Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Jackson/archive1: Difference between revisions

Battle of Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 15 September 2025, 20:31 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 03:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Raymond on May 12, 1863, alerted Ulysses S. Grant to the danger posed by the Confederate buildup at the Mississippi capital of Jackson, and Grant decided to alter his plans and neutralize the threat at Jackson before swinging west to Vicksburg. The new Confederate commander at Jackson, Joseph E. Johnston, decided to abandon the city within hours of arriving there, a decision which has been criticized by history. The fighting at Jackson on May 14 was a rear-guard action as John Gregg bought time for the Confederates to evacuate supplies from the city, while facing a converging assault led by William T. Sherman and James B. McPherson. After taking Jackson, Grant’s troops wrecked Confederate infrastructure there on May 15 before decisively defeating John C. Pemberton’s army at the Battle of Champion Hill on May 16, which set the stage for the Siege of Vicksburg. Hog Farm _Talk 03:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• I’m confused by the hidden note on the lead caption – AFAICT the templatedata just says “text to be placed below the image”? Why would that preclude a change here?
• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Vicksburg_Campaign_April-July_1863.pdf: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what to do about this – this is a map donated to Wikipedia by a person who is a very well-respected professional cartographer, primarily for Civil War publications. This map is the best possible illustration for this sort of thing. Hog Farm _Talk 13:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • With a very minor edit, it would be possible to compare dashed vs solid lines – that might be the easiest solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • My one concern with this is that in the current map, the dotted lines vs solid lines are used to distinguish between retreats/advances. Hog Farm _Talk 02:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        @Hog Farm I had the same color problem with a map in James Cook nomination. I had to get an entirely new set of maps made that satisfied MOS:COLOUR. I started to draw them myself, and was half way done, when a map person volunteered to do it, and they finished the job. I think that individual is only interested in nautical voyages, so I’m not volunteering them … plus they are semi-retired from WP. But maybe there are some civil war buffs that are into drawing maps? Noleander (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

• At first glance, seems like a solid, quality article. Overall visual appearance is good; sources & citations – without deep scrutiny – have uniform layout.

• Images: Is it possible to add a couple of images showing soldiers? I realize that photos of the battle (or soldiers that were in the battle) are perhaps impossible to find, but a photo of a contemporary soldier – even if posed – would be invaluable. The caption can say something like This photo from 1863 shows a typical Union Sergent’s uniform … . It would give readers a much better feel for who was participating.

• Ditto for guns, cannons etc. A picture of a cannon that combatants were _likely_ to use in the battle (even if not 100% certain that the model actually was used) is okay, and would draw-in some readers.

• Paragraphs are all very large. Nothing wrong with that, strictly speaking. But some readers may feel more comfortable jumping in if there are some smaller paragraphs. The current uniformity is a bit off-putting, a bit too uniform. Is it possible to find a few of the large paragraphs that have a sensible breaking point in the middle? If so, consider splitting into two.

• Infobox says 11,500 (engaged) – I’m not sure what “engaged” means .. can a wikilink (or footnote) be added so readers understand the term?

• Clarify wording Sherman’s advance was slowed by the necessity of crossing Lynch Creek at only the single bridge. The phrase “at only the single bridge.” is confusing. That could be interpreted as “there was only one bridge in existence”; or “there were multiple bridges, but only one was available”; or “there were multiple bridges, but Sherm choose to use only one”.

• Extent of battlefield now? The City of Jackson preserves 2 acres (0.81 ha) of battlegrounds … described the site at Battlefield Park as “one of the few undeveloped spots where a visitor can walk the ground where part of the battle of Jackson took place” A few thoughts:
  • Is there any kind of visitor’s center or memorial of the battle? If not, is there any special reason why not?
  • … one in a public park … What is the name of the public park? Does it have any interpretive signage regarding the battle?
  • If a visitor could go to Jackson now, under what buildings/neighborhoods does the primary battleground lie? Even if there is no source that explicitly says, it is not OR for an editor to look at a map and write “The majority of the battlefield is situated between 5th and 8th streets, and C and D avenues” or something like that.

• Suggest adding wikilink to Sherman’s neckties in the image caption. I realize it is already linked in the body text, but the guidelines permit duplicate links in image captions … and we know that many readers only look at the pictures.