

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Grant's other canal. Not as well documented as Grant's Canal, but thanks to two sources I didn't have available for that earlier article (Winters and Jones), this one's in a spot for A-class, although I'm still debating if it has enough meat for an eventual FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 18:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass. Are there really no illustrations or photographs from the time? (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: - I've turned up one from Harper's Weekly - verified publication in 1863. Hog Farm _Talk 02:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

made available by the same falling water levels that doomed the canal. perhaps made more accessible by the same falling water levels that doomed the canal.?
- Done

Background

which would cut the Confederacy into two halves and provide an outlet for American goods to be exported. perhaps change and provide to as well as provide to be more clear that these are not related to each other, just the river.
- Done
but were unable to bring it into submission perhaps change bring it to force it
- Done
as Grant focused on other plans suggest as Grant shifted his focus to other plans
- Done

Canal

while historians John D. Winters and Terry L. Jones state that the path would go from the Mississippi River into Big Bayou, then Willow Bayou, then Roundaway Bayou, and then Bayou Vidal before re-entering the Mississippi River at New Carthage. might be helpful to see a visual representation of this difference, maybe ask Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop if someone is willing; hardly a requirement, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into this. One problem is that I after consulting the sources I strongly suspect that these are different names/boundaries for similar bodies of water. At the time, the whole area was largely swampy, so I doubt that it was easy to determine where one bayou properly ended and the other began. Hog Farm _Talk 18:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, that's fair. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
long and was then connected via 3 miles (4.8 km) of obscure streams to Walnut Bayou what does obscure streams mean here? That no one knows which stream was going to be used? Would elaborate if so.
- The exact quote in the source is ... to a back swamp about a half mile inland. The nameless, meandering streams in the swamp flowed into Walnut Bayou .... I'm open to ways of rephrasing this, but the creative juices are not flowing for me tonight. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps just unnamed streams?
However, the region was inhabited by large numbers of poisonous snakes I presume this should be venomous snakes, unless the workers got really hungry mid-shift.
- Yes, it should be venomous. I can never keep these two straight.
  I once ate the leaves from a tree at my school in Kindergarten, and was summarily dragged off to poison control. I will never mix up poison with anything else after the lecture I got.

Aftermath

could have been successful with better conditions from the Mississippi. suggest the Mississippi river, for clarity.
- Added word
@Hog Farm: that is all of my suggestions, nice little article from a fascinating time period.
- @Iazyges: - I've replied to all above. I've provided the exact source quote for the "obscure streams" bit and would appreciate any suggestions for rewording. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Happy to Support, it's a great little article about a neat subject. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

A close-up view of the canal route that is explicitly labeled would be nice. Really had to squint for it and cross-reference another source to find it on the provided map. Alternative maps are available here.
- Would the image here be an improvement? I'd have to do some research into the provenance (Indy beetle and Buidhe) but I'm fairly sure that this is a federal government work. It's from this 1954 NPS pamphlet; neither the pamphlet nor the image bears a copyright mark and the other images in the pamphlet that aren't NPS-produced bear a clear byline. Hog Farm _Talk 03:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know if it would be, it seems to have even less to show of this particular canal. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm looking for a version of the other image that's clear enough for me to read it with my normal glasses, although it also doesn't show the whole route - it's just the cut from the river and the "obscure streams" Hog Farm _Talk 03:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is probably the best I've seen from a whole route perspective but isn't freely licensed, unfortunately. Hog Farm _Talk 03:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the NPS pamphlet clearly marks works from other sources so I'd say you're definitely in the clear on that one. (t · c) buidhe 03:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Winters' book has more info on the surveying of the canal route, apparently conducted by Captain John W. Cornyn and 300 men, which could be reflected in the article.
- Added
The workers were plagued by fewer insects than expected Could we use a word other than "plagued"? That implies the insects were a major problem, but the rest of the sentence suggests not.
- Is "disturbed" any better?
  - Yes.
However, the region was inhabited by large numbers of poisonous snakes. I wonder, did the troops have any standard method for dealing with pests such as snakes, insects, and rats?
- Nothing I've seen says.
The historian Michael B. Ballard suggests that, in addition to the falling water levels, the knowledge that enough additional boats would become available to him to make a general supply line also contributed to the decision to abandon the Duckport project. Would become available to Grant? Also, by what means, the Mississippi river?
- Ballard is truly cryptic here - Grant's thinking changed when he learned that enough boats were available in St. Louis to provide transportation and establish a supply line. He therefore abandoned the Duckport project; declining water levels made it unworkable anyway. I'm open to any alternative phrasings here.
It seems Grant inspected the canal himself on April 18, which would be worth a mention.
- Added
Is it known what happened to the remains of the canal? (I ask since part of Grant's Canal has survived and is maintained as a national park). This mentions a historical highway marker.
- I've added from that source that little remains and the marker. None of the other sources I've seen mention a fate of the canal. This which may or may not be RS discusses the fates of Grant's Canal and the Lake Providence Canal (which I'll probably get to eventually) but while it mentions Duckport says nothing of what happened to it. Hog Farm _Talk 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Indy beetle: any updates for this one? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems there's little else to be done here, supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

Taking this up as a source review as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bastian, David F. (1995) From what I could find of Burd Street Press, many of their offerings appear to be pop history, however David Bastian himself appears to be a very qualified person in the field, and published a number of technical papers, so waive issues with publisher. No issue.
Bearss, Edwin C. (2007) [2006]. Per WorldCat, it wants to associate the ISBN with a 2009 and a 2007 [2006] edition; for the 2007 [2006] edition it gives James M McPherson as a second author, and some other editions do as well. Defer to whatever the copy you used said.
- I'm definitely using the (2007) [2006] edition. McPherson wrote a four page preface (pp. xi - xiv); the rest of the content is from Bearss (the information in my copy clearly notes "Introduction by James McPherson"). I don't see a need to list McPherson as an author given that I'm not citing any of the preface he wrote (which is just a bio of Bearss)
Kennedy, Frances H., ed. (1998). Per WorldCat, the associated ISBN of the right date gives the location as just Boston; there is one edition that gives it as just New York. Possibly the double publishing is an unreflected reality, defer to whichever copy you used.
- The print copy I have says "Houghton Mifflin Company * Boston * New York" for the publisher info
Shea, William L.; Winschel, Terrence J. (2003). WorldCat does not want to associate the given ISBN (978-0-8032-9344-1) with the 2003 date, but rather with a 2006 and 2010 edition; double check and defer to whichever you used.
- The only date given in the publishing information of my print copy is 2003. It lists two isbns - 978-0-8032-9344-1 for the paperback edition and 0-8032-4254-9 for the clothbound edition. I'm using the paperback edition, so I used that ISBN. Maybe the clothbound is the original, and the paperback is a later printing that just isn't reflected in the publishing information for some reason?
  Very possible.
You may wish to archive the links from the four websites, on the off chance they get moved from their current urls.
- Done, as the NPS does purge their webpage sometimes. So many perma-deadlinks in ACW articles from them ...
@Hog Farm: That's all from me. No objection to any of the included sources as failing to meet standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iazyges: - I've dug into the publishing information for my print copies above; not quite sure how to handle the Kennedy one. Hog Farm _Talk 16:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hog Farm: Think keeping Boston and New York is fine, due diligence has been done. Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA

"length of the cut was 0.5 miles (0.80 km)" Is it possible to remove the nought here?
- I'm assuming you're referring to the trailing zero after the 0.8, which I've removed
"deep and 40 feet (12 m) wide.[23][22][14]" Re-order the refs here.
- Done
"37 miles (60 km) according to Bastian and Winters[23][15]" Same as above.
- Done

That's anything I could find. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @CPA-5: - Thanks for reviewing! I've tried to address all three of these. Hog Farm _Talk 16:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries happy to help! Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.