Talk:Battle of Vicksburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email)

This page now describes just battle/siege of Vicksburg, not the entire Vicksburg Campaign. This 'page' started out as eight separate articles. The material in those eight is now in here, the Vicksburg Campaign, and the Battle of Champion Hill. Once people have had time to digest this change, I intend to REDIRECT the remaining 7 of the 8 articles (the "sub-pages") to the main campaign article. They don't fit into the overall encyclopedia style anyway. They are long-winded, colloquial, seem to have section headers for every few sentences, and are packed with quotations from popular historians. And they include too much biographical commentary on Grant. It's more like a very long magazine article than an encyclopedia article. Hal Jespersen 20:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

There seems to be an awful lot of "dramatic language" and theatre in this article. Sometimes it reads like an excited movie plot. "...shells rained upon the rebels...," "...backs against the mighty river....," "...soldiers full of meat and vegetables..." "Grant's soldiers were well-fed,"I think gets the point across clearly and conscisely without over dramatizing.

I think the author got a little carried away with the glory of war. I think the content is mostly good though. I am not a Civil War buff but I think the section on the reprecussions of this battle could be expanded. It seems too brief. co94 Nov 19, 2005

Seems OK to me, although you are invited to make edits appropriate to calm down any language too "dramatic" for your sensibilities. "Shells raining down" does not seem to express a POV to me, but perhaps you can reword it. I was not the original author of this material, although I did a huge amount of reorganizing and pruning. The reason the Aftermath section is brief is because this is simply one article in a Campaign series. BTW, you ought to reserve plastering on the POV warning for those occasions when edits you've offered are rejected and you want to object to the lack of respect for minority opinion, which is not the case here. Hal Jespersen 16:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Im not going to argue with you here, but if you think this dramatic narrative is worthy of an encyclopedia entry, then so be it. This article contains far too much dramatic language. Plain and simple. Phrases like, "odors assaulting rebel noses," are not appropriate in an encyclopedia entry. It is expository writing. An encyclopedia entry is not an essay. I dont want to change anything because, like I said, I am not an expert on Vicksburg. I came to this page to read up on it, but instead of reading a description of the battle, I read a colorful essay. Whoever this author is, he or she brought too many theatrics to this article. It isnt badly written per se; it is just inappropriate for an encylopedia. I dont understand how you cant see that.

As an example, compare this article to the article on the Battle of Bunker Hill. In that one, there is no dramatic language, no colorful imagery, or etc. It presents the facts in a descriptive and clear way. I think it is a better example of an encyclopedic entry for a battle.

OK, since you are reluctant to edit it yourself, I have taken a stab at it. Comments? Hal Jespersen 18:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's much better. I might make a few subtle changes but it reads more imformatively now. On a side note, I read the link to the Vicksburg Campaign. I think that article is well-written.

One other thing, you included a lot of specifics in the article. Anecdotes, figures, etc. There are no references listed however. From where did all this information come from?

I wrote the Campaign article myself, so thanks. You have caught me in an oversight. When I reorganized these articles, I neglected a Refs section and will add it tomorrow. Hal Jespersen 01:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text