Talk:Jackson expedition

United States: Mississippi Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Mississippi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Siege of Jackson not the Jackson Expedition

This series of events was then known as the Siege of Jackson or the Jackson Siege to distinguish it from the Battle of Jackson of a few months earlier. This Wikipedia article or page should be entitled as the Siege of Jackson not the Jackson Expedition. Rjr1960 (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate per Dyer, Woodrick. Siege of Jackson actually exists as a redirect to this page. That appears to make it slightly more complicated to change than simply moving the article to the new title and making the current article title a redirect. Since I am planning to work on the article, I will make the change after taking a little time to absorb the instructions on making such a change. Donner60 (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the original author may have thought that the Advance on Jackson preceding the siege (possibly using Jackson Expedition as the title) merits a separate title, it preceded and was directly related to the siege and thus should be used as the title which points to the opening of the overall action. Yet the siege and combat are the most important events in the article and the advance seems more properly characterized as part of the background or just a preliminary event to the siege which does not make the best sense being the overall title, Woodrick uses the Siege of Jackson as his book title. Dyer shows Advance on Jackson as a separate action but that may not be enough to keep the current title rather than turning it into the redirect. Dyer also shows Siege of Jackson as the main part of this minor campaign in the aftermath of Vicksburg. Donner60 (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Jackson definitely should be the title. Bearss also uses siege rather than 'expedition' as well in his chapter on the subject. Kges1901 (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding

I am working on expanding the article. I have posted a new lead. I may post each new section in turn. Whether I do it that way or post the rest of the revised article at the same time, I plan to do it promptly - real life permitting, of course. Donner60 (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost finished, just another proofreading and perhaps a little cleanup needed. Donner60 (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may cut back the Background section up to End of the Siege of Vicksburg. It's good preliminary information in a stand-alone context for the article but may be more than is needed here, considering links to prior articles. I'll keep some of it but assuming I cut some of the information, I will keep that part somewhere because it is all referenced and may be useful in other articles. So it may take a little longer to have a final version but I think I am still close to finishing. Donner60 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finished the expansion yesterday. Donner60 (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Confederates played a piano in the trenches during a Union assault at Jackson, Mississippi? Source: Woodrick, Jim. The Civil War Siege of Jackson, Mississippi. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2016. ISBN 978-1-62619-729-9. Page 70.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion

5x expanded by Donner60 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jackson expedition; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

@Donner60: Good article but there's one major issue. While the article was 5x expanded, it doesn't look to have been done in the past 7 days, instead being done over a longer stretch of time. You might have to bring this up to the DYK talk page to see if i'm wrong but that's something i noticed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll ask. I did work on it for more than 7 days. I only finished the expansion yesterday and inserted the hook less than 7 days ago. I hope that counts. Otherwise, I suppose I have an extra QPQ for later. Donner60 (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Onegreatjoke: I have looked at the supplementary rules and it is clear to me that this does not qualify because the article improvement took place over more than 7 days. I would like to withdraw the nomination. I can't find any special icon or procedure for a withdrawal. All my previous DYKs were from new articles; obviously I did not pay enough attention to the rules for expansions. Thanks for looking at this. Donner60 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]