This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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)reply
Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. . --
Rosiestep (
talk) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Wrong link?
The CWSAC Report Update is devoted to Grand Gulf, not Jackson. Is this correct?
Valetude (
talk) 13:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Intend to review. Ping if I forget. Cheers,
Eddie891TalkWork 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)reply
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?
@
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 FarmTalk 05:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Requested move 16 April 2024
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on
requested moves' current discussions
subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the
closing instructions). Please base arguments on
article title policy, and keep discussion
succinct and
civil.
– 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)reply