Article promoted by Donner60 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 03:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list reply

Henry Macandrew

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk)

Henry Macandrew ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of the most successful cavalry commanders of the First World War, Sir Henry Macandrew would probably be more widely known if he hadn't accidentally killed himself in a petrol/pyjama-related explosion a year after the war ended. A career officer of the Indian Army, he saw service in several campaigns and the Boer War prior to the FWW. A follower of Haig, he saw quick advancement once the war began, initially on the Western Front and then in the Middle East where he made his largest impact in command of a cavalry division of the Desert Mounted Corps. This is one of my first largescale dabbles into FWW content and I would appreciate any and all comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from Hawkeye7

I had heard of Macandrew, as commander of a division in Chauvel's Desert Mounted Corps, but knew nothing more about him. His death reminds me of Brigadier General John Royston, who was invalided out of the service after deliberately inhaling poison gas. Another chapter in the great deeds of the British cavalry. Looks good; some comments to prove I read it:

• Is "The Inverness College" Inverness Royal Academy?
  • I don't think so. Going by the the school's website it has been called the Inverness Royal Academy since 1793.
• "Macandrew's position as a brigadier-general was a temporary rank, and he was still a substantive lieutenant-colonel" Well yes, but for some weird reason, all brigadier-general appointees were temporary.
  • Possibly a left-over from the older appointment of brigadier-general, from which the holder would revert when no longer commanding a brigade? Am aware this was how it worked in the Napoleonic Wars, at least

    Still the case today, with the practice inherited by the post-Great War rank of brigadier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Commas annoyed me, so I made some changes. Also corrected two typos. ( [1]) Revert anything you disagree with.
  • All good, thank you for the edits
• "Macandrew's commander, Lieutenant-General Harry Chauvel" should be Sir Harry Chauvel
  • Oops! Corrected.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Hawkeye7: Thanks for correcting those spelling errors that slipped through the cracks. I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 20:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

All good. Supporting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Gog the Mild

• "before in 1916 he assumed command of the 2nd Indian Cavalry Division" seems a little clumsy. Maybe 'before he assumed command of the 2nd Indian Cavalry Division in 1916'?

• Done.

• "Battle of the Somme and Battle of Cambrai." Is there a consensus among RSs to have those upper-case B's?

• Sources vary but I think the majority are with the upper case here.

• Infobox, rank: Why the upper case G?

• Changed.

• "Macandrew was educated at The Inverness College". See MOS:INSTITUTIONS: "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized in running text, regardless of the institution's own usage".

• Changed.

• "he was assigned as the Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General Intelligence (DAAGI)" and "as DAAGI Army Headquarters Staff in May." Why the upper-case initial letters?
• Likewise: "was appointed a Station Staff Officer, 1st Class"; "becoming a Deputy Assistant Quartermaster-General"; "as a General Staff Officer Grade 1"; "as his Brigadier-General General Staff (BGGS). I shall stop, but a trawl through the rest of the article seems in order.

• My sketchy understanding of MOS:OFFICE led me to this. I'd be happy to be directed otherwise if I've understood it wrongly?

MOS:OFFICE is what you want. If discussing an office (or rank or title) in general terms it is given in lower case, as you do with "He was instead appointed brigade major" or "Macandrew was subsequently promoted to lieutenant-colonel". And as you should with "becoming a Deputy Assistant Quartermaster-General" or "He brought Macandrew with him as his Brigadier-General General Staff". If an office is, to quote the MoS, "followed by a person's name to form a title" it takes an upper-case initial(s); eg "replacing Major-General William Walker". Does that work for you? I could just about grit my teeth and let this go at ACR - "does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant". But if this is aimed at FAC it may be as well to make it MoS compliant now.

• Always happy to receive constructive criticism! Have changed all those I could identify.

• "Macandrew was promoted to substantive major-general on 1 January 1917". Just checking, this was directly from brevet colonel?

• If we ignore the various temporary ranks, yes.

• "with Haig singling out an action of Macandrew's division". Singling it out for what?

• Reworded.

• "In many cases the infantry had not pushed back the German defenders as expected and the cavalry were too cumbersome to react to new weaknesses in the enemy lines." Optional for ACR, but this could be phrased more felicitously.

• Reworded.

• "impacted by the failure at Cambrai". Impacted seems an odd word, perhaps 'influenced'?

• Done.

• "As such, in the same month, Macandrew travelled to Palestine with the Indian portion of his division and the 1st Indian Cavalry Division, which had since been renamed 4th Cavalry Division ... In an attempt to continue the legacy of the Indian cavalry from the Western Front, on 23 July the two divisions were respectively renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions." I assume that the 4th cavalry wasn't renamed twice.

• The renaming referred to here is from "1st Mounted Division".

No, I am still confused - this happens regularly. You have "renamed 4th Cavalry Division ... renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions." Either two separate divisions were renamed 4th Cavalry Division, or you are repeating the same information, or the prose has befuddled me.

• I'm not too sure how this could be reworded. 1st Indian Cavalry Division becomes 4th Cavalry Division. 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions are moved to Palestine, where their troops are used to create the 1st and 2nd Mounted Divisions. These two divisions are then renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions. The earlier 4th/5th do not have the same unit composition as the later 4th/5th.

• Should the last two paragraphs of Divisional reforms not be in Palestine campaign?

• Moved.

• "The three Indian regiments killed around ninety Turkish soldiers and took a further ninety-one prisoner." Are the Indian casualties known?

• Added, although the source doesn't differentiate wounded and killed.

• Is there a link to Second Battle of Amman? If not, perhaps there should be. Likewise Battle of Megiddo (1918).

• I'm not sure why Amman would be relevant? Added Megiddo, although the Sharon article covers most of it. Our articles for this campaign are very intertwined!

• "the rate of the attack was increased". What does this mean?

• Changed to "rate of the advance"

• It may just be me, but I find the repeated references to "Macandrew's division" jarring. Other formations are referred to by their names.

• Removed a clump of these.

• Any chance of giving a reader an idea of the strength and make up of a cavalry brigade and division?

• Added a detail for the number of regiments in a brigade, I think the number of brigades in a division is covered.

I meant tell a reader the number of men in a cavalry brigade and division. Eg, in 1914 a British cavalry division had an establishment of 9,269 men, 24 guns, and 24 machine guns. Is similar information available for the formations Macandrew commanded?

• I think I could provide some general statistics for the size of cavalry units, but I'm not sure these would be very useful, as the actual numbers fluctuated drastically. See for example the size of the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade, which fought at Haritan with a total of 500 men despite our (GA) article stating the nominal size was 1,700.

'Twas ever thus in war. I think it would be helpful to give the establishments. If necessary note when formations were greatly under strength (as you do at one point), or give their actual numbers for particular engagements. I think it would be very useful to give a reader some sense of scale. Otherwise they will have little idea of the level of Macandrew's responsibility. Even a knowledgeable reader may be aware that in WWI full-strength infantry divisions varied from <8,000 to >28,000; or that in 1914 British, French and German cavalry divisions had 9,300, 4,500 and 5,200 men.

@ Gog the Mild: I have totally failed to find sources that provide accurate establishments for Macandrew's commands. There are plenty of orders of battle available for the Somme, etc, but none seem to provide numbers to go with the formations. I don't know if you had any particularly sources/direction in mind?

• File:Palestine-WW1-3.jpg may be a helpful addition. As may File:FallsSkMap41toAleppo.jpeg.

• Added the former.

• "He sent his armoured cars forward first, leaving Homs the same day. I am unclear about this. Do you mean that the armoured cars left on 20 October, the same day Chauvel told them to halt?

• Correct

• "a force of Ottoman soldiers that outnumbered them, with around 3,400 men". How many men did the 15th Brigade have?

• Added. They were very outnumbered!

• Cite 46: what does "p. supp." mean?

• Awkward I know. Basically there's a supplement stuck on the end of the Army List in which the page numbers start afresh.

Then I think it needs listing separately, as you would if there were separate chapters, each contributed by a different author. What do you think of how I have tweaked it?

• That's much better, thank you.

A splendid article. Get it to FAC. Gog the Mild ( talk) 20:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Gog the Mild: Hi, thank you for taking a look! I have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

A couple of comebacks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Gog the Mild: Have responded. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 14:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Gog the Mild: Just to note that I haven't forgotten about this, I'm just struggling to find the right sources to do unit numbers justice. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

HF - support

I will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 03:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "Two years later he transferred to the Lincolnshire Regiment on 10 November 1886" - "Two years later" is a bit of a duplicate statement, since you're already giving the exact 1884 and 1886 dates

• Removed.

• Is it known how he ended up with the army in Bengal? Was the Lincolnshire Regiment stationed there, or was this a transfer of some sort?

• The 1888 Army List has Macandrew serving in the 1st Battalion, which was in Dublin, while the 2nd Battalion was in India. The 1889 Army List removes his battalion designation and has him on "probation" instead. He may have done a quick transfer to the 2nd Battalion and then to the Indian Army, or it may have been a straight transfer from Dublin. Unfortunately sources don't clearly say.

• "Macandrew was still well thought of by Haig, and the latter quickly appointed to a new command. - is this missing a word? "the latter quick appointed to a new command" while the context suggests this is something involving Macandrew, the grammar suggests this was a new appointment for Haig

• Yep, missing word!

• The infobox lists him as being part of the main British Army until 1899 and joining the British Indian Army that year, but would his 1898 probationary assignment in the British Indian Army count as when his service switched over to that unit?

• It's made slightly confusing in that when his probationary period ended his Indian Army seniority was set to when he was promoted lieutenant in 1886. For the sake of keeping the infobox sensible I think it's probably best to keep the dates as official as possible, so 1889 is when he ceased to be a member of the British Army.

An excellent article. Hog Farm _Talk 22:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Hog Farm: Hi, thanks for the review. Responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 15:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Matarisvan

Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, some comments on the sources, will comment on the main text later.

• Refs #105, 106 and 110 need links, future reviewers would require them for spot checks. You will be able to find them on the British Newspaper Archive or Newspapers.com.

• Have added links but am awaiting the response of another editor who helped out before I can add the exact newspaper reports (they don't appear on either of those websites). The link for #111 would need to be provided by someone with a BNA subscription, which I do not have and has lapsed for the editor who added it

• The Cavalry Journal 1923, Pitman 1923, Rowcroft 1923, Robbins 2001 need links, if you received these via resource request then you should add a hidden note to that effect.

• Links added

• Here are the links for the Army Lists, consider adding? May-June 1884, July-Sep 1884, May-June 1895, 1896.

• Done

• Links for Indian Army Lists are available here, since you haven't specified the publication month I couldn't provide the exact links.

• Added links

• Here's a link for The Risings on the North-West Frontier 1897–1898: [2].

• Added link

• This link has all the issues of the Gazette of India, consider adding?

• Added links (for everything!)

That's all for now, cheers Matarisvan ( talk) 10:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, some more comments:

• "promoted to become": remove the "become", instead use "the rank of"?

• The "become" refers to the role of BGGS rather than the rank of BG, so I think it works as is

• "Brigadier-General General Staff": you will have to somehow rephrase this occurrence of WP:SEAOFBLUE, but I can't think of how.

• SEAOFBLUE does say "When possible" and I'm not sure what else to do in this circumstance. I don't think I can logically introduce the links for either BG or GS any earlier in the lede to avoid the need for one or other of the links there

• The lead is great but a little short, consider expanding to 3 to 4 paragraphs?

• Expanded.

• Link to Inverness College?

• We don't have an article, or really any content, on the college. I've linked to the building it was once housed in

• Link to Delagoa?

• Linked the full Delagoa line

• "appointed to a": "appointed him to a"?

• Yep, HF also caught this error

• Link to Ghorniye (Ghoraniye)?

• Done

• For FAC reviews, I've been asked to remove the Dates of Rank section. I think these are OK at A class but you might be asked to remove them at an FAC review.

• I'm aware these aren't a fan favourite and haven't used one before. This is by way of an experiment to see what people think. If I get pushback that's fine

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan ( talk) 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Pickersgill-Cunliffe, congratulations on becoming an admin! If you have some free time, could you check out these comments? Matarisvan ( talk) 16:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I've just come back from a very busy work period and have responses for this on my to-do list. I promise they'll be actioned soon! Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 16:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

No issues. If it is OK with you, I will do the source and image reviews too. Cheers Matarisvan ( talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Please do! I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Matarisvan: Hi, thanks for the review so far! I have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 22:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

All looks great, happy to support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan ( talk) 14:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review - pass

• [:File:Henry John Milnes MacAndrew.png]] - Frank Swaine died in 1952 - more than 100 years ago - PD in the UK - okay
• File:Deccan Horse France 1916.jpg - UK crown copyright from 1916 - PD - okay
• File:Falls skMap29 1.jpeg - UK crown copyright from 1930 - PD - okay
• File:Palestine-WW1-3.jpg - US Federal government - PD -okay
• File:AWMH10659Damascus.jpg - Australia crown copyright from 1918 - PD - okay
• File:IWMQ12450Aleppo.jpeg - UK crown copyright from 1918 - PD - okay
• File:Major General H J MacAndrew mounted.jpg - PD - okay

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review - pass

• The article referenced with a consistent and appropriate citation style.
• All claims are verifiable against reputable sources.
• Sources accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge.
• Spot checks:
  • fn 9, 30, 35, 108 - okay
  • fn 26: source says 8 October, article says 7 October.

• Checked the other citation but yes it was just an error. Corrected. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 16:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Article promoted by Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 20:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list reply

HMS Sardonyx (1919)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Simongraham ( talk)

HMS Sardonyx (1919) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because HMS Sardonyx was one of only a few Royal Navy destroyers designed in the First World War (albeit launched shortly after the Armistice) to serve at the Normandy landings in the Second. She had a career rare amongst ships of her class, finally being broken up in 1945. simongraham ( talk) 11:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Support by Nick-D

It's good to see such a detailed article on a destroyer. I have the following comments:

• The lead is a bit short for the size of the article: 2-3 paras is the norm
  • That sounds a very good idea. Which aspects would you recommend including please? More from the specification or more from the service?
    • The service history, mainly, but I'd suggest noting the ship's role and key features (especially the 1940 refit that probably resulted in a different role) Nick-D ( talk) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Thank you. I have expanded the lead as you suggest.
• The first para of the 'Design and development' should note what the role of these ships was at the time they were ordered.
  • Added.
• The last para of that section should be tweaked to note that this was the armament upon completion.
  • Added.
• "Sardonyx was commissioned into the Reserve Fleet" - what does this mean? (e.g. does it mean that the ship was put into reserve straight away?).
  • I believe so.
• If possible, it would be good to note why the ship was completed and retained after the end of the war given the RN would have ended the war with vastly more destroyers than it needed
• The year referred to in the first para of the 'Interwar service' is unclear.
  • Added.
• Can more be said about the ship's service in the Baltic? There have been some recent works on the RN's activities in this campaign.
  • That sounds very interesting. I have referenced Dunn but if you have any other pointers, I would be grateful.
• What happened between 1920 and 1925 when the destroyer is active again?
  • It seems that she was laid in reserve.
• Likewise, when was the ship decommissioned following this period in service ahead of returning to service in 1931? What was the destroyer's role from 1931?
  • It seems that the 1925 mission was a one-off. I have altered the paragraphs to match.
• The last para of the 'Interwar service' section is a bit repetitive and confusing
  • Amended.
• "updated for the escort role" - not sure that 'updated' is the right word, given these modifications tended to involve reducing capabilities associated with front line fleet service to improve their usefulness as convoy escorts. It should also be noted that this was part of a larger program of modifying destroyers in this way.
  • Amended.
• "The destroyer reentered service" - when?
  • It is sometime in the middle of 1940, but the sources are not clear.
• What was the destroyer doing in 1943? This was the crisis of the Battle of the Atlantic. Had she been relegated to other duties by this time?
  • It seems so. There is no record of any duties after 20 May. Added some more background information.
• "On 8 June 1944, the destroyer escorted the troops that took part in the Normandy landings" - this is a bit confusing. Was she escorting convoys taking reinforcements to the beachhead? The wording also makes it sound like she was the only destroyer involved in this. What the ship's role at this time was should be made clear.
  • Clarified
• Can anything be said about the experiences of the ship's crew? I imagine that Atlantic convoy duty in an elderly destroyer wasn't much fun. Nick-D ( talk) 07:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I cannot find anything explicit. There is some generic material in books like Brown's Atlantic Escorts: Ships, Weapons & Tactics in World War II but it seems to relate more to corvettes than the S class. Any guidance would be gratefully received. simongraham ( talk) 02:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Nick-D: Thank you for all your comments. I believe that I have made the changes you suggest, but would value any guidance on additional sources. simongraham ( talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed: nice work with this article. Nick-D ( talk) 08:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Matarisvan

Hi simongraham, some comments:

• Consider expanding the lead section by 1-2 paragraphs with material from the body?
  • Expanded.
• Link to John Brown & Co. in the infobox? Also, is the Curtis here Curtiss-Wright?
  • Linked.
• "Sardonyx ws": "was"?
  • Corrected.
• Link to sister ship at mention Sabre instead of Scimitar?
  • Linked.
• Link to superstructure?
  • Linked.
• Link to British 18-inch torpedo?
  • Linked.
• Per NOFORCELINK, specify that the Dumaresq was a fire control computer?
  • Clarified.
• Is the pennant numbers caption for the table necessary? We already have the section heading.
  • Removed.
• Provide links for the following news articles?

"The Lost Submarine" "Little Hope for M2: Officers and Crew" "The Great Gale" "Stories Of The Gale" "News in Brief: Destroyer Aground"

• • Added, thanks to the Times Archive.
• Provide a link or identifier for Head 2009? If you received this paper via resource request, you should specify this in a hidden note so that future reviewers do not consider this source to be invalid.
  • Added a JSTOR link.

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan ( talk) 06:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, consider adding this article to List of ship decommissionings in 1945? Matarisvan ( talk) 18:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Matarisvan: Thank you for your comments. That was very helpful. simongraham ( talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, two minor comments:

"21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes. Launched": Consider rephrasing to avoid Wikipedia:SEAOFBLUE? Also, link to J. J. Colledge and Jürgen Rohwer? Matarisvan ( talk) 04:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by Nigel Ish

A few initial comments

• According to an 1986 article in Warship (Brady, Mark (1986). "The Old 'S' Class Destroyers". In Lambert, Andrew (ed.). Warship Volume X. pp. 12–23. ISBN  0-85177-449-0.), Sardonyx was a tender to the Signal School in 1938 - there is a photo of her during this time (p. 14). The 50 cm radar trials also appear to have been carried out under the Signal School (p. 22), and eventually led to the development of Type 282 radar. Incidentally, in this case 50 cm is a wavelength, so should probably be converted to a frequency.
• According to Brady, it was planned in the late 1930s to send Sardonyx to the Far East to join the S class destroyers already there, once she had finished her duties and been refitted, but the refit was still underway when France fell, which generated a great need for more ships in Home waters.
• Sardonyx does NOT appear to have been fitted with Type 271 centimetric radar - Whitley and Brady says this was only fitted to Shikari, while Friedman p274 only refers to the ship's close in armament, not radar. Please check your sources to see that nothing else like this has slipped through.
• re. the question about what Sardonyx was doing in 1943, there is more in Denis Rayner's Escort: The Battle of the Atlantic - by this time the S-class survivors were concentrated in the 21st Escort Group - in the early part of the year they were employed (when they weren't broken down) on escorting fast convoys of troopships from Iceland, where they could put their high speed to good use. In the summer, the 21st EG was employed in Operation Rosegarden, an attempt at a joint operation with RAF Coastal Command to interdict U-boats between Iceland and the Faroes. This failed, partly because of the inability to cope with the weather conditions. In autumn 1943, the group was used to provide training for submarines, simulating enemy escorts. Brady notes that they didn't have the range to take part in the major mid-atlantic convoy battles in 1942–1943.
• There is more on how the ships coped with Atlantic convoy duty in Brady and Rayner. Basically not well - they were very badly overloaded and overcrowded, and probably unfit for the North Atlantic when short of fuel but still carrying a full depth-charge load. They appear to have been popular with crews, however, as they spent much more time ashore as the ships were having weather damage repaired. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Nigel Ish: Thank you for these comments and sources, which have been very helpful. I have made changes based on both Brady and Rayner. simongraham ( talk) 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review - pass

• Only one image: File:HMS Sardonyx WWII IWM FL 18692.jpg - licence okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review - pass

The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.

• Bibliography:
  • Brady (1986): location? publisher?
    • Added.
  • Dietrich-Berryman & Hammond (2013): location should be Annapolis, Maryland
    • Corrected.
  • Jackson (1997): You don't need the page number in the bibliography
    • Removed.
  • Link Stephen Roskill
    • Linked.

• Spot checks:
  • fn 31: I am not convinced that "the need for ASW escorts was, of course, pressing as the prospect of another U-boat campaign against shipping in the North Atlantic became a reality" equates to "the Royal Navy required all available destroyers to be made available to combat the German submarine threat".
    • Reworded.
  • fn 14, 18, 25, 44, 57 :okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Hawkeye7: Thank you. That is very helpful. simongraham ( talk) 08:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Matarisvan and Nigel Ish:: Ready too support? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I have no objections. Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, happy to support for promotion to A class. Matarisvan ( talk) 15:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Article promoted by Donner60 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list reply

Battle of Saipan

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wtfiv ( talk)

Battle of Saipan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because The Battle of Saipan was one of the major battles in the 1941-1945 Pacific War, it's 80th anniversary is on 15 June 2024. I started with this article cleaning up references for one issue, and realized this article could use a major overhaul and expansion, particularly with sources, maps and images. I think it has come far enough for a peer review. To those who take a look, thank you. And I hope I have helped to make this topic interesting to you and other readers. Wtfiv ( talk) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Support by Nick-D

It's good to see this article on a key battle of World War II here. It needs a fair bit more work to reach A-class status though, and I have the following comments:

• The sentence starting with 'The speed with which the Marshalls were occupied' is a bit over-complicated, and it would be good to note when the invasion was brought forward.

• Sentence broken into two. This diff addresses adding original time of invasion. This diff adds the date when the Joint Chief of Staff brought the invasion forward to June. Wtfiv ( talk) 07:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• This section should also cover the assembly of the invasion force

• Moved assembly of forces out of footnote and added a bit more in new section. Wtfiv ( talk) 04:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The background section should also cover the pre-1944 history of Saipan

• Added background as first paragraph of the "Military Geography" section. Wtfiv ( talk) 02:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• The 'Japanese defensive preparations' section doesn't really capture the importance the Japanese assigned to Saipan: they knew that it would become a dangerous B-29 base if captured.

• A sentence on B-29s is added in this larger reworking. Interestingly, most sources do not focus on this. My guess is because the Japanese were focused on reacting to the action around Biak and assuming a strike into the Carolines.

• This section should also cover the overall Japanese plan for the defence of the Mariana Islands, including the plans to use aircraft and the IJN to defeat the US invasion fleet - this appears much later in the article.

• The background section now includes a subsection on Japan's defensive plans.

• The 'Saipan's military geography' should note the climate

• Added climate as first two sentences of second paragraph. Wtfiv ( talk) 02:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• The Opposing forces section needs to be referenced, and there's inconsistencies in how the names of various senior officers are presented here.

• Reworked whole section I disliked this section when I started editing, but thought it was a kind of template for the Pacific War island battles as I find it everywhere. As per Hawkeye7's Battle of Tinian, I just put the command structure of the major units into the prose narrative and deleted the section.

• "The attack took out nearly one-third of the 435 planes in Vice Admiral Kakuji Kakuta's 1st Air Fleet, which had been deployed to defend the Marianas" - this is the first time this force has been noted, despite there being a section focused on Japanese defences.

• Kakuta's 1st Air Fleet has been added here in the Japanese strategic plan heading. Further modifications to Kakuta's role in the article include a change and a later update in Japanese Naval Response, and an update to Preparatory Attacks. I didn't give specific numbers as the various sources wildly disagree. What is clear is the land-based airpower was devastated. I used Toll's estimate of 100, as it was more conservative.

• The grammar in the sentence starting 'It was had a wide gap just north of Charan Kanoa' is a bit off, and the sentence as a whole is over-complex
  • fixed grammar. Made sentence slightly longer, turning it into a list of three problems, but grammatical complexity should be reduced. If you'd like me to break it up, let me know.
• It's confusing referring to the US divisions as the '27th Infantry', '2nd Marines', etc: these terms are usually used for regiments (especially in the USMC).
  • "Division" added to each unit when named: diff, (and minor diff to fix spelling error in first mention of "Division" in previous diff.)
• The 'Aftermath' section should be reworked to avoid single paragraph sections

• Aftermath section has been reworked to avoid single paragraph sections and other issues raised below. Wtfiv ( talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The 'Naval air dominance' section doesn't seem to add anything

• Section deleted in latest reworking. Wtfiv ( talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The material on the use of Saipan as a B-29 base is confusing. This was always one of the main goals of the operation, reflecting long-term plans (the overarching strategy was to develop B-29 baes in the Marianas, with the operation in China always being a stop-gap until airfields in the islands were available). Reflecting this, airfield construction crews arrived fairly early in the piece. The article presents all of this as being a bit of an afterthought rather than central to the entire operation.

• Material has been reworked as follows:

(1) Strategic bombing is now early in Aftermath to reduce perception of afterthought.

(2) As suggested, added information on when aerodrome construction started, Emphasizing its earliness.

(3) Reorganization into three paragraphs. Logic of tentative organization:

¶1. Shift to strategic bombing; Yawata synchronized with invasion symbolizing this.

¶2. Explanation of role of Marianas in being a well-suited site for strategic bombing.

¶3. Saipan's specific role in the initiation of Marianas-based strategic bombing.

(4). Removed discussion of China-based B-29s, except for explaining the origination of the Yawata Steel Works raid. The relation of China bases vs. the Marianas is a complicated issue that evolved over time. For example, China-based bombing, supplemented by bases in the Aleutians-based bombing, was conceived as a sufficient project in its own right at the First Quebec Conference in 1943, though one of the justifications for the strategy was lack of available islands. (see C.C.S 323 on pp. 995–1000). Wtfiv ( talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Interestingly, Arnold didn't see the value of using mandate islands as bomber bases even as late as the Quebec conference, stating most were atolls. (see pp. 861-862) Wtfiv ( talk) 04:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The material presenting one view of the importance of strategic bombing in the Japanese surrender is out of place, and this is a famously complex and debated topic so it's not NPOV to present only one view and not the others.

• Deleted the two quotes, reworked material for perceptions of Japanese.

The intended point wasn't to get into the controversial and charged issue of what caused the Japanese to surrender (e. g., strategic bombing, submarine warfare, the Soviet declaration of war, the atomic bombs, and more.). My intention was to emphasize the effect B-29 bombing had on Japanese morale and perceptions. I'm hoping the rewrite makes this more clear. One of citations points towards quotes from ten Japanese leaders in addition to the two that I left in the text. (The remaining two were inherited from the original article.) Wtfiv ( talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Are any of the links in the 'See also' section really needed? If these people played a significant role in the battle, they should be linked in the body of the article.
  • Deleted.
• The number of photos seems excessive, and it would be good to left justify some of them.

• Deleted many, shifted a few. The original presentation was an experiment in presenting many images, each illustrating a topic in the text but avoiding MOS:SANDWICH; it didn't look too bad on a mobile.

I may have to rework again to avoid sandwiching once more maps are added. Maps added...I think sandwiching is okay.

• More maps could be added Nick-D ( talk) 06:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • For this comment, I'd like to get a bit more help from you about the maps. The Battle of Saipan map has the frontlines at each section of the narrative, and labels all the places mentioned in the narrative. (Except Tanapag plain, which is mentioned in context as between Makunsha and Tanapag.) But I can see a reader may not want to keep clicking back to that map. I could certainly add more in the sections. Where would would you like to see them, How many is reasonable, and what level of focus (whole island, or zoom in to the front?) would you like to see? Wtfiv ( talk) 02:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I'd suggest adding maps (where available, from the US official histories and similar) to illustrate the key engagements. A map of the landing/lodgement phase of the operation would be very useful, for instance. A map showing the 'Smith vs Smith' phase of operations would help to illustrate the issue here. Nick-D ( talk) 00:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

      Thank you for the reply, Nick-D. Please see my comment at the bottom of Hawkeye7's review. Wtfiv ( talk) 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

      I've done a set of maps. If you go to the page for each map Wikimedia Commons, the pages where the frontlines were derived are linked there. Wtfiv ( talk) 05:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Just to note regarding Hawkeye's great comments below, it's common for articles on battles of the Pacific War to need a surprising amount of material explaining how they fitted into each protagonist's strategy and the strategic situation. This is because most of the battles were essentially small stand-alone campaigns given the geography of the war (e.g. in comparison to the European theatre of the war where battles tended to occur in fairly rapid succession as part of general offensives and don't need as much introductory material). Nick-D ( talk) 00:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks Nick-D. When first working on this article, I could see that authors quickly got caught up in the MacArthur-King tension. My goal is to keep discussion of it to a minimum: acknowledging it and getting the facts right but focusing on the invasion. Both you and Hawkeye have provided with more guidance to help me better navigate these complexities. I'll do my best to address your concerns without being enmeshed in the details. I'm sure you two will guide me where I need to work it out more. Wtfiv ( talk) 02:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support Those changes look great. Nick-D ( talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hawkeye7

This is excellent work by a skilled content creator, and I am surprised that I haven't encountered you before.

Thank you, Hawkeye7, for both the compliment and the feedback. I'll be one the road this coming week, so a bit slow in addressing most of the points raised until I get back. I'll first address Nick-D's. In particular, our bullet points 1, 2 and 4 look like they may take a bit more thinking through. Wtfiv ( talk) 22:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There's no rush. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• American strategic objectives

• Reworked and expanded paragraphs 2–3 attempting to first four bullet points. (Major diff and minor cleanups here and here.) Intended logic of presentation:

¶ 1. (Mainly unchanged), sets up situation at beginning of 1944; defines King's support for Plan Orange and its relation to the Central Pacific offensive.

¶ 2–3. Global overview of Marianas status as strategic objective. Steps back to 1943 with focus on three conferences: discussing through King's advocacy for the Marianas and the CCS decisions. Also note MacArthur's concerns.

¶ 4. Shifts to operational implementation by Nimitz in 1944. Wtfiv ( talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The second paragraph is not incorrect, but it is misleading, because this decision to give priority to the Central Pacific drive was taken in May 1943, before the Admiralty Islands, and the Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaigns referred to in the previous paragraph. For the record, CCS 417 (at Cairo) said: "The advance in the Pacific shall be simultaneous along both axes and shall be mutually supporting, that when conflicts in timing and allocation of means exist, due weight should be accorded to the fact that operations in the Central Pacific promise at this time a more rapid advance toward Japan and her vital lines of communication." (Hayes, p. 550) So priority, yes, but the acceleration of MacArthur's timetable under Reno IV undermined the rationale for it.

• Issue of priority has been deleted. Paragraph 3 mentions only that CCS supported the Southwest Pacific drive and the Central Pacific Drive. Wtfiv ( talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The third is even more misleading. King had decided that with the capture of the Gilberts and Marshalls, the Marianas would be the next objective. This goal been formally endorsed by the Allies at the Cairo Conference in November 1943, which set their invasion for 1 October 1944. This is incorrect. The Marianas were added to the objectives list (CCS 387) at Cairo, [3] but not immediately after; Ponape and Truk were to be secured first. (see Matloff, p. 377)

• Deleted conflation of grand strategic decision making (CCS) with more operational decisions. Section omits mention of Gilberts and Marshalls. Rewords CCS statement at Cairo to adding the Marianas as an objective for the Central Pacific offensive

• The invasion the Marianas, codenamed Forager,[22] was originally scheduled for October–November 1944. You have already said this in the previous paragraph.

• Fixed. This was an artifact of addressing a concern by Nick-D, moving information without deleting the original. Latest reworking integrates this in the context of Cairo.

• The debate over the schedule in March 1944 is covered in Matloff pp. 455-459. The SWPA and POA staffs debated the issue at a conference in Pearl Harbor on 27-28 January 1944. Kenney, Kinkaid, Sutherland, Towers and Sherman all expressed reservations about the Marianas operation. Sherman felt it would be costly, and there were concerns about their suitability as a base given that they had no harbours. (see Hayes, pp. 545-548) Another conference was held in Washington in March, but there was still no decision on the Marianas vs Truk. (Hayes, p. 555) Sherman argued that the Marianas could be used to neutralise Truk. (Hayes, p. 556) As noted, JCS the decided on 12 March to invade the Marianas on 15 June. (Hayes, p. 560)

• I've kept the narrative at a high strategic level, focusing on King and the CCS in paragraphs 2 and 3. Mention MacArthur's concerns note the SWPA concerns regarding POA operations.

I know if we move down to the finer grain of the JCS, SWPOA, and POA discussions, it gets more complicated. As you mention, the Pearl Harbor and Washington conferences continued the back and forth about the Marianas. The debate constantly shifts: a number of the individuals took different sides of the argument at different times. (e.g., Nimitz being willing to forego the Marianas as a result of the Pearl Harbor discussion, and King having to him of the Cairo decision.)

I'm hoping that the two paragraphs focused on King and the CCS make the main point about King's insistence while getting the reader quickly to Saipan. It would be nice to have an article that got into these gnarly details that could be linked. I find it fascinating, and appreciate the deeper dive in terms of understanding the complexities but trying to reflect them simply that your comments have led me to. (The Granite II article?)

Is overall form of the current edit okay with you? Wtfiv ( talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Although King was nominally CNO, this was an administrative role. His authority derived from being CinC US Fleet (COMINCH) and should be referred as such.

• Done, see diff.

• Although Nimitz was CinC Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC), in this context he should be referred to by his other role, as CinC Pacific Ocean Areas (CINCPOA).

• Done, see diff above. May want to check if links are appropriate.

• Recommend moving footnote b into the body. This is an important part of the campaign.

• Done, Nick-D noted that I needed to add that information, so it may have been missed. (Or perhaps it wasn't enough.) It's now in main text under American invasion force and its been expanded slightly. Wtfiv ( talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Reworked sentence in second paragraph to make it more clear that the capture of the Marianas the central theme of the paragraph.

Wtfiv ( talk) 02:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Japanese defensive preparations
  • fn 35 contains a stray bracket
    • Someone graciously fixed it.
  • " but most of their equipment ... were lost" was lost
    • fixed
  • " to defeat an invading force at the beaches, when the invading troops were most vulnerable" where the invading troops
    • Fixed. The diff for this and all but one change in this section below is here.
  • Link defence in depth
    • Done
  • "Other soldiers were stranded survivors headed to other islands when their ships were sunk" I Had difficult parsing this. I think you mean that they had been headed for other islands, but wound up on Saipan.
    • reworded Many soldiers were stranded survivors of sunken ships headed to other islands.
  • "the timing of the invasion surprised the Japanese, who thought they had until November to complete their defense" If you have the book, I would be interested in knowing what footnote 43 refers to.
    • I checked the convenience link the the citation, and it looks like it works. I'll put it here: p. 139 The Lacey sources a G-2 intelligence report from 11 July 1944 interrogating Major "Kiyoshi Yoshida". (see footnote g for questions regarding his reports during and after the war, which are used widely in reliable sources to describe the Japanese side of the battle.) The date can be argued for: It's at the end of the monsoon season and closer to the original date set at the Cairo conference, but that'd be WP:OR. Other sources make the same point, but none give a reason.
  • " after the Japanese government had taken over Saipan from Germany in 1914." full stop instead of comma
    • Done
  • "Saipan was the first island of the war " Can you rephrase this?
    • Reworded: Saipan was the first island during the Pacific war
  • " large urban centers" Seems a bit of an exaggeration to me.
    • Reworded to fought around urban areas
  • "civilians lived on the island primarily serving the sugar industry" comma after "island"
    • done
• Opposing forces
  • • Deleted format and replaced with narrative section I didn't change this because I thought this was an informal "best practice" for Pacific War Island articles, as so many of them have this.
  • I really, really don't like the use of abbreviations for ranks. Are bits that expensive?
    • Section deleted, all named officers are given their full ranks without abbreviation.
  • Kelly Turner commanded TF 51, of which TF 52, which he also commanded, was a part. This should be added.
    • Kelly's dual role already mentioned, parenthetical addition of TF 52.
  • Source?
    • Narrative descriptions are now sourced.

• June 15: D-Day

• • Recommend moving the map in the Opposing forces section down to this section.
    • Suggestion is a good one. Not implemented yet, please see response at end.
    • Most suggested changes from here until "Logistics" is in this diff
  • Link star shell on first use.
    • Link moved to first instance. Most suggested changes from here until "Logistics" is in this diff
  • Suggest moving the first paragraph of "Japanese naval response" back into the "Japanese defensive preparations" section, and the other two into the "Battle of the Philippine Sea" to reduce disruption of the narrative.
    • Material rearranged. New section Japanese Strategic Plan now has material from first paragraph and additions. Material on Submarine Admiral Takeo Takagi and his relevance added. Remainder moved to Battle of Philippine Sea.

• June 16–20: Southern Saipan
  • First image is a red link for some reason.
    • Fixed (in some previous edit).
  • "on June 20" should be "on 20 June"
    • Corrected that, and many other date reversals.
  • "To prepare for the upcoming naval battle, the American transports continued to unload supplies and reinforcements throughout June 17." This is wrong; they would have done this anyway. Move the first phrase to the next sentence.
    • Reworked as per suggestion.
  • "On June 19-20" -> "on 19-20 June"
    • done
  • Suggest making "Battle of Philippine Sea" a separate section, as it is not part of Southern Saipan (or rename that section)
    • done
  • June 17 -> 17 June
    • done

• 21-24 June: Central Saipan, initial attack
  • "Frustrated by what he saw as lack of progress by the 27th Division, Holland Smith relieved its commander, Major General Ralph Smith" 27th Division -> 27th Infantry Division, delete "Major General" Is it more American to use their middle initials as well?
    • I used their middle initial when introducing them, but here I'm using first names to distinguish the Smiths. If you think I should include their middle initial, let me know.
  • June 22 -> 22 June
    • done

• 25-30 June: Central Saipan, breakthrough
  • "the XXIV artillery corps" This is wrong; it was the XXIV Corps Artillery.
    • done
  • " had moved" -> "moved"
    • done
• 1–6 July: Pursuit into northern Saipan
  • Move the last paragraph into the next section
    • done

• 7–9 July: Gyokusai attack and battle's end
  • "On 11 July, the Americans found the body of general Saitō." -> "On 11 July, the Americans found Saitō's body"
    • done
  • "Though many civilians were able to surrender early in the battle.[269] surrender became more difficult as the battle moved into the northern mountains." Replace full stop with comma.
    • done
  • "The places they jumped from would become known as "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff". You have forgotten to say that many committed suicide in this manner.
    • Reword Many died by throwing themselves off cliffs at places that would become known as "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff"
  • Delete the "Further resistance" heading; it is only one paragraph. (Consider moving the paragraph into the "Aftermath" section.)
  • Make "Casualties" its own section. Readers often go looking for this
    • Done
• Aftermath
  • "The capture of Saipan, along with MacArthur's victory in Hollandia, pierced the Japanese Exclusive National Defense Sphere." Except that on your map, Hollandia is not within it.
    • Yes, it had been moved to the west of New Guinea in April 1944 following the Take Ichi convoy disaster. Nick-D ( talk) 22:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      • deleted point about Hollandia. Source is incorrect. Three other sources– Tanaka, 2023, Willoughby 1994 (The Reports of MacArthur, map on p. 227) and Smith 2006 (Carrier Battles to be added to sources soon)– put the line to the west of Hollandia. Wtfiv ( talk) 08:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • fn 289, 308: page number?
    • Both fixed

• Nothing on logistics. Sigh.

**See note below. Logistics section added after casualties. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hawkeye7 and Nick-D I have finished a first pass through your thoughtful comments. I particularly appreciate your kindness as you wade through the typos and errors.

:*I have attempted to address the core comments, so if you feel it is productive I could address second-round comments. But, I still have a couple of more secondary tasks I'd like to try before I feel I have addressed your comments in full, so if you think we should wait and I can ping you when I feel they are done, that works too. Here's the remaining tasks I see:

• Nick-D's challenge with the maps. Tracking all the references in the narrative can be a terror. Nick-D has given me an easy solution, which is to take the best from Hoffman, Crowl and Shaw et al and use them. I may. Before going that direction, I'd like to experiment with creating a set consistent with the .svg, but that requires some care and they'd require review. If it gets overwhelming, I can try Nick-D's suggested default.
• I'd like to build a modest logistics section as per Hawkeye's suggestion. I considered logistics. I deferred because I'd have to think about how to keep it simple. The complexity of detail could risk overwhelming an article that is already on the long side. But I like the challenge. Logistics is the bedrock of the campaign. Section created.
• I need to run through a couple more rounds of minor copyediting.

• All this is done (well, copy editing is endless.)

• Nick-D, I feel I owe you a special apology. I recently read your Bugle article on doing a review, and saw I did one of your "don'ts" when I let you know I'd be delayed in responding just after you took the time to review. An unfortunate mix of the article catching interest two days before I had to head out and the resulting real life situation require a lot more care than I thought.

Wtfiv ( talk) 02:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nick-D and Hawkeye7 I've attempted to address all the concerns for this round. Logistics section and maps I mentioned as final items have been drafted. Wtfiv ( talk) 15:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Great work! Some final points:

1. I copy edited the Logistics section to remove a series of typos. (Pet peeve: "ordinance" instead of "ordnance")

   Thank you, Hawkeye7! Wtfiv ( talk) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2. Morison says that the Marianas were claimed in 1565, as does the CIA. [4]. Your source says Saipan was occupied in 1564. I looked at Quimby, Frank J. (2017). "Spain in the Mariana Islands, 1521–1898". Historical Archaeology of Early Modern Colonialism in Asia-Pacific: The Southwest Pacific and Oceanian Regions. pp. 146–194. doi: 10.2307/j.ctvx07b3c.13. and it says 1565 too. Can we re-check?

   I put 1565Morison (thanks!) as he is already given as a source. Three other sources I looked up. One gave an exact date 3 Feb 1565. Wtfiv ( talk) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

3. Tojo was succeeded as prime minister by Koiso, but Tojo was also Minister of the Army and Chief of the Army General Staff; he was succeeded in those posts by Hajime Sugiyama and Yoshijirō Umezu respectively. (Suggest just adding "as prime minister")

   added "as prime minister". It helps keeps the article focused, but I will be looking up the other two. I'm curious. Wtfiv ( talk) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That's all I have. Support. Great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review - pass

• Books

  Link Herbert P. Bix, James L. Cate, Richard B. Frank, James C. Olson, Craig L. Symonds, Steven J. Zaloga

  Chapin (1994) has location, but nothing else does. Personally, I prefer locations as it is the usual academic style and therefore aids someone lifting the source, but removal is easy and will make the references consistent.

  Craven and Cate is volume V, not volume VI

  Coakley and Leighton (1987) "United States Army n world War II" Typo.

  Crowl (1993) is not volume 9; the series has no volume numbers

  Dod (1987): is also part of the United States Army in world War II series.

  Forrestel (1966): Capitalise "government"

  Hiroyuki (2022): Add editors (Frank Reichherzer, Tomoyuki Ishizu), OCLC (1346915967)

  Hornfischer (2016) Add OCLC (1016508640)

  Wetzler, Peter (2020): Formatting; need an asterisk

   Done. here Except that I kept the Hiroyu OCLC to the English language version I had. I hope that's okay.

• Journal articles, reports and theses

  Hemler (2018) and Kaune (1990) are master's theses. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. (Annoying, I know. My own master's thesis gets more citations than the PhD.)

  Use degree= rather than type= for theses

  Plung (2021): use title case

  Sullivan (1995) is a book chapter from The Mechanism for Strategic Coercion: Denial or Second Order Change?

  Why is Defense Technical Information Center only linked once?

   Done diff Swapped out Hemler Masters for doctorate. Lost the Kaune, though I do feel badly as it is a publically accessible work focused on the 27th Infantry divsion

  I have had the same experience. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Allowing Master's theses when not used to dispute more reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm so glad to hear it. I think I get the original policy. In contentious issues, a Master's may not be a reliable source for making an argument. But in historical reviews like this, I find that master's theses can be great sources for giving an overview, particularly when they are web accessible. For example, the acknowledged history for the 27th Infantry is Edmund Love's book, which is hard to get hold of, and has the additional problem of getting POV'ed into the Smith vs. Smith controversy. Kaune's overview has the advantage of being written from a historical distance, and the DTIC thought it was good enough to post (which doesn't mean it was closely review, of course.) It sounds like the discussion is appropriate and I'll take a look. Wtfiv ( talk) 20:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Primary sources

  Sheeks (1945) is out of alphabetic order

  Should you link United States Strategic Bombing Survey since it is an author?

  Don't think Willoughby counts as a primary source

   Done See diff above.

• Footnotes

  fn 97 is dubious. Text says: " moved closer to shore because the sea was found to be free of mines". Source says: (on pp. 74-75, not 75) "none of the ships was allowed to move closer than 10,000 yards (five nautical miles) from the shore for fear of mines"

  Y I think the problem is it should be page number 76, which now corrected. This references Oldendorf's old battleships, not Lee's newer one's, which pp. 74–75 are referring to.

  fn 160: page number for Morison?

   Done

  Consider consolidating fn 287-289

   Done mainly concerned that only Sheeks emphasizes the point made in the middle citation.

  fn 295-296: Strange formatting with square brackets

   Done Changes for this and above are in this diff.

  fn 316 is dubious, considering the next sentence, which says that bombing started from China.

  Kept the citation, but consolidated it and expanded it to page 4. Qualified the point with dependent clause mentioning Chengdu with link that mentions the airfields. IF you feel I'm still not capturing the point made by Craven and Cate, let me know. Wtfiv ( talk) 21:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  Spot checks 12, 17, 81, 97, 156, 160, 316 - mostly okay, some issues (above) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think these have all been addressed. Wtfiv ( talk) 17:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  I have had a go at getting the books into alphabetic order, correcting a couple of typos and adding some more author links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Matarisvan

Hi Wtfiv, some comments:

Thank you Matarisvan. I made most of changes in this edit. There's a few I didn't do, but if you feel they improve the article, I will

• "range of United States Army Air Forces B-29 bombers": consider changing to "range of B-29 bombers of the United States Army Air Forces" to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE?

Y reworked paragraph and removed sea of blue.

• "resignation of Prime Minister of Japan Hideki Tōjō": change to "resignation of Hideki Tōjō, the Prime Minister of Japan" for the same reason as above?

 Done Part of paragraph reworking

• "Ships personnel": Wouldn't "naval personnel" be better?

I inherited this from the article, but I think the intention here is to distinguish naval personnel killed on ships from those who were killed on the island.

• Link to line of communication?

Y

• Consider moving left aligned images to right alignment per MOS:IMAGELOC?

Originally, I had right-aligned all images, but Nick-D recommended the variety in image placement. I think the suggestion makes the page look a little better. I did set up the images to avoiding MOS:SANDWICH

• Link to Rota?

Y

• Use the ^{convert: needs a number} template to provide Celsius temperatures for the Fahrenheit values?

Y

• Link to Magicienne Bay (Laolao Bay)?

Y

• Link to Kagman?

I didn't link Kagman because the text refers to the peninsula, not the village. The article on Kagman is also bare at this point. But if you think the link would help readers get a geographic sense of the location, I will.

• Link to Tanapag?

Y

• Link to Marpi?

I didn't link this as it references the point, not the village, but will add if it will help readers.

• Link in the biblio to John W. Dover, Thomas Havens, Daikichi Irokawa, Noriko Kawamura, Michael Kort, Yuki Tanaka, William T. Y'Blood, Richard P. Hallion, Preston Cloud, Vincent O'Hara?

Y

• Consider converting the Y'Blood 1981 reference to an sfn tag?

That alternative format is to prevent a cite error. (There are two citations to the same page, but one has a ps and the other doesn't.

• Miller 1991 is the only source which uses the Citation template instead of Cite book, consider using the latter?

Y Fixed.

Overall, a very fine article, there were some very minor grammatical errors which I corrected, I hope you do not mind. That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan ( talk) 18:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I appreciate yout taking the time to look over the article. Wtfiv ( talk) 05:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

On second thought, the links to Kagman and Marpi aren't necessary, and the sfn conversion is also not required. There's a minor correction needed, though. The link for Yuki Tanaka points to a volleyball player, the article we want is Yuki Tanaka (historian). Otherwise, happy to extend my support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan ( talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done Thank you! Wtfiv ( talk) 04:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Wtfiv, one minor comment I somehow forgot to post: These sentences "This battle sealed the fate for the Japanese forces defending Saipan. Though they did not know it, they could not expect expect further assistance." are great for a research paper or article, but are not encyclopedic. Something like this would be much better: "As a result of this battle, the Japanese troops on Saipan could not be reinforced, resupplied or provided military support anymore." Also consider replacing the word "doomed" with something neutral. Matarisvan ( talk) 06:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Reworded sentence incorporating suggested ideas, but kept sense from the Morison quote that the defenders weren't aware of their situation. Removed word "doom". Wtfiv ( talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Matarisvan: Please clarify whether you are in full support of promotion of this article to A-class in view of the previous edit. If so, it appears ready for promotion and I will make the necessary change to the assessment. Thanks. Donner60 ( talk) 06:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah I am in support of promotion to A class. Matarisvan ( talk) 06:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review - pass

Lots of images in this one.

• File:Marines and King Kong on Saipan.jpg, File:USMC-M-Saipan-p891 (cropped).jpg, File:Marines in rough terrain, Saipan 1944.tif, File:Rocket-launchers-Saipan.jpg, File:Garapan Fire, Saipan, 3 July 1944.jpg, File:A member of a Marine patrol on Saipan found this family of Japs hiding in a hillside cave. The mother, four children an - NARA - 532380.jpg, File:Civilian with baby Saipan (cropped).jpg - USMC image - PD - okay

• File:LVTs move toward Saipan, past bombarding cruisers, on 15 June 1944 (80-G-231838).jpg, File:TBFs and SB2Cs enroute to attack during the Battle of the Philippine Sea.tif, File:Saipan flamethrower (cropped).jpg - US Navy image - PD - okay

• File:Map of B-29 range from Saipan.svg - Wikipedian image based on PD US Army image - CC 4.0 - okay

• File:Battle of Saipan Map.svg, File:Saipan June 15-crop.png, File:Saipan June 24-crop.png, File:Saipan July 7-crop.png - Wikipedian image - CC 4.0 - okay (Beautiful map btw)

• File:From Mount Tapochau.jpg, File:Battle of Saipan - Japanese beach defense GAG01.jpg, File:American Memorial Park3.jpg, File:Banzai Cliff Cenotaphs2.JPG, File:Banzai Cliff in Saipan.JPG - Wikipedian image - CC 4.0 - okay

• File:Battle of Saipan - Japanese beach defense GAG01-modified (cropped).jpg - Wikipedian image based on PD US Army image - CC 4.0 - okay

• File:Inferno by William F. Draper.jpg, File:Draper (1944) An LVT Comes Ashore, Saipan.jpg - US Navy artwork - PD - okay

• File:Red Beach -2.jpg, File:Soldiers of 27th Infantry moving inland, Saipan 1944.webp, File:2d Marine Division on Tanapag Plain after Gyokusai attack, Saipan July 1944.jpg, File:Isely Field with B-29s in mid 1945.jpg - US military image - PD - okay

All images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the image review, Hawkeye7, and for the compliments regarding the maps. Wtfiv ( talk) 14:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Article promoted by Donner60 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list reply

Battle of Tinian

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 ( talk)

Battle of Tinian ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Tinian/archive1

After the Battle of Saipan comes the Battle of Tinian. It isn't as well known as Saipan, but it was an important part of the Mariana Islands campaign. It was mostly a US Marines show, but the other services were heavily involved. The battle is a good case study of the process of command decision making. The island eventually became an important base for B-29 bombers and in August 1945 the atomic bombing missions were launched from there, which is what it is best known for today, if at all. There is plenty written about it though, and the article could have gone much deeper into the fighting.

If someone wants to complete the Operation Forager trilogy by fixing up the Battle of Guam (1944), that would be great. I am not going to, but I am intending to take this one to Featured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support by Nick-D

This article is in good shape. Please see my comments below:

• The first para of the lead should establish which countries the battle was fought between. " the island joined Saipan and Guam as a base for the Twentieth Air Force." is also unclear given readers may not know that this was an American unit or its significance

  Added who it was fought between. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Thought I had better mention it in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The lead could also be clearer about the purpose of the invasion - e.g. that the island was a key element of the plans for the air attacks on Japan

  The purpose of the invasion was to cut the Japanese line of communications. Tried to make this point more clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• "Another rationale for the capture of the Mariana Islands emerged with the development of the long-range Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber." - this is a bit unclear. I'd suggest noting in this para that B-29s could reach almost all worthwhile targets in Japan from the islands, which is why they were so strategically important

  Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The 'strategy' section should start with a para or so on Tinian's status at the start of the war and by the mid-1940s. Readers don't learn until the next section that it had long been Japanese territory and that it had a largish civilian population.

  Added a paragraph on this. It is of course covered in detail in the article on Tinian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Added a couple of sentences about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Do modern historians use the term 'comfort women'? It seems an awful euphemism.

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yetch. I'd personally use something else anyway. Nick-D ( talk) 10:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• What was the condition of the Japanese garrison? E.g. had any of the units seen combat before, were they well supplied, etc? My understanding is also that the Japanese attempts to reinforce the islands were greatly disrupted by submarine attacks - did these reduce the intended size of the garrison? It might be worth noting somewhere that the Japanese were well aware that the US wanted the islands as strategic bomber bases and regarded their defence as a top priority.

  The submarines attacks did not affect Tinian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Can anything be said in the second para of the 'United States' section about the condition of the Marines? I imagine that while the troops were worn out by the fighting on Saipan they would have almost all been combat veterans

  This is covered in the second paragraph of "United States". I have added a bit about their previous service. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The 'Counterattack' section is written from the perspective of the Americans. Can anything be said about the Japanese decision making here and/or the experiences of the Japanese troops?

  This has been added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Ditto the 'Tinian taken' section. This section raises the question of why the Japanese garrison didn't surrender and fought it out to the last against an obviously vastly superior force

  Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The 404 Japanese who were captured is also a fairly high ratio for Japanese forces in the small island battles - 5% or so of the garrison. Can anything be said about the circumstances of their capture and who they were?

  Only a little bit. My opinion is that the island was not that small, that many Japanese became isolated and left to their own devices, and the presence of civilians may have been a factor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  On Saipan, 1,780 prisoners were taken. This was more than the United States had taken in all the battle of the war up to that point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• I'd suggest checking the sources, but my understanding is that 'Marines' is usually capitalised in US works when referring to groups of individuals serving in the USMC

  They do but we don't. ( MOS:MARINE) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• "Between 1 August 1944 and 1 January 1945, the 8th Marines lost another 38 killed and 125 wounded; 542 Japanese soldiers were killed" - can more be said about this fighting? The number of Japanese killed after the island was secured is startling high.

  Unfortunately not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• One of the many horrific elements of the fighting on Okinawa was the mass rapes of Okinawan civilians by Japanese troops. The article notes Japanese troops killing civilians on Tinian, but do the sources also discuss sexual assaults?

  Astroth has a whole chapter on the subject, but it lacks any specifics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The last para of the article should note that the air units on Tinian represented a high proportion of the force that attacked Japan.

  Noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• It would be good to add material with historians' assessments of the battle. From memory, some consider it the best-conducted amphibious operation of the war. Nick-D ( talk) 22:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  You're remembering Howling Mad Smith's assessment, from Coral and Brass. I will add a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Added an analysis section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Nick-D: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D ( talk) 10:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Support by Wtfiv

Great article! I must say, I feel awkward reviewing one of the most veteran and skilled editors in this section of Wikipedia. I also know my style is not in line with the more typical style; most are probably too long. Getting a sense of your experience, I can have confidence you'll be gracious about them though. So here they are:

• Geograph

• • ¶ 1. I may be wrong, but I think Magellan only landed on Guam. He may have informally claimed it, but not Tinian. I think the islands were not formally claimed until 1565 by López de Legazpi.

    Y You are right. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 3. For the beach descriptions, the white beaches are saved for last, but only its location is given. The beaches in ¶ 2 are the best beaches, and the yellow beaches are bad because of cliffs and surf, but the properties of the white beaches are not given. Given their importance, shouldn't that aspect which made them unappealing as invasion sites be mentioned?

    Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Last paragraph. Consider replacing "it" it had a population with a more definite noun as it is the topic noun of the paragraph. I was unsure of what "it" was. (For instance, a reader may think it is Tinian town until it was mentioned. Perhaps "Tinian" or "the island"

    Y Replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • (Note added a bit later) As I was working through the pre-assault bombardment section, I thought it may be worthwhile to mention the distance of Tinian from Saipan. This is relevant in terms of the pre-assault bombardment. It also gives the reader a sense that the logistics of the invasion was more of a hop, (unlike the invasion of Saipan.) (Maybe it can go in the last paragraph of the previous section, Strategy?

    Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Japanese
  • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. I understand why Kakuta gets first paragraph. He is the most senior officer, and in order of battle he'd go first. But I think his relevance to the rest of the narrative puts him later. It seems to me that the actual defenders should go first. Mention of Kakuta seems like he should be more of an afterthought as he mainly spent his time avoiding the fighting. My own thought is he should go after ¶3.
  • ¶ 2. The information on the 135th infantry is unclear because the invasion of Saipan has not been made explicit in the article. The reference to an 11 June amphibious landing making the unit available on Saipan would be clear if the reader knows that this was the beginning of the aerial attack on Saipan which froze the Japanese forces in place.

    Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 2. Minor suggestion only. The total number of forces, their readiness and moral seem like the topic of this paragraph, this go in the first sentence or after a sentence explaining that Ogata is in command? (And in line with my earlier suggestion, maybe this whole paragraph should be the first.)
  • ¶ 4. The opening of this paragraph is unclear because the article has not mentioned that the Saipan invasion preceded the invasion of Tinian. It should be clear if this point is made explicit.

    Y tried to clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 4. Comment only- no action requested. The sentence and point is fine and it can stand. But to me, this page reads like Morison's personal opinion (note comparison to the revolution. I wouldn't challenge Morison as an authority, but I'm not sure I agree with his opinion. I think other sources may come up with other reasons why the Japanese fought. I think Ogata, like a good soldier following orders, had no choice. The "fight to the death" was Japanese government policy, not that of the soldiers–many of lower class with probably little sense of being samurai– or Ogata per se. Also, in the Battle of Saipan article, I was going to reference the code of bushido too, but digging in, the fact that Japanese soldiers fought to the death seemed more complicated than following the code of bushido. It seems the rank and file had a militarized education of the 1920 and 1930s played a role with what most Westerners would call brutality played a role, The enculturation of the importance of social face, the Emperor cult, and the religious aspect of being deserving of memory in Yasukuni Shrine all could be argued for.

    Y Deleted this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• American
  • ¶ 4. There's a lot of detail and information in this paragraph, so I'm not sure adding more would be useful. But another reason intelligence about Tinian was excellent was because the Grasshopper observation planes had been scouring the Island for the 531st Artillery and XXIV Artillery Corps. (Consider Crowl, p. 271)

    Y added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 5. Consider rewording What the intelligence reports revealed was that the best landing beaches were around Sanharon Bay but they were also the most heavily defended. to "The intelligence reports revealed..."

    Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 6. Consider deleting the first sentence Turner had plenty to say. Start the second with "Turner noted..."

    Y Very well. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 6. I find the discussion a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure that the northern beaches include both Yellow and White beach. But then it sounds like the Yellow Beaches because of the exposure to weather, but most likely both Yellow and White were thought to be too small to land forces of the size contemplated.

    Y Already noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 8. Minor suggestion only. Consider putting the detailed challenges of White beach up in the Geography section, and in this section it just summarize the challenges and how they would be surmounted. I think moving some of the measurement details to the appropriate area in Geography would help the reader keep more focus on the narrative, which is focusing on solutions to the problem.

• Bombardment
  • ¶ 1. I think it is important to mention that the artillery bombardments were taken place even as the fighting on Saipan continued. This is implicit to those who know in discussing the 531st.

    Y Already noted above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. I think the XXIV Corps Artillery began shelling around the time they were first deployed around 22 June (see Crowl 133). It might be useful to let the reader know that the XXIV had also been constantly bombarding Tinian long-term.

    Y Added that the XXIV Corps Artillery began commenced firing on Tinian on 20 June. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 3 or thereabouts. You are very thorough in your description of aerial bombardment, you may want to also mention the USAAF's 19th Fighter Squadron on Aslito Field that started bombarding Tinian on its first day on Saipan on 22 June (consider Crave and Cate, p. 690–691) again highlights that it might be useful to note that the bombardment and recon by forces on Saipan was ongoing even as Saipan remained an active combat zone.

    Y Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 4. I think damage to the Colorado and Norman Scott may need context. Readers may like to know they were damaged as part of a fairly major diversion on the South beaches.
  • Minor suggestion only. The diversionary section on Saipan may merit more discussion. Unlike the Battle of Saipan where the diversion was almost token, the diversion on Tinian was substantial, involving warships, and has been argued to keep the main Japanese forces focused on the southern beaches.

    Y The feint is covered below. I have moved the paragraph up to give it more context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Landing
  • ¶ 3.packs behind on Tinian. Did you mean Saipan?

    Y Whoops! Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 5. It might be helpful to the reader to clarify why the Doodlebugs were needed. Ideally United States ¶8 or Geography ¶3 might help. As currently written United States ¶8 is ambiguous that the beaches were unfriendly for vehicles to get off the beach.

    "The Doodlebugs allowed the Marines to scale the low cliffs around the White Beaches."

  • ¶ 5. Shouldn't the damage to the Colorado and Norman Scott be included in description of the feint?

    Y Moved the information on the feint up to this section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 5. Minor suggestion only. Consider moving the feint to the first paragraphs of this article. It would put the ship action together with this paragraph, and would allow a less interrupted flow of the White Beach material.

    Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 7. alter ones. I'm not sure what is meant here.

    Y Typo. Corrected to "later". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Counterattack
  • ¶ 1. Would it be helpful to the reader to make the doctrine clear (i.e., repulsing the attack on the beach)?

    Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 3. In the center of the American needs the word "line" after it.

    Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 3 consider changing Marines. They divided into two groups to "Marines, and divided. It resolves the ambiguous anaphor of the pronoun by elimination.

    Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Drive South
  • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. For Moving north along the coast Consider "as they moved north"...makes it clear the move was in progress when it was held up. ("Moving up" feels to me like the hold up occurred after the action was completed.

    Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 1. charaterized misspelled. (I could've corrected it myself, but experience with negative experience with reviews makes me hesitate.)

    Y I don't mind. Some reviewers like to keep at arms length. Words like this get misspelt because I expect the spell checker to flag them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weather Break
  • General Comment on section. This has lots of details on damage, repair and supply. Did it have any effect on the advance of the troops in the field?

    None that I am aware of. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ¶ 4. Capitalize town Tinian town

  Y Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Tinian taken
  • ¶ 2. machine gunned twenty Japanese needs a hyphen.

    Y Um, okay. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Analysis

• • Comment only- no action requested. I would agree that Tinian was an outstandingly executed invasion, particularly the outflanking of the Japanese forces with the assault on White Beach. But, I think quoting the opinion Holland Smith is problematic. The quote comes from his memoir account, which seems full of justification. In this case, implying that an operation he played an important role had achieved perfection just before he was taken out of direct combat command, in part as fallout from the Smith vs. Smith mess on Saipan. This bias makes the reliability of his opinion questionable. Though Hoffman p. 122 cites Smith, Hoffman's following paragraph carefully qualifies Smith's superlatives a bit. Prefer's analysis on pp. 169–173 seems more balanced and less POV. Yet, it is a famous quote, one that has become part of the Tinian story, and so is reasonable to put in a Wikipedia article.

    I followed the same reasoning. I am accustomed to the upbeat tone characteristic of American accounts. What is really unusual about Tinian was how accurate the intelligence was. I've gone over campaign after campaign where despite, or possibly because, of Ultra, the Japanese strength was grossly underestimated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Mopping up
  • ¶ 1. sector, two days later delete comma. It makes remainder a bit clearer.

    Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Military government
  • ¶ 3. Minor suggestion only. Would you consider a substitute for cater? It has strong connotations of a professional social event and "catering to someone's demands" has the negative connotating of unnecessarily giving in to an unreasonable demand.

    Y Changed to "care". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Base development
  • ¶ 3. I'm not sure the barge name of YOGL adds information to the narrative, unless the meaning of YOGL is spelled out and interesting in some way.

    Y deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That's all for now. Wtfiv ( talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. I think that covers it for me. Support. Wtfiv ( talk) 06:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

HF - support

I'll try to get to this over the coming days, but I'm less familiar with this operation than the ones around Guadalcanal, so I should be considered a non-expert reviewer for this one. Hog Farm _Talk 01:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The Guadalcanal campaign is the only part of the Pacific War that is well-covered. Unfortunately, the editor who did it was indef'ed back in 2016.

• "Nimitz and his Deputy Chief of Staff, Rear Admiral Forrest P. Sherman a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, DC, on 7 March 1944, and were questioned by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General George C. Marshall, and the Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief, Admiral William D. Leahy." - this sentence is missing a word

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "Their small size of the White and Yellow beaches made them unattractive" - do you mean The small size ..."?

  Y Yes,. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "Roads were approximately 18 feet (5.5 m) wide and surfaced with crushed coral." - per the source, this is referring to the primary road network; I would recommend clarifying this

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Are Sunharon Bay and Sanharon Bay the same thing?

  Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Ready for the Landing section; will hopefully continue tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "At Saipan, aerial photography had been restricted in fear that the Japanese would be alerted and the element of surprise would be lost; Tinian demonstrated that this was not the case" - this seems a bit strongly worded. This wouldn't really conclusively demonstrate that aerial photography wouldn't alert defenders of upcoming attacks because the Japanese knew the attack was coming and just guessed wrong on which beaches it would hit

  Y Re-worded to "Aerial photography of Saipan was restricted through fear that the Japanese would be alerted and the element of surprise would be lost; whereas aerial photography of Tinian was unrestricted but surprise was not sacrificed." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Bosworth needs the publisher listed

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Ditto with Jones and Schmidt and Turner

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• The first Youtube external link makes sense to me to include as an official military production, but I'm less convinced about the value of including the other two as external links

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review by Adam Cuerden

There are, by my count, twenty-six images in the article. A lot of these are very clearly simple {{ PD-USGov}} works, and I don't think there's much point listing those here unless there's a problem in documentation (though, honestly, there's only a few images I had nothing to say about in the end). The only one not some form of USGov is File:Map of the Battle of Tinian (1944).svg, which is user-made (and a featured picture). CC-licence (perfectly fine)

There is one problematic image:

File:75mm pack howitzer is fired into a Japanese-held cave on Tinian.png - No source given. It's also uploaded by Hawkeye7 fairly recently, so I'd like to hope it's trivially fixed.

Added the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you, that sorts the issue. While there are points below, A-class does not generally cover images at the level of detail I do, so I think at this point, we can say it Passed image review. Now, if you want it to pass image review with a higher grade, the rest of the points are valid, but they're probably beyond the A-class and even FA-class criteria, because article editors aren't expected to be image experts. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Not great reproductions, but that's a quibble

File:White Beach 1 on Tinian.jpg and File:White Beach 2.jpg are not great reproductions. The article would be improved as a resource if we could find the originals, but if this is what we have, it's fine. It seems a shame to have what are probably the two worst images in the article right away, though.

We don't have the originals, but there are alternative versions at [5]. I uploaded the White Beach 1 image from there. I am unsure if the one of White Beach 2 is better or not. I found other images of White Beach 1 and White Beach 2. Maybe replace them with these? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I think File:White Beach 2 on Tinian.jpg isn't contemporary to the battle. At a guess, I'd say that was around the year 2000 or later. Probably not particularly relevant. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Higher resolution trivially available

The U.S. Navy has very high resolution copies of their images readily available; we're using medium -res ones for unclear reasons. I don't think this matters for A-class, but if we can do better, we should.

• File:80-G-284248 Tinian Flag Raising Ceremonies, August 1944.jpg
• File:USMC 87615 Marines load supplies aboard two LSTs in preparation for the assault on Tinian.jpg
• File:80-G-253605 USS Iowa fires a salvo during the bombardment of Tinian.jpg
• File:80-G-432851 TBM Avenger bombers prepare to take off from USS Monterey (CVL-26) to attack targets on Tinian.jpg

• Three versions at [ [6]] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• File:Tanks on beach tinian lg.jpg
• File:80-G-307883 USS LST-340 at pontoon pier on White Beach 2.jpg
• File:80-G-239297 U.S. Marines move across the wreckage of the Japanese airfield at Ushi Point.jpg
• File:USMC 87909 Marines cautiously probe a cave on Tinian.jpg
• File:USMC 87927 Marines stack mortar rounds in preparation for firing a fast barrage, on Tinian.jpg

I'll get this when I next have a chance, especially as some of these are potential featured pictures. I can't see how this would change the copyright status, though. That said, since you upload a lot of the images for these articles yourself, Hawkeye, talk to me sometime and I'll walk you through this. The TIFFs will display fine on pages, so there's not much reason not to just upload them as opposed to a lower-res JPEG, and if more work is to be done, well, it's still better to have the original uploaded.

I uploaded the jpegs because in the distant past I had trouble with really large tiffs. I also trimmed a couple of of them. The tiff versions can always be uploaded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Dead links

• File:Amphibious tractors move in and out - Tinian.jpg

  Dead, I'm afraid. Archive.org unable to archive properly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think that's fine, just best to fix it when it can be. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• File:Japanese tank knocked out of action - Tinian.jpg

  Repaired link rot. I uploaded another image taken shortly afterwards. Let me know if you think it would be better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  I believe that's actually a zoom-in of the exact same photo. On the whole, I like the cropped version better, though. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• File:Tinian Airfields 1945 Looking North To South.jpg - Technically, no explicit link given, but I'd say there's enough of a description I'd probably pass it to some extent.

  Found the image at the Truman Library. It appears that there were multiple copies of this photograph. It may have been handed out to aircraft to help them identify the island. It would be nicer if there were a better scan though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Absolutely no reason to think they're problematic images, but this is something to at least attempt to fix before FA attempts.

Colour changes

File:Doodlebug portable ramp.jpg is sepia in the source. I'm not sure why it was greyscaled - it was eating a LOT of visual detail. See, the thing about sepia is that the combination of saturation and level makes fine detail more visible. I've changed it to the original.

Mea culpa. I changed it to greyscale when I downloaded it. I was not aware of the advantages of sepia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I will say this image is one of the least-well documented of the images. It doesn't appear elsewhere on history.navy.mil - I think it's detailed enough, though; it's from the Seebee Museum and no indication is given by the US Navy that it's not a U.S. Navy picture. - Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 19:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Adam Cuerden: Also: if you think that one of the other images is a better choice for the infobox, let me know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

There's a lot of good images in this article. Now, there's two ways I like to choose an infobox image:

1. If people are looking for an image of an article's subject, the first one they're likely to click on is the infobox image. If it's very bad, they may stop using Wikipedia as a source for images for that subject. So there is a case for leading with a high-resolution image.

2. That said, it's also important that the image draws the reader in who's not interested in image reuse at all. The first image is going to get used widely; for example, it's likely to get attached to any TFA or On this Day run on the main page - they don't generally go digging deeper down the article. So a low-resolution image that's exciting can readily win out over a dull high-res one.

But the biggest rule is that it must be a good exemplar of the article's subject, so I really need to go through the article properly so I can kind of get a better feel for what's important and what's tangental. For example, File:USMC 87615 Marines load supplies aboard two LSTs in preparation for the assault on Tinian.jpg is a fantastic image, but too far off from the battle to really work as an infobox. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Matarisvan

Hi Hawkeye7, some comments:

• Link to Saipan on first use instead of second?

  It is linked on first use (in the Strategy section) (the Lead doesn't count). However, I have weeded out several other dups.

• Isn't the convention for milhist articles to have the name first, and then the icon indicating if they were wounded, imprisoned MIA or KIA?

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "At Cairo Conference": "At the Cairo Conference"?

  Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Link to Imperial Japanese Navy in lead?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Line of communications in linked in lead, consider linking in body on first use?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "The Seabees turned the island built six 8,500-foot (2,600 m) runways for": if I am correctly understanding this, do you mean "The Seabees expanded the six runways on the island to 8500 feet (2600 m) for"?

  Deleted "turned the" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Was the 37mm gun used by the Japanese on Tinian the Type 1 37 mm anti-tank gun?

  Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Link to 18th Infantry Regiment (IJA)?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Was the 120mm gun the Type 10 120 mm AA gun?

  Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Was the 12 cm gun the Type 10 12 cm dual purpose gun?

  Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Were the 75 mm mountain guns used the Type 31, 41 or 94?

  Type 94. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Were the 155 mm guns the 155 mm gun M1?

  Yes. Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Remove the second link to destroyer in the bombardment section?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Consider adding the use of napalm for the first time to the lead? Seems notable.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "and they transports headed": "and headed" would be better.

  Corrected as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "The latter were": remove the "were"?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "cut the Americans on the summit off": "cut off the Americans on the summit"?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Link to Merrit A. Edson?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "division could return": replace the could with to?

  Corrected as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• "in that it the": remove the "it"?

• Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Consider adding the following categories? Battles of World War II involving the United States, Battles of World War II involving Japan.

  Category:Mariana and Palau Islands campaign already contains those categories. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan ( talk) 10:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Hawkeye7, one last minor comment: In Olsen 1950 and Taylor et al 1950, the correct surname of James C. Olsen is Olson, consider changing? Other than that, happy to support for promotion to A class. Matarisvan ( talk) 15:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review

I'll get to this sometime over the next week. Hog Farm _Talk 22:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I have no reliability concerns with the sources and formatting is acceptable. Searching in various places brought up no major literature that I could find that isn't used here. I'll do some spot-checks; hopefully tomorrow or Friday. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Spot-checks

• [15]b, Hoffman p. 5 - OK "Ushi Point had a hard-surfaced runway 4,750 feet (1,450 m) long"
• [83], Hoffman pp. 69-71 - OK "The nighttime actions had depleted the 4th Marine Division's ammunition, so Cates delayed attacking on 25 July until 10:00 to allow time to replenish. In the meantime, the rest of the 2nd Marine Division began landing."
• [102], Hoffman p. 107 - issues. Article has As they advanced, the marines encountered civilians and Japanese soldiers waving white cloths. The latter had to be approached with care, as sometimes one of their number might decide to suicide and take Americans with him. while Hoffman has occasional enemy riflemen and numerous Japanese civilians who advanced waving white cloths signifying their desire to surrender. The latter had to be carefully watched lest one of their number turn into an enemy soldier bent upon destroying as many Americans as possible before meeting death himself. So the article has the soldiers as the suicide mission threat, while Hoffman has that as the civilians

  Y Whoops. Re-written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• [57], Raines p. 251 - the source text is referring to an aircraft deployment during the battle for Saipan - how do we know that this state of affairs still existed for the Tinian fighting?

  Y It's in the next footnote. Four new airplanes were received on 20 July making a total of nine planes available for assignment (one plane was lost 23 June). Moved the footnote back a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• [7], Cate p. 547 - OK "From the Mariana Islands, the B-29s could reach all the most significant industrial targets in Japan, and they could be supported by sea."
• [126], Melson p. 32 - OK " It departed for Okinawa in April 1945, but the 17th and 18th Antiaircraft Artillery Battalions remained to defend the airbases"
• [139], Harwood p. 31 - OK (image caption)
• [44], Moore p. 82 - page range should be expanded to include p. 81, where the 10 May date is found.

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Hawkeye7: - some minor issues on the spot-checks. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Hog Farm: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Article promoted by Donner60 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 23:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list reply

Battle of Plum Point Bend

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm ( talk)

Battle of Plum Point Bend ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Plum Point Bend/archive1

A fairly confusing ACW naval action. The Confederates launch a surprise attack against early riverine ironclads using "cottonclad" ramships. The plan actually worked because the Union vessels were largely unprepared. While two ironclads were sunk, the action accomplished nothing of long-term significance and the two ironclads were back in service in less than two months. Hog Farm _Talk 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Support by Nick-D

This article is in great shape, and is an interesting read. I have the following comments:

• "had pushed downriver to Fort Pillow." - I'd suggest giving a rough location for the fort
  • Added
• "and had developed a routine of having a single mortar boat guarded by an ironclad take a position further downriver to bombard the fort, while the rest of the fleet was upriver" - this is a bit hard to follow
  • rephrased
• "The naval component of the Federal effort was commanded by Andrew H. Foote" - did he hold a military rank? If so, please add it
  • Added
• I'd suggest moving the map into the 'battle' section, and/or left justifying it: it appears in the section after the battle on my monitor
  • Have moved this around a bit; both the map and the Currier & Ives image were added by another editor and I never got around to re-arranging
• The para starting with 'A shot from Carondelet' is somewhat lengthy
  • Split
• I'd suggest swapping the order of the second and third last paras of the article. Nick-D ( talk) 03:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Nick-D I'm not sure that I agree with this one - at least to me, it makes sense to finish all discussion of Plum Point Bend before moving on to the rest of the campaign for control of the upper Mississippi, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Hog Farm _Talk 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support Sorry for my very slow response here. My comments have been addressed. Nick-D ( talk) 00:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review - pass

• File:NavalBattleOfFortPillow.jpg, File:The photographic history of the Civil War - thousands of scenes photographed 1861-65, with text by many special authorities (1911) (14576178149).jpg, File:The photographic history of the Civil War - thousands of scenes photographed 1861-65, with text by many special authorities (1911) (14760373384).jpg - incorrect tag - should be {{ PD-US-expired}}
• File:Engagement of the Union and Rebel Gunboats near Fort Wright, May 10 1862.jpg, File:Currier & Ives - Brilliant naval victory on the Mississippi River, near Fort Wright, May 10th 1862.jpg - copyright expired - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hawkeye7 - Thanks for taking a look! I've fixed the licensing. Hog Farm _Talk 23:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

All good - passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review - pass

• The articles uses reputable sources that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
• All sources are well-formatted
• Spot checks: 6, 7, 22a, 50 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Nominator comment - I am aware that based on discussions elsewhere, I need to change the nomenclature used here from "Federal" to "Union". I intend on doing this but I am in the process of moving so I won't be able to get to this right away. Hog Farm _Talk 23:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Pendright

@ Hog Farm: Placeholder - aware of Federal vs. Union Pendright ( talk) 22:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Hog Farm: Second thoughts: Would you rather I waited until you substitute Union for Federal, or I could do it during the course of my review? Your call! Pendright ( talk) 20:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Pendright: - either one works for me. I'm out of town for work this week and won't be able to get to anything until late Saturday or maybe even Sunday. I still need to finish up work at Big Black River Bridge too. Hog Farm _Talk 00:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Hog Farm: Okay, then, I'll substitute them as I progress through the review.

@ Hog Farm: I have decided to renege on my offer to review this article. I've changed Federal to Union for only the Lead and Background sections. All the best - Pendright ( talk) 22:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No worries! I'll get this switched over myself. Hog Farm _Talk 23:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

To follow. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 13:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Why don't you just add the location in main text? Would be a useful addition somewhere, surely
  • Done
• "Union forces commanded captured" something missing here
  • Oops, fixed
• A word or two as to the relevance of the Tennessee River and Cumberland River to the Mississippi, for the non-American reader?
  • I've rephrased and rearranged some text to try to make it clearer that the fall of these positions forced the Confedertes to withdraw further down the Mississippi
• "position was captured on April 8"?
  • Done
• "which was 50 miles (80 km) on the river north of Memphis, Tennessee" this seems a little awkward. Perhaps "which was 50 miles (80km) north of Memphis, Tennessee, on the river"?
  • Done
• "Foote's Union vessels pursued." Pursued what? You've said that the works the Union just captured were already abandoned
  • Done
• "Captain Charles Henry Davis took command"
  • Done
• "The Union ships were known as the Western Flotilla." I feel like this should be mentioned earlier on, feels out of place here
  • This has been moved up to the first paragraph, where Foote is first mentioned
• Beginning of third background paragraph could be simplified to "Captain James Montgomery and eight cottonclad rams, known as the River Defense Fleet, were located off of Fort Pillow. They were faster..."
  • partially done, although I've kept the reference to vessels being siphoned off elsewhere as I think that is useful
• Would be useful to mention the size of the Union force, as you do for the Confederates
  • I've indicated the count of ironclads. I'm having trouble finding a source for the total number of auxillary vessels but that's less important as only the ironclads and one of the mortar boats were innolved in this battle
• While I think cottonclads have been referred to as gunboats, for the sake of consistency in the article I think they should be referred to as cottonclads throughout
  • Done
• Give M. Jeff Thompson's rank
  • Done
• Suggest noting that Bragg is one of the cottonclads, as it might be thought that this is a separate vessel for Thompson
  • Done
• "Confederate vessels passed through Plum Point Bend" this is the first mention of the article namesake. Needs a word or two explaining that (I assume) this is one of the bends in the river which the Union were bombarding from behind. Might be useful to add the location, per infobox, at this point
  • I've tried to elaborate on this a bit
• "quarter" is naval terminology that needs a link or explanation
  • Linked
• "The damage forced the vessel out of the action"...because she could not manoeuvre?
  • Yes, added
• "Union lookouts had spotted"
  • done
• "third Confederate ship, CSS General Sumter to ram her." comma after Sumter
  • Done
• "The commander of General Sumter had offered"
  • Done
• Link boarding
  • Done
• Give Stembel his rank
  • Done
• "General Sumter was also badly damaged by a Carondelet shot and forced to withdraw from the battle; the fire came from Carondelet"
  • Done
• "intending to ram it", "badly damaging it" you generally use the female pronoun
  • Fixed here, and at several other places in the article
• "badly damaging it. The blow badly damaged the ironclad's bow" overly repetitive
  • I've rephrased this part a little bit
• "The commander of General Earl Van Dorn was wounded during the action.[42] General Earl Van Dorn's commander, Captain Isaac Fulkerson" again repetitive, surely this could be merged
  • Rephrased/consolidated some
• "from both the Confederate vessels" somewhat suggests that she is being fired on by two, rather than three, ships. Suggest removing "both"
  • Removed
• "and accidental undershots"?
  • Done
• "The former and Cairo attempted to save Mound City" this suggests you have already mentioned the arrival of Cairo, but you haven't
  • I've clarified a little bit - this was pretty much the first thing Cairo did upon arrival
• "but Cincinnati was unable to reach the shore and sank in 11 feet (3.4 m) of water" > "but before she could do so sank in 11 feet..."?
  • Done, with a slight variance
• "the fighting had lasted about 70 minutes"
  • Done
• "the Cairo, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis"
  • Done
• "...and St. Louis for their minimal roles in the action." Did St. Louis do anything at all?
  • Not really; I've mentioned in the article now that by the time St. Louis showed up, the Confederates were gone
• "one sailor was killed"
  • Done
• "instead of exploding within them" Suggest this change for clarity for the less military-minded reader
  • Done
• "compared the appearance of the River Defense Fleet's smokestacks after the battle to nutmeg graters." need a word or two more to clarify that this is relation to damage they received, the following sentence doesn't totally manage this
  • I've added a clause
• "cottoncladding" should this be two words?
  • Maybe? I've split it into two words as Google searching seems to indicate that this does not exist in the one-word form
• "at the waterlines"
  • Done
• "except for General Earl Van Dorn"
  • Done
• Link Union on first lede and main text mention
  • Done
• "in hopes of" > "in the hope of"
  • Done
• "Two further Union ironclads were able to steam from the main group upriver"
  • Done
• "it was later run aground on a shoal, where it sank." pronoun change again
  • This has been fixed
• Main text says Corinth was abandoned by the Confederates, while lede says it was captured by the Union. These are slightly different events, so suggest going with one or the other description
  • I've tried to clean it up a bit - is this better
• A word or two in main text about why the loss of Corinth made Pillow untenable?
  • Added
• Add the names of the commanders to the infobox, as well as the strengths of the fleets engaged
  • Done

• @ Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Thanks for the review! Apologies for how long it took me to respond to everything. Hog Farm _Talk 01:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Happy with your changes, supporting. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 15:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Support Looks good to me too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Promoted to A class. Awaiting bot confirmation. Donner60 ( talk) 22:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Article promoted by Donner60 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 06:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list reply

Jozo Tomasevich

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 ( talk)

Jozo Tomasevich ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Jozo Tomasevich/archive1

Jozo Tomasevich was a Yugoslav-American economist and historian whose works on Yugoslavia in WWII continue to be widely cited today despite his first book on the Chetniks being published nearly fifty years ago. It is a tragedy that he died before completing the third volume of his planned series on Yugoslavia in WWII which was to be focussed on the Partisans. Even his second volume had to be published posthumously in 2001, with editing by his daughter. I have used his works right across my WP contributions on WWII on Yugoslavia, and his work forms the foundation on which many more recent historians have built. This is my second nom of a historian of WWII in Yugoslavia after Radoje Pajović which is now an FA. Have at it. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Support by Nick-D

I'm surprised that this interesting and accessible article hasn't attracted any reviews so far: here's mine:

• The first sentence of the lead is rather long - do we need "and after his retirement was appointed professor emeritus of economics at San Francisco State University" in this sentence given that it already establishes that he was an academic?

Excellent point, moved down to near the end of the second para. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The sentence starting with " Positively reviewed by scholars such as " would probably work better as two sentences

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• More broadly, the material in the lead noting reviews of the books seems out of place: just say it was well reviewed or similar

The reason I have included this is the ongoing rejection of Tomasevich's conclusions about the Chetniks by some prominent Serb historians, so I have included some non-Serb reviewers, a Serb historian's review, and a longer-term view for an accurate indication of the appropriate weight for each. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I really don't think it's necessary for the lead, as it's meant to summarise the article. The details on who said what are best covered in the body of the article. Nick-D ( talk) 03:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

OK, done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• "He became an American citizen" - do we know when?

I have looked and looked, even finding a reliable source for him being American was hard, so no. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The 'Scholarship' section would benefit by being broken up into sub-sections

OK, I've had a crack at this, see what you think? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• It would be interesting to know how Tomasevich conducted research into Yugoslavia from California: I imagine accessing resources would have been challenging.

He was able to visit Yugoslavia and London to access archives, and both books on WWII have massive bibliographies including captured German and Italian documents held by the US on microfilm. He had great access to the huge Yugoslav archives, and they include a lot of German documents captured by the Partisans late in the war when large numbers of other German documents were lost or destroyed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• "and as of 2024, remains unpublished" - it's tricky citing statements like this, but the reference here dates from 2003. Nick-D ( talk) 02:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Have taken out 2024, but it is really WP:BLUE as anyone can search Worldcat for Tomasevich and find it hasn't been published. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorry Nick, will get onto your comments asap. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks so much Nick-D. See what you think of my edits? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

G'day Nick-D, lead reviews dropped and summarised per your comment above. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Those changes look good, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D ( talk) 04:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from Pendright

Placeholder - I'll start when the above review is completed. Pendright ( talk) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

PM - I'm reversing myself and posting my comments at this time. If some overlapping occurs, you have my apology. Regards! Pendright ( talk) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Lead

• Josip "Jozo" Tomasevich (1908 – October 15, 1994; Serbo-Croatian: Josip Tomašević) was an American economist and historian who was a leading expert on the economic and social history of the former Yugoslavia, and after his retirement was appointed professor emeritus of economics at San Francisco State University.

• was an American economist and historian -> how is this specifically exemplified in the body of the article?

It is from his obituary by Vucinich, in the Legacy section. But I thought it was pretty clear from the descriptions of his work. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

<>Thanks for your response. I did not phrase my comment well, so let me try again. He is introduced as an American economist and historian, but all of his works relate to Yugoslavia. In which case-as I see it-Jozo" Tomasevich was an American economist and historian whose specialty was the economic and social history of the former Yugoslavia. I leave this-quibble-to your good judgement? Pendright ( talk) 00:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see. Done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• and after his retirement "he" was

Done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Tomasevich was born in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, part of Austria-Hungary, and after completing his schooling, gained a doctorate in economics at the University of Basel in Switzerland.

"he" "earned"

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• In the mid-1930s, he worked at the National Bank of Yugoslavia in Belgrade and published three well-received books on Yugoslav national debt, fiscal policy, and money and credit, respectively.

• Should it be "Yugoslav's" national debt...?

Yugoslavia's, done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Drop the comma after credit

Done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• In 1938, he moved to the US as the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and conducted research at Harvard University before joining the academic staff of Stanford University.

US -> first use?

Okay, done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• He combined research and teaching there for twenty-five years until his retirement in 1973, broken by a year teaching at Columbia University in 1954.

"which was" broken by a year "of" teaching at

Done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two books on economic matters, one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia, both of which were positively reviewed.

Look this version over: Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich had two books published on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the economy of Yugoslavia at the time and both of them received positive reviews.

Yes, almost. Changed slightly. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Positively reviewed by scholars such as Phyllis Auty, Alexander Vucinich and John C. Campbell of the Council on Foreign Relations, it was also criticised for bias against Serbs, its length and repetition, by the political scientist Alex N. Dragnich.

• What was "Positively reviewed"?
• [but[ it was
• Drop the comma after repetition

These have been addressed by a suggested change from Nick. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Tomasevich died in California in 1994.

Might this sentence be better placed before the sentence begining with 2002?

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• It focused on [the] collaboration and the quisling governments in Yugoslavia during the war , with a strong emphasis on the Axis puppet state , [and] the so-called Independent State of Croatia.

Look this over

I think this would change the meaning. the focus on collaborations was across the board, not just the Independent State of Croatia, and that state was the only Axis puppet state, the rest were puppet governments and other collaborationist factions. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Early life

• Josip "Jozo" Tomašević was born in 1908 in the village of Košarni Do on the Pelješac peninsula in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, part of Austria-Hungary.

"which was" part of

done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Košarni Do is near the village of Donja Banda and is today part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia.

"in 2023 was"

I've just gone with dropping "today". This is essentially a WP:BLUE assertion which could change one day, but is unlikely to. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• He [Nado] returned to the village in 1894, [and he] married the daughter of his first cousin and worked as a farmer.

Look this over

done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University".[1]

"and" availing himself

done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The other brother living in Košarni Do received the share of the fourth brother , who [,] by then[,] was a merchant mariner living in New Zealand.[4]

Look this over

done, thanks, much better. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• His preference was for a position combining teaching and research, so in 1948, he joined the San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University).

Drop the comma after 1948

done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• He taught there for twenty-five years until he retired in 1973 – except in 1954 when he taught at Columbia University.[1]

Replace the first he with his name

done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Scholarship

• According to Vucinich, from when Tomasevich was 25 until his death at 86, he engaged himself in a succession of research projects , some of which [some] were very extensive.

Look this over

done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Between 1934 and 1938, Tomasevich published three books.

Suggest -> Tomasevich had three books published?

done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The following year, he published Financijska politika Jugoslavije, 1929–1934 (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia, 1929–1934) in Serbo-Croatian, covering much of the same material but more accessible to Yugoslavs.[1]

he "had" published?

tweaked, but done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization – described Novac i kredit as an important work that filled a large gap in Yugoslav economic literature, and gave a vivid picture of then-current economic theory.[9]

and "it" gave

tweaked in a similar way. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Irwin T. Sanders of the Department of Sociology at the University of Kentucky reviewed the book in 1956 and stated that it was "the best book available for anyone wishing to understand the socio-economic pre-Communist background of Yugoslavia", contained realistic evaluations of the peasant political parties, and concluded that "there is little question about the soundness of his economic analysis or his description of the participation of the peasant in national life".

Think about splitting this 72 word sentence?

done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The first volume focused on the Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, and [which was] subtitled The Chetniks , [and] appeared in 1975.

Look this over

done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Auty praised Tomasevich's detachment from the subject, and stated that it was "likely to remain the standard book on this subject for a long time."

and "she" stated

done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The second volume of his planned trilogy – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – concentrated on collaboration and the quisling governments in Yugoslavia during the war,[1] with a strong emphasis on the Axis puppet state, the so-called Independent State of Croatia led by Ante Pavelić, the head of the fascist Ustaše movement, and was published posthumously in 2001 with editing from his daughter Neda.

Could you split this 67 word sentence?

Yes, definitely. Done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• In a review of the book published the following year, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst lecturer and German historian Klaus Schmider described Tomasevich's grasp of the sources in five languages as "stupendous",[19] and [they] observed that the result was well worth the twenty-six-year wait between the volumes.

Add "they"

he, but done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• The third volume in the planned trilogy, which was to cover the Partisans, was 75 per cent complete at the time of his death,[1] and as of 2024 , [it] remains unpublished.[19]

Suggest the above change

This was changed by a response to an earlier review comment. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is it for now! Pendright ( talk) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks once again, Pendright! Your reviews always result in improvements to the grammar and clarity of articles I have worked on. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Supporting - Thanks! BTW, I left one quibble

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned.

• Consider adding alt text. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review - pass

• The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style
• All claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
• Formatting is fine
• Spot checks: 1a, 2, 12a, 12b, 18 - okay.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

HF

I will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• "In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] and "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University"." - I don't know that this is quite grammatical

Absolutely. Fixed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Do we know why he moved all the way across the country in '54 to teach for a year at Columbia?

No, I have seen nothing in any sources that mentions his motive. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Is there a more recent source to support that the work is still unpublished? I imagine that there probably isn't, but its worth asking I guess

Other than a link to a search page on Worldcat, I don't think so (and I'm not sure that would work anyway). Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Excellent work as usual; I anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm! See what you think about the last point. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the current status quo is better than a worldcat link. Supporting, with the caveat that I'm not familiar at all with the scholarship of this area and that I don't read any languages other than English. Hog Farm _Talk 03:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Donner60: A class pass

Promoted article to A class. Donner60 ( talk) 06:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 01:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list reply

Fort McKavett State Historic Site

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV ( talk)

Fort McKavett State Historic Site ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is another Texas fort and, briefly, island of Anglo-American settlement in the West Texas plains. Here's to a sixth A-class! – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

HF - support

I'll review this later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 01:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• I'd recommend explicitly stating in the lead that this site is managed by the state of Texas; List of Texas State Historic Sites might be worth a link.

•  Done – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• "Texas was annexed by the United States of America in 1845,[4] which led to the start of the Mexican-American War the next year" - isn't this a bit of the over-simplification of the causes of the Mexican War? Maybe which was one of the main causes of the Mexican-American War the next year or something like that

• Yes and no. Annexation itself can be said to be and to not be the main cause of the war, because what Texas was was a breakaway Mexican territory that legitimized its independence with a treaty that the post-pre-Santa Anna Mexican government refused to recognize. And then after annexation, Polk parked US Army soldiers in disputed territory to back up the claim to the Nueces strip. The Mexican Army attacking those soldiers was what enabled Polk to secure war from Congress and toss Mexico out of what is now the state of Texas. But while that could be considered the cause, those troops were there because of the annexation. Suffice to say, I believe the current wording of "led to the ... war" is apt. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• I was thinking more of the idea that I've read (don't remember where) that the US was basically looking for a pretext to fight Mexico and then get a landgrab after the war but that's well beyond the scope of this article; what's in the article is fine. Hog Farm _Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• "and in the treaty that ended the war in 1848 annexed what is presently the Southwestern United States.[5] The next year, gold was discovered in California, enticing an unprecedented number of white migrants to go west, across Texas" - I'd recommend tweaking this a little bit. The major immigration happened in the following year (1849), but wasn't the Sutter's Mill gold find in 1848, the same year as the treaty?

• Oh, true. Tweaked as directed. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• " In 1851, General Persifor Frazer Smith, commander of the Department of Texas, " - it is possible to use Smith's exact rank? While this wasn't a formal rank in the US Army in 1851, simply "General" is a term that formally refers to a specific four-star rank today (and also in CS Army).

• Yes, I think so. According to the Handbook of Texas, he should be a brevetted Major General in 1851 (added). Ah, hm. Old Army in Texas, page 114, lists Smith as a Colonel. 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• "In 1855, the US Army signed a 20-year lease of the land the fort occupied " - do the sources indicate if this is just a paper formality, intergovernmental dealings, or did somebody actually own this land at the time?

• I believe it was owned but I no longer have Sullivan 1981 to hand. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• This doesn't seem overly important; I checked the libraries local to me to see if any of them had a copy but none do. Hog Farm _Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• as part of Wikipedia Library Project MUSE, The Old Army in Texas: A Research Guide to the U.S. Army in Nineteenth Century Texas by Wooster & Smith has some more detail on units stationed at the fort - it gives a listing of what units provided the garrison in each year

• Oh, I have that book now! I'll see what I can sprinkle in with it. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Done. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• The Confederates briefly used the fort as a POW camp

• Ah yes. As I recall, this was the only source I am aware that alleges that McKavett was a PoW camp. Every other one I consulted said that the Confederate/Texas frontier forces were minuscule and fairly mobile. They did camp at abandoned US Army forts during the war, but didn't dig back in at most. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• this by North Texas University has a throwaway mention of "Fort McKavett [...] was operated briefly as a Civil War POW camp" but no footnote of course. That Texas state historic site website is sourced to someone's 1890s memoir so not great there. I've searched in the relevant volume of the ORs and McKavett isn't mentioned by name. Some stuff that I wouldn't consider to be reliable enough suggests that the POW camp aspect was holding one company of the 8th Infantry for a couple months. This is barely verifiable and quite miniscule so on second thought I don't think this warrants a mention given the shaky level of sourcing that can be turned up. Hog Farm _Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• "Fort McKavett was nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places on June 18, 1969, and was included on July 6, 1971" - infobox has July 14, 1971

• Oops. Fixed. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I think that's it from me for a general content perspective. Hog Farm _Talk 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Vami, I've left a couple replies above - I'm fine with the article as is on both points. Please let me know when you're done looking over the Wooster & Smith source. Hog Farm _Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

All done now. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Harrias

• Consider archiving online sources.
• "Frazer, Robert Walter (1965)" pre-dates ISBNs. It looks like the version you are citing is a 1972 reprint of the 1965 edition, so should take |year=1972 |orig-year=1965.
• MOS:YEARRANGE prefers year ranges to be written out in full, ie. YYYY–YYYY, not YYYY–YY; this should be changed in various places.
• Rephrase to avoid the WP:EASTEREGG link on "a presidio": I expected it to wikilink to a page explaining what a presidio was, but instead it took me to the specific one.
• "Construction of the post began immediately and saw rapid progress as though there were.." Need a comma after "as".
• "..for Texas settlements." Would this not be better written as "..for Texan settlements."?
• "..and the return of the US Army to Texas as on June 19, 1865.." I don't think the "as" is needed here?
• "..Sherman narrowly missed being killed.." Another WP:EASTEREGG link.
• "..who arrived at the fort in 1881." To help with clarity and tense, recommend "..who had arrived.."
• "..established a 1 mile (1.6 km) to its north." Either remove the "a" or the "1".
• "..but wound up with.." isn't very encyclopaedic language.
• "..for Fort McKavett C.S.A..." Do we know what C.S.A. stands for? And unless there is an exceptional reason, space out the initials per our MOS.
• "..during its military operated were.." This should be "operation", not "operated".
• I find the title of the article curious; the vast majority of the article is about Fort McKavett, only the Preservation section and the first sentence of the subsequent Grounds and architecture section seem to be about Fort McKavett State Historic Site. It doesn't affect the ACR, but I'd recommend a page move once it is complete.

That's it from me. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• All done. Some embarrassing mistakes you highlighted here. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 07:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support I made a small edit to fix the Frazer short citation. The year range issue remains outstanding, however as the A-class criteria states "does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant", I'm happy to support this irrespective. Nice work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review - pass

Four images only:

• File:Fort McKavett State Historic Site.jpg, File:Fort McKavett Commander's house.jpg, File:Fort McKavett HQ.jpg - CC 4.0 DEED images - okay

• File:Fort Mckavett 3.png - CC 3.0 image - okay

- all images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review - pass

• The articles uses reputable sources that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
• All sources are well-formatted
• Spot checks: 2, 9a, 65a, 69 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: - Vami IV has sadly passed on - User talk:Vami IV#Condolences. I will try to take this one on; it is in very good shape and shouldn't require much more work for promotion. Hog Farm _Talk 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Good on you, HF. Put yourself down as co-nom; I think we'd also need to discount your support if you take over, unless any other coords have another opinion -- if so you could just collapse your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Under the circumstances, I don't see the need for this. The support can stand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Zawed – comments Support

Feedback as follows:

• In the First Occupation by the US Army section, it says "In 1855, the US Army signed a 20-year lease of the land the fort occupied...": who was the land leased from?
• Construction of the post began immediately: because of the different dates mentioned in the first paragraph, it is not immediately clear when this was. Could we say something like "Once the site on the south bank of the San Saba had been decided upon, construction of the post began immediately..."?
  • Or is it referring to immediately after the lease had been signed? I don't know. Alexander and Utley only supports the " as though there were no local civilian professionals to assist construction, there was a local abundance of usable stone and timber" part of this sentence and I can't access Sullivan. Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I've rephrased this. Hog Farm _Talk 01:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• In the Use by Confederate Texas, 1861–65 section, it says "...career soldier Benjamin McCulloch. McCulloch passed...": could this be rephrased to avoid back-to-back mention of McCulloch?
  • I've changed where the sentences split and have done some rewording to avoid this. Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• ...began regular patrols for and pursuit of raiding indigenous peoples: this "for and" wording seems really odd to me.
  • Comment: I suspect the "patrols for and purusit" means something like "patrols to locate and pursue". FWIW Donner60 ( talk) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I've gone with an adjusted version of Donner's phrasing (patrols to locate and/or pursue). Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• ...subsequently issued orders for more aggressive measures against the Plains Nations. Maybe put a link to [Plains Indians] on Plains Nations?
  • I've put in a piped link. Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• The "Grounds and architecture" section seems odd to me. The first sentence could finish off the previous section, while the rest could be integrated into the "Use as military outpost" section.
  • This is done now. Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That's it for me. Zawed ( talk) 10:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Hog Farm: Please note that a response to Zawed's comments should bring this one to a favorable close. Donner60 ( talk) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Zawed: - all the rest are addressed except for the first two, which I cannot resolve without access to Sullivan. Unfortunately, the nominator has passed on and the nearest publicly held copy of Sullivan to me is about 150 miles away. Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Hog Farm: @ Zawed: I have added a ref note, citing the 1934 Crimmins article, that several persons claimed ownership of the land but the government paid a man named Robinson for the lease.

Since the camp had been moved several times, and the sentence about construction "following immediately" is in the text right after the mention of the lease, it might be logical to assume that construction on the fort did not begin until after the lease was signed. Some doubt may be shed on this becaue Crimmins wrote a series of articles in The Southwestern Historical Quarterly from 1947 to 1950 in which he provided edited notes from Lt. Colonel W. G. Freeman's Report on the Eighth Military Department from his inspection trip in 1853. In Crimmins, M. L. “W. G. Freeman’s Report on the Eighth Military Department (Continued).” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 3, 1950, pp. 308–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30235631. Accessed 17 Mar. 2024. Page 308, Freeman's report on Fort McKavett, which he inspected on August 19, 1853. On this page Freeman notes that lumber has been cut and within 30 miles all necessary wood for construction can be found. Yet on pages 308-309, Freeman said the buildings "are put up of stone."

A camp being established, a few miles away, in March 1852 and then moved would appear to rule out a March 1852 date for the beginning of construction. Some doubt on the 1855 date for construction of the fort not beginning until after the lease was signed does not appear to correspond with Freeman's language about stone buildings being put up. But I note another possibility that I can surmise in the next comment.

Perhaps the construction after the signing date after the lease could be based on the full structures with all the wood needed for completion installed not being started until after the lease was signed which could justify the 1855 date, though the inspection report could be read to specify an interim date.

This is the only information I could find about the date of beginning of the construction. The bottom line is that I could not find what I would consider a definite, specific statement concerning the date construction began. Maybe it is given in Sullivan or some other source - or maybe what I found is all that can be found and the date was some time between March 1852 and the signing of the lease. Donner60 ( talk) 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There is apparently a copy of Sullivan at a library near-ish me. What pages do you need? Schierbecker ( talk) 19:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think page 10 is the relevant one - who the land was leased from, and what "Construction of the post began immediately " is immediately after. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

OK, I will try to make a trip tomorrow. If not, next weekend. Schierbecker ( talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Zawed: - Thanks to Schierbecker I've been able to address this more clearly. Hog Farm _Talk 01:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

All good. I saw a note had been added but the referencing style was inconsistent so I sorted this (stuffed it up initially!). I have added my support now, it is good to see this one get across the line. Cheers, Zawed ( talk) 10:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Article promoted by Donner60 ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 05:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list reply

Battle of Big Black River Bridge

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm ( talk)

Battle of Big Black River Bridge ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A brief, and rather lopside, battle during the Vicksburg campaign. The Confederate commander, Pemberton, was concerned about Loring's divison, which had been isolated from the rest of the army during the retreat from the Battle of Champion Hill the day before. To hold a bridgehead east of the Big Black River, Pemberton positioned Bowen's division, which had been mauled the day before, and then Vaughn's brigade of inexperienced conscripts from a region hostile to the Confederacy. McClernand's Union corps appears and deploys in front of the Confederate line. One Union brigade commander on the far right, Lawler, moves his troops into an old river meander, and then unleashes a 3-minute charge that routs Vaughn. The remainder of the Confederates fled to avoid being cut off, and roughly 1,750 Confederates and 18 cannon are captured. Hog Farm _Talk 01:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Harrias

Nice to see you around and submitting articles for review again!

• Ref #57 should have a "p" rather than "pp".
  • Fixed
• Ref #64 should have a "pp" rather than "p".
  • Fixed
• Ref #83 should have a "pp" rather than "p".
  • Fixed
• Consider archiving online sources.
  • Done
• "..important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi was still.." While I know you think MOS:GEOCOMMA is a "load of crock", it remains part of the MOS :P
  • Added
• "A Union attack on December 29, was defeated decisively.."}} No need for that comma.
  • Removed; I find myself guessing a lot as to if a comma is needed or not
• Conversely, I think "On April 29, the Union Navy's Mississippi Squadron commanded by David Dixon Porter attempted to bombard.." would benefit from commas around "commanded by David Dixon Porter".
  • commas added
• "..on May 14, with the Union taking the city.." Consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
  • Repheased
• "..to prevent Loring from being cut off of from the main.."}} To many words. Remove the of?
  • Removed "of"
• Wl "enfilade" to Enfilade and defilade
  • Done
• "This position was manned by.." This sentence feels weird for two reasons; first starting a paragraph like this makes it feel like a run-on from the previous paragraph, so maybe the paragraph structure needs adjusting. Secondly, the final sentence of the previous paragraph also started "This position.."
  • Rephrased
• "..considered this unit to be his best troops.." Maybe switch "to be" to "to contain" or "to comprise".
  • This has been rephrased already by Nick-D to remove "troops" - is it better now
• "Vaughn's men and the 4th Mississippi were position in an area.." Should be "positioned".
  • Fixed
• "..with Benton's men taking up.." Again, consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
  • Rephrased
• "One of Green's regiments, the 1st Missouri Cavalry Regiment (dismounted) had remained.."}} Needs a comma after "(dismounted)".
  • Added
• "Lindsey advanced his brigade ahead along the railroad.." "ahead" feels redundant to "advanced" (particularly as it goes on to say "placing his men ahead of the rest of the Union line."
  • Removed "ahead"
• "..and had three regiments |}the.." Stray code, should it be an endash to match the one later?
  • Fixed; that's what happens when you type {{end}} instead of {{snd}}
• Wikilink "swale"; I had no idea what it meant.
  • I've rephrased to avoid the word - I wasn't using it as a technical term and instead in a sense of a generic depression in the ground. The link for it uses it as more of a technical term, so I don't really want to link it. I guess maybe it's an Americanism?
• "This advance was accomplished without significant numbers of casualties." You could probably get rid of "numbers of" if you wanted.
  • Done
• "..with men either running away or surrendering." Again, consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
  • Done
• "..which has been positioned.." Should be "had", not "has".
  • Fixed
• Switched back up to the lead: "After defeating Confederate forces in several battles intermediate battles.." Too many words.
  • Removed a stray word

A nice piece of work. Nothing major identified, just copy edits really. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Harrias: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above - everything should be addressed now. As is probably obvious, grammar/syntax/spelling is not my strong suit. Hog Farm _Talk 05:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support, nice work, I'm happy with the changes made. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Support by Nick-D

This article is in good shape, and I have only minor comments:

• "Bowen's men had been roughly handled at Champion Hill" - I'd suggest using more specific language here
  • I've clarified this
• "Pemberton decided that Johnston's orders were not compatible with previous directives that Pemberton had received" - I'd suggest replacing the second 'Pemberton' with 'he' or similar. More broadly, 'Pemberton' probably appears too many times in this para.
  • I've edited out three of the uses of Pemberton in this paragraph
• "from a region disloyal to the Confederacy" - perhaps say where
  • Clarified - East Tennessee
• "Two cannons positioned themselves " - I'd suggest tweaking this to note that the guns 'were positioned'
• "Union casualties were 279 men" - was this the total killed, wounded and prisoners?
  • Yes, I have noted this
• The article notes the poor state of the Confederate force, and it would be helpful to note somewhere that the Union force was of a much higher quality to help explain the very lopsided result of this battle. Nick-D ( talk) 04:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Nick-D: - I haven't seen much in the literature discussing the state of the Union forces at Big Black River bridge (and none of the sources seem to know at all what Union numerical strength was, as none of the sources I've used and a few others I didn't provide a figure). I've clarified this a bit - Bowen's men were Pemberton's elite troops, but were badly exhausted. The ensuing rout seems to be simply due to the attack striking Vaughn's men, who really shouldn't have been put in a key rear guard situation anyway. Hog Farm _Talk 20:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Support My comments are now addressed. Sorry for the slow response here - I thought I'd responded last week. Nick-D ( talk) 02:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

JJE

Didn't notice anything particularly problematic (are books the only sources available?) but "Grant's 12-year old son Fred was wounded in the leg while following the pursuit of the routed Confederates" makes me kind of wonder what a child was doing in this war zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jo-Jo Eumerus: - Yes, books seem to be the only sources (I've checked JSTOR and Project MUSE for journal articles and didn't see anything useful), which is fairly common for coverage of the Vicksburg campaign - the best stuff is all in books. As to Fred - I've added a brief bit explaining that he followed his dad through the whole campaign. The 1860s certainly were a different time - John Clem was a non-commissioned officer at age 12. Charles Edwin King was mortally wounded at Antietam at age 13. The Confederates had an organized unit of high schoolers charge a battery at the Battle of New Market. Hog Farm _Talk 20:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jo-Jo Eumerus: For your infomation: Child soldiers in the American Civil War Pendright ( talk) 05:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Image review - pass

• File:The Battle of Big Black River Bridge, Harper's Weekly, June 20, 1863.jpg, File:The Photographic History of The Civil War Volume 02 Page 197 (cropped).jpg, File:Battle of Big Black River Bridge map.jpg- copyright expired - okay
• File:Vicksburg Campaign April-July 1863.svg - Wikipedian created - CC 4.0 licence - okay
• File:Big Black River Bridge Battlefield Mississippi.jpg - US government image - I switched the licence to PD-USGov-NPS - okay

All okay Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review - pass

• Further reading uses a different style from Sources
  • Switched over to match
• "Campbell, CA" Can we write the name of the state in full? American state abbreviations can be very confusing.
  • I've actually removed this one; a review of the table of contents suggests that none of the essays in this work deal directly with this battle
• Link Jay Luvaas
  • Done
• Sources are of good quality.
• Spot checks not done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Hawkeye7: - thanks for the review! I've addressed the various concerns. Hog Farm _Talk 19:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

All good - passing - great work! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments Support by Pendright

@ Hog Farm: I expect to start in a few days! Pendright ( talk) 23:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I leave you with a passel of comments and look forward to your responses. Pendright ( talk) 19:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Lead

• During the American Civil War, the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was a key point on the Mississippi River.

Since the ACW is spelled out in the previous sentence could abbreviate it to 'war' here

Done Hog Farm _Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• On April 30, 1863, a Union army commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant began crossing onto the east side of the Mississippi River.

Why - add just a bit of context?

I've added a bit - is this better? Hog Farm _Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

<>Yes - Pendright ( talk) 19:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• After [engaging and] defeating Confederate forces in several intermediate battles, Grant's army defeated Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton's Confederates at the decisive Battle of Champion Hill on May 16.

Consider the above change

Done Hog Farm _Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• One division of Pemberton's army, commanded by Major General William W. Loring, had become cut off from Pemberton's main body during the retreat from Champion Hill.

Consider this version: During the retreat from Champion Hill, one division of Pemberton's army, commanded by Major General William W. Loring, was cutoff from Pemberton's main body.

Mostly done - I've been under the impression that "cutoff" is a noun, and "cut off" as two words is correct for when it is being used as a verb. I may be wrong though. Hog Farm _Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

<>Your impression is correct - my apology! Pendright ( talk) 19:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Pemberton did not know of the location of Loring's division, and [he] held a bridg[e]head on the east side of the Big Black River on the morning of May 17 to cover Loring's anticipated withdrawal across the river [on the morning of May 17].

Consider the above changes

done Hog Farm _Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Union Brigadier General Michael Kelly Lawler advanced his troops into an old meander in advance of the main Union line on the north end of the battlefield.

advanced his troops to an old meander on the river?

Well, the meander wasn't "on" the river anymore. It was formerly part of the river but was by then no longer part of the river. I'm not sure what the best phrasing for this is. Hog Farm _Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

<>As a verb, my dictionary says, meander is

a river or road that follows a winding course.

<>As a noun, my dictionary says, meander is

a winding curve or bend of a river or road.

If either definition fits as it's now phrased, so be il. If not, rephrase it as you understand either definition. Pendright ( talk) 21:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh, okay. I see the issue now. Meander scar is a more accurate description of the geographic feature in question, so I've made changes in the article to refelct meander scar, not meander, which should resolve the issue

<>Great! Pendright ( talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Th[e]is withdrawal became chaotic and roughly 1,750 Confederate soldiers and 18 cannons were captured; with the cannons [were] captured due to an error that left their [because the teams of horses [horse-drawn cannons were erronouesly] positioned on the other side of the Big Black River.

• Consider the above changes

• Partially done, except for the last part - the cannons were where they were intended to be; it was the horses that were out of place

<>Okay Pendright ( talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• The number reported under "Aftertnath" is 1,751?

• I've used this number in the lead now

• The surviving Confederate soldiers entered the fortifications at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and the siege of Vicksburg began the next day[;] , [it] end[ed] ing in [the] a Confederate surrender on July 4, [1863].

Consider the above changes

Done

Background

• The strategically important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was still in Confederate hands, [and it served] serving as a strong defensive position that commanded the river and pr[e]vented the Union from separating the two halves of the Confederacy.[4]

Consider the above changes

Done

• An attempt to cut Williams's Canal across a meander of the river in June and July, bypassing Vicksburg, failed.[7][8]

Consider: An attempt during June and July to cut-across Williams's Canal, a meander in the river, that bypassed Vicksburg failed.

I don't think I agree with this one. The proposed phrasing could suggest that the canal itself was a meander, which it wasn't

<>I stand corrected! Pendright ( talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Grant ordered a retreat after a supply depot and part of his supply line were destroyed during the Holly Springs Raid on December 20 and Forrest's West Tennessee Raid.

• Since Grant did not order a retreat until after the his supply lines were destroyed this might be a better way to phrase it?

• I don't think I'm understanding what the needed change is here

<>My point is that readers are told he ordered a retreat before they knew why. If you are more comfortable with it as is, let it stand. Pendright ( talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've re-arranged things. Hog Farm _Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Does the date apply to both raids?

• Rephrased a bit

• [Then] A [a]fter diverting up the Yazoo River, Sherman's men began skirmishing with Confederate soldiers [who were] defending a line of hills above the Chickasaw Bayou.

Consider the above changes

Done

• The advance along the west bank of the Mississippi began on March 29, and [it] was spearheaded by Major General John A. McClernand's [XIII Corps] troops , the XIII Corps.

Consider the above changes

Done

Prelude'

• On April 29, the Union Navy's Mississippi Squadron, commanded by David Dixon Porter, attempted to bombard the Confederate defenses at Grand Gulf, Mississippi, but the resulting Battle of Grand Gulf failed to drive the Confederates away.

attempted [?] to bombard

rephrased

• On the morning of May 12, McPherson's encountered Confederate troops near Raymond, Mississippi, bringing on the Battle of Raymond.

McPherson's or McPherson?

I was missing a word here

<>Okay! Pendright ( talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• A delaying action was fought on May 14.[26]

A bit of context here would help?

I've added some context for this

• However, Johnston then marched his army away from the area in which a combination with Pemberton could easily be made.

Could "have been" easily made

Corrected

• While Pemberton favored making a stand behind the Big Black River, he was convinced by some of his subordinate officers to make an offensive strike towards where Grant's supply line was believed to be.[29]

Is towards necessary?

Removed Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Pemberton did not know that Grant had forgone utilizing a traditional line of communications during his movement inland.[30]

• What is the significance of this to readers

• I've tried to rephrase this - essentially Pemberton was trying to attack something that didn't actually exist Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• The sentence above does not seem to transition well with the one below?

• I've tried to ease the transition a bit - is it better now? Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes! Pendright ( talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• While the Confederates began a difficult march, Grant moved west in three columns towards Edwards.[31]

Why was the march difficult?

Bad roads and a washed-out bridge - I've added this Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

<>Good! Pendright ( talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle

• [In preparing for what was likely to transoire,] Pemberton had a portion of his army hold a [the] line east of the Big Black River , in order to prevent Loring from being cut off from the main Confederate body at the crossing.

• Consider the above changes -> Transition (linguistics)

• Done Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• cutoff is one word

• see above Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• What crossing?

• The river crossing, have clarified that in the article text Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• In early May[37] the Confederate defense line had been laid out by Samuel H. Lockett.[38]

• defense line, or defensive line?

• Defensive line - a typo on my part Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Change had been to was

• Done Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• The works were made of cotton bales and dirt.

• works seems more like a collective noun?

• Replaced with "fortifications" Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• The defensive line of the previous sentence seems to be the works in this sentence, and the works is also used in some sentences that follow - in which case readers need some clarity of the term.

• I've tried to rephrase some of the usages of "works" to make this a little clearer Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

<>Great! Pendright ( talk)

• To the south lay a body of water named Gin Lake[,] ; the Confederate right flank was at the lake , with the line running north to the Big Black River, which made a bend east of the bridge across the Big Black River.

Consider the above changes

Done Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply