Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steele's Greenville expedition/archive1

Steele's Greenville expedition

Featured article candidates/Steele's Greenville expedition/archive1

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a little-known operation during the Vicksburg campaign, not to be confused with the better-known Steele's Bayou expedition. Grant and Sherman sent Steele's division up to Greenville, Mississippi, and then down Deer Creek, destroying cotton and supplies along the way. Additionally, the operation served as a bit of a diversion of Confederate attention from the main show further downriver. Some historians have opined that this operation is evidence of shifting Union views on forced emancipation, the use of Black troops, and the application of total war. Ironically, Sherman, who has historically known as a proponent of hard war, objected to some of the actions against civilians during the operation. Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

I have taken the liberty of making a few edits, which I am happy to discuss. There are a few other expressions that I think can be improved:

Here "The naval historian Myron J. Smith and the historians William L. Shea and Terrence J. Winschel state that around 1,000 slaves were freed, while the historian Timothy B. Smith states that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville." Why do our US contributors always have to write "state that" instead of the simpler "said" or "say"?
- I've rephrased these; it's an Americanism but I'm not sure why. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here "Both Sherman and Steele believed that Union troops had gone too far in behavior that affected civilians, rather than just targeted the Confederate war goals." Should this be "targeting"?
- Yes, I've fixed this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Going forward" is such a cliche!
- Rephrased this sentence. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here "although other operations such as Grierson's Raid also played a role in that." I think the "in that" is redundant.
- Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might have more comments later. Graham Beards (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
- I've added alt text, although I would appreciate if someone checked what I used for the maps. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest scaling up the second map
- I've scaled it up to upright=1.6; please feel free to adjust to a different scaling if you think it would be an improvement. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Frederick_Steele.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: - Would this clear derivative of the photo published in 1893 be sufficient support for pre-1929 publication for a PD-US tag? Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Think so. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco

The next morning, the boats reached Smith's Landing; Smith's was 20 miles (32 km) south of Greenville. - Smith's ... Smith's
- Rephrased. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Lee - Either missing a word or one too many
- Should have been "that"; corrected. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as at least $3 million - Value today?
- Have used {{inflation}}; let me know if you think there's a better way. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd probably round to avoid being too specific. Adding |r=-3 to the template will round it to the thousands. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, done. I want to look to see what the source exactly says for the final point before making a rephrasing. Hog Farm _Talk 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks HF. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
notes that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville - Maybe "notes that an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer the current phrasing; the way the source is wording is that Smith is noting that these are estimates made by other people, but he does not endorse a specific estimate here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review! I would review your FAC but I think the images would be hard to explain to my wife if she walked by my computer while I was reviewing it. Hog Farm _Talk 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL, no worries. Thanks for the offer, though! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]