Talk:Battle of Plum Point Bend

Name

I recommend that the name of this article be changed to Battle of Plum Point Bend, which seems to be the consensus among historians writing about it, when they bother to name it at all.

Jack D. Coombe, Thunder along the Mississippi. calls it the "Battle of Plum Point." p. 124.

Gary D. Joiner, Mr. Lincoln's brown water navy, calls it the "Battle of Plum Point." p. 67.

Spencer C. Tucker, Blue and Gray navies, calls it the "Battle of Plum Point Bend."

John D. Milligan, Gunboats down the Mississippi, calls it the Battle of Plum Point Bend." pp.64ff.

Civil War naval chronology does not name the battle, but says only that it took place at Plum Point Bend. p. II-62.

Raimondo Luraghi, A history of the Confederate Navy, likewise writes only that it took place at Plum Point Bend. p. 169.

To defend the present name, I can find no sources other than Captain Walke's drawing that accompanies the article referring to it as the "Battle of Fort Pillow." PKKloeppel (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Battle of Fort Pillow (Naval) → Battle of Plum Point Bend — More widely-used name; see above —PKKloeppel (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Plum Point Bend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051019201322/http://www.nps.gov/vick/camptrail/sites/Tennessee-sites/Ft.PillowTN.htm to http://www.nps.gov/vick/camptrail/sites/Tennessee-sites/Ft.PillowTN.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Plum Point Bend/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I will take a look at this one. Zawed (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• ...guarded by an ironclad be further...: is the "be" supposed to be there?
  • Rephrased. The grammar made sense in my mind, but that doesn't mean much
• Confederate vessels:...: I think the colon should be a comma?
  • Yes, corrected
• The Federal ironclads had lighter drafts than the Confederate vessels,...: I don't think lighter is quite right when referring to draft. Shallower would be better but that is used later in the sentence, so how about " The Federal ironclads had a reduced draft relative to the Confederate vessels,..."?
  • Actually, for this context, it generally works. For instance, the later tinclad warships were often known as "light drafts" because of their shallower drafts
    • Oh OK - I hadn't seen it expressed like that before. Zawed (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Background

• In the first paragraph, the phrase "In February 1862" is used twice.
  • Fixed
• Captain Charles Henry Davis had taken command of the Federal squadron on May 9.: there is no antecedence for the squadron, was this the ships that ran past Island No. 10's defences or the naval ships of 12 April?
  • I've rejigged this section to clarify that the Fort Donelson, Island No. 10, and Fort Pillow Federal fleet is the same unit
• with the rest of his fleet upriver;...: suggest "with the rest of Davis's fleet upriver;"
  • I've rephrased this sentence, so the issue is no longer in question (this applied to both Davis and the prior commanding officer, so I have now named)

Battle

• ... fire another volley in the Confederate ship.: suggest " fire another volley into the Confederate ship."
  • Done
• ...; this time the fire came from Carondelet.: the "this time" seems unnecessary since the previous sentence already refers to Carondelet.
  • Done
• The Federal vessels had lighter drafts than...: same comment as the lead.
  • See reply above

Sources

• Sources appear reliable, the majority are university presses.
• I did a spot check based on the online source (cite 1); this checks out OK, AGF on the others.

Other stuff

• Image tags OK
• Dupelinks: 'Memphis, Tennessee', USS Benton, USS Pittsburgh, USS St Louis
  • Should be all resolved

I made a few little tweaks as I went through the article, but otherwise that's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• • @Zawed: - All concerns have been actioned except for the light draft one, which I've posted a response to above. Hog Farm _Talk 03:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
    • This looks to be all in order, so am passing as GA as I believe that the article meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the casualties suffered at the battle of Plum Point Bend were very light given the amount of ordnance expended? Source: McCaul, Edward B., Jr (2014). To Retain Command of the Mississippi: The Civil War Naval Campaign for Memphis. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 978-1-62190-135-8. Page 111
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Macks Creek Law
  • Comment: Additional hooks welcome

Improved to Good Article status by Hog Farm (talk) and Zawed (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 18:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of Plum Point Bend; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article is long enough and was recently promoted to GA status. Article is well-sourced and neutrally written. Hook is interesting, short enough, and sourced with in-line citations. Source is off-line but accuracy is assumed in good faith. QPQ completed. Cbl62 (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, Onegreatjoke, Zawed, and Cbl62: My only question is whether the description needs quotes since it was stated by an individual. I am going to promote the hook but we can add the quotes later if needed. Bruxton (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)