Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/CSS Baltic/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [1].

CSS Baltic edit

Nominators: User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Hog Farm

A co-nom from me and Sturmvogel. An object lesson in what happens when you try to DIY an ironclad. I believe that this is the first FAC for a warship of the Confederate States. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support: A good article, but I think that long paragraphs in it may benefit from splitting. Long paragraphs are both very hard to keep track of and distasteful, and the issue would be further compounded by the new Vector skin. Other than that, I found the article is an interesting read about an obscure subject, will support if the aforementioned issue has been resolved. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: - I've split one that did seem kinda long. Did you have concerns about the other paragraph lengths? The paragraphs are generally arranged fairly topically. Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, partly because other paragraphs are long for a good reason. Changing my comment to support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami edit

Reviewing this version. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • How often do we describe the Federal government during the Civil War as the "Union" on the English Wikipedia, and in the modern historiography of the war?
    • From what I've seen probably over 70% of recent works still use "Union", although a lot of what I read is bio/campaign histories and I'd say it's probably the more social-history stuff that use "United States" or other terms (Ed Bearss used "Federals", which is probably the second most common thing I see). As of right now, I'd say that "Union" is still probably the primary usage form, although it's possible that's no longer the case in 5-10 years. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] the process of converting her into a military vessel began on December 22.[1] The process of converting her into an [...] Could use a switchup in the verbiage here.
    • I've rephrased the second instance. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You edited the lead...? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what I get for staying up late. Should be rephrased in the correct spot now. Hog Farm Talk 13:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little treat of an article. Glad to see it at FAC now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • This seems to be missing any background or context. After the description the narrative starts "On May 12, 1862, Baltic was transferred by Alabama to the Confederate States Navy." How about a summary of what the ACW was, its broad outline to that date and something about the struggle for control of the navigable rivers and why this was important so we know what gave rise to the building of the Baltic. Something on what she was intended to do and how she compared with other riverine ships of the time would also be useful.
    • Given that this is a short article, I don't want to delve too much into backstory. I've added another sentence about the importance of controlling the coast, which should go with the mentions of Port Royal and Fts. Hatteras and Clark up in the construction section to make it clear why the ship was built (this one had little to do with the riverine warfare) I'm afraid that a comparison with other riverine ships of the time isn't really possible - there's just too little about her pre-Confederate career, and her CSA naval career can be summarized as "floating pile of trash". I have added the mention of Fort Sumter as the start of the war. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I disagree. While I would not expect the same level of background as I would for, say, the battle of Vicksburg, I would expect enough from scratch background and context for a new to the topic reader to be able to make sense of it. I fail to see how the short length of the article absolves it of this. I am regretfully opposing on the grounds that the second part of FA criterion 1b is not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - I've added several sentences from scratch introducing slavery, states' rights, Lincoln, secession, and the formation of the Confederacy and then tying that into the Confederates firing on Sumter. Then flowing into the Confederate naval advantage, the Anaconda Plan and the blockade, and then the early Union coastal victories at Hatteras, Clark, and Port Royal. Does this provide the needed background? It's not easy to summarize the causes of this war in a few sentences. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I was looking for. While I don't wish to tell you how to write the minutiae of the article, so far as I am concerned you could delete "Slavery became a significant part of southern culture, and the ideology of states' rights was used to support the institution." and perhaps add something on the blockade throttling the Confederate supply of arms and materiel after "in order to cut off trade". Rest of the review to follow.
  • In passing: "the ship was too deteriorated for service, and was afterwards used to place naval mines". Is mine laying not "service"?
    • Clarified with "active service". For mine laying, it would presumably have just required that the ship floated and could move. Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that, but your average reader is likely to do a double take. Something like 'and so was relegated to mine laying duties ...' maybe? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've went with the "relegated" phrasing Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've added a bit of background (first battle, more specific date of start of war, clarified importance of holding the coasts). I could add some more, but I'm not sure how much there's really space for since this is a shorter article than normal. Any thoughts? Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: put the second paragraph (commencing "During the early 19th century") at the start. Possibly in a separate "Background" section.
  • "she served on Mobile Bay". I assume "on" rather than 'in' is a USEng varient.
  • "when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter". Perhaps 'when the Confederates fired on the Union sea fort of Fort Sumter'?
  • "the crew frequently slept outside of the ship". Do you mean on the deck, or ashore?
  • "two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders or possibly with one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders (presumably in addition to the Dahlgren guns). I am unsure what the bit in brackets adds.
  • Could we have an in line description/explanation of "cottonclad".
  • "and was afterwards relegated to placing naval mines". Suggest deleting "afterwards".
  • "On May 20, after Porter's inspection". I suspect that a reader can remember from the prior sentence that Porter's inspection had already taken place.
  • "mud scow". Perhaps a Wiktionary link?
  • "With the end of the war approaching, Baltic, Nashville, and other vessels were later sent up the Tombigbee." Delete "later".

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this screen? It doesn't copy the text to which I wish to reply? WTF?
The source doesn't specify exactly where the crew slept. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: - are these all taken care of or should I dig out the sources in my spare time tonight? Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are all done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. It may be a day or two before I can get back to you on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second reading edit
  • Construction and characteristics section: the first paragraph is nothing to do with either of these.
  • Suggest deleting "Slavery became a significant part of southern culture, and the ideology of states' rights was used to support the institution."
  • Could we have something - a sentence might do - on the effect, if any, and/or the intended effect of the blockade on the Confederate military.
  • Could you confirm that her armament was either "two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders" or "one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders". Ie, in the latter case there were no Dahlgrens.
  • "her armament consisted of two Dahlgrens and three 32-pounders or possibly with one 42-pounder and two 32-pounders." Grammae: either delete "with" or replace it with 'of'.
    • Canney actually says "2 Dahlgrens and 3 x 32 pdrs (also reported as one 42-pdr with 2 x 32 pdrs)", which I interpret as 2 Dahlgrens and either 3 x 32 pdrs or 1 x 42 pdr and 2 x 32 pdrs. YMMV--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to scow does little to convey to the uninitiated what a "mud scow" might be. A scow made out of mud perhaps? A mud coloured scow? A scow whose name was mud? wikt:one's name is mud. Something else?
    • I dunno exactly what a mud scow is. I suspect that it's a boat that handles the stuff that a dredger brings up from a river or harbor bottom, but I can't swear that that's correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See if my changes are acceptable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done

  • Source for casemate type?
    • What do you mean? We only link to casemate ironclad.
      • Yes - looking for a cite for the claim that type = casemate ironclad. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Sturmvogel 66: - what are your thoughts on this? Joiner and DANFS call her an ironclad ram and Still p. 93 explicitly states "With the exception of two conversions - the Manassas and the Baltic - every Confederate ironclad placed in commission had an armored shield to protect its guns and machinery" when discussing the Confederate casemate ironclads. Hog Farm Talk 03:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ironclad ram is kind of an old-fashioned term for a casemate ironclad, IMO, as it's almost the only term used up until the 1970s or so for all of the Confederate ironclads. I'm not gonna get too fussed over the two terms, although I'm not sure that Still actually had any evidence that Baltic's superstructure wasn't armored, especially since Manassas was entirely armored above the waterline, but lacked a superstructure. We know the specifications of the Baltic's armor, but not where it was placed, so we can't positively say that Still is wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armament in infobox doesn't match text
    • It matches Luraghi, but not Canney.
      • Is there a reason to believe one is better than the other? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. DANFS, Joiner, and Silverstone both support Luraghi's figure, while Canney appears to stand alone on this Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luraghi: what's the original that was translated? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that the cite book template supports that info since trans-title is for books published in a foreign language.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but what's the rationale to remove translator? Is this a translation of something, or is it an original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nikkimaria - from the copyright page of my print version: "First published in Italian as Marinai del Sud: Storia della Marina confederata nella Guerra Civile Americana, 1861-1865 by Rizzoli in 1993". I am not really sure what to do with that information. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Translator never should have been there in the first place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright edit

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hog Farm: My circumstaces are such that I will be unable to reiew the article. My apoligy! Pendright (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dugan Murphy edit

I'll add something here in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and the layout of the vessel is largely unknown" doesn't really fit at the end of that sentence, which otherwise is a description of the ship's cladding. I recommend breaking that off as a separate sentence.
    • Split sentence
  • "transferred by Alabama" – I think "Alabama" should be "State of Alabama" to make it clear that it was a state-owned ship before being transferred to the Navy.
    • Done

I'll write more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is the ship described in the lede and the infobox as a casemate ironclad but in the body as simply an ironclad?
    • I'm less familiar with the terminology in this sector, so I'll have to defer to my co-nominator, @Sturmvogel 66: Hog Farm Talk 03:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the exact type of ironclad has already been given. This is just a shorter form. Just like introducing a ship as an armored cruiser and then using cruiser from there on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Sturmvogel 66: Because the lede and infobox serve to summarize the body, I'm under the impression that all information in both should be present in the body. With that in mind, I recommend that the ship be described as a casemate ironclad in the body, wherever you think that is most appropriate. Perhaps in describing the ship's refitting for military service. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to reference Bisbee in the lede? Unless Bisbee's name is particularly notable or the issue particularly contentious, I think "naval historian Saxon Bisbee believes that" is too much detail for the lede.
    • Removed
  • Does the book listed as further reading offer something that the listed sources do not? If so, why is it not included as a source? Really what I'm getting at is, do you think including a section on further reading adds value that the sources list does not already add?
    • I don't own a copy of this work, but I believe that it gives further technical details on the models of cannon that would be used on this type of ship, so I think it is a useful addition.

That's it for comments, I think. Overall, I find this article easy to read and well-cited to what seems to be a reasonably comprehensive collection of reliable-looking sources. I think the lede does a good job of summarizing the article. It skips much of the background section (the part on general Civil War background that it seems was added during this nomination review), which I think is just fine. The infobox is a good summary of the stats listed in the body. Thank you for improving this article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dugan Murphy: - I'm deferring to my co-nominator on one point, but the others should be taken care of. Hog Farm Talk 03:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Every comment seems to be addressed but the one you're leaving for Sturmvogel 66. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My last comment having been addressed, I'm happy to support this nomination. @Sturmvogel 66: @Hog Farm: If either of you are up for being on the other side of the table, this FAC nomination of mine is getting old and doesn't have any comments yet beyond an image review. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright edit

@Hog Farm: My circumstaces have changed yet agan - leaving me free to review the article. I'll begin when the above review is wrapped up. Pendright (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: it looks like everything above has been ironed out. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD:

  • After being transferred over to the Confederate Navy [as an ironclad] in May 1862, she served on Mobile Bay off the Gulf of Mexico.
Consider the above suggested changes
Done
  • Baltic's state in Confederate service was such that naval historian William N. Still Jr. has described her as "a nondescript vessel in many ways".[3]
What is the correlation between "state" and "nondescript"?
Went with "condition" instead
  • She deteriorated over the next two years and became rotten.
A few sentences below says, "upper hull and deck were rotten"?
Is "She deteriorated over the next two years and started to rot" an improvement?
<>How about sonething like this: Over the next two years, parts of the ship's wooden strucure had been affcted by wood rot? Pendright (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Her armor was removed to put onto the ironclad CSS Nashville in 1864.
to "be" put, or "and" put
"to put onto" works at least in Ozarks English, but have added a "be"
  • By that August, she had been decommissioned, and was taken up the Tombigbee River near the end of the war, where she was captured by Union forces on May 10, 1865.
  • Drop the comma after decommissioned
  • See below
  • Add a comma after River - near the end of the war seems like supplemental informationon.
  • I've actually split the sentence after decommissioned - the decommissioning happened in August but she wasn't taken up the Tombigbee until later.
  • An inspection the next month found that her upper hull and deck were rotten and that her boilers were unsafe.
An inapection of what?
Added "of Baltic" to indicate that this was a general inspection of the ship

BACKGROUND:

  • During the early 19th century, a large cultural divide had developed between the northern and southern regions of the United States over slavery.
As you know, many historians believe that it was "primarily" over slavery -> Add primarily
Done
  • Northerner Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 United States Presidential Election,[4] and a number of southern states seceded in late 1860 and early 1861, forming the Confederate States of America.[5]
  • Consider this -> and [due to his anti-salvery position] a number of southern states seceded...
  • Done
  • For readers not famililar with the Civil War, might add a new sentence with something like this-> The northern states were generally ant-salvery while the southern states were generally pro-salvery.
  • I've tacked something similar onto the sentence discussing the cultural divide
  • The American Civil War broke out when the Confederates fired on the Union sea fort of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.[6]
  • Could tell readers why the Fort was fired upon and that the small Union force surrendered.
  • I've noted that the fort was within Confederate territory and that its garrison surrendered the next day
  • At the beginning of the war, the Confederates were at a distinct naval disadvantage to the Union Navy, [because it lacked] lacking ships, infrastructure, and manufacturing capabilities.[7]
Consider the above suggestions
Done
  • According to Bisbee, the vessel was taken to Mobile, Alabama, after her construction by Bragdon,[1] while the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) says that she was built for the Southern Steamship Company.[10]
Chabge while to but
Done
  • Most Confederate ironclads were screw steamers instead of paddle steamers; Baltic was one of the few paddle steamers actually completed within the Confederacy,[18] and naval historian Raimondo Luraghi described her propulsion as obsolescent.
  • completed or converted?
  • Changed to "Baltic was one of the few paddle steamer ironclads actually completed or converted within the Confederacy" as the ship clearly wasn't built the first time in the CSA, although the CSA did physically build a few ironclads besides the conversions
  • Conditions inside were bad enough that the crew frequently slept outside of the ship.[20]
inside ad outside - odd use of terms in this setting? As an old US Navy man, I suspect that the sleeping quarters of the crew were below deck and when the heat became unbearable they came topside and slept on the ship's deck.
Source says "and the crews of several ships, such as the Albemarle and the Baltic, slept ashore or in the open air whenever possible". The context is referring to the general issues with CSA ironclads to have component parts heating up so bad they glowed red and the tendency of the machinery to emit toxic/unpleasant fumes. Give that the only information Baltic-specific notes that they slept on deck or on shore, I think the current phrasing is useful although I'd be open to rephrasing suggestions. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>I'd opt for a version of the sources description. Pendright (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have attempted this

SERVICE HISTORY:

  • She served in Mobile Bay, the area around Mobile, Alabama, and in the Tombigbee River.
  • Perhaps you could squeeze out a few things from the sources to beef it up a bit.
  • Unfortunately not, from the sources I've seen. As Bisbee notes, there's very little original documentation for her, so it honestly seems unlikely we'll ever get much more detail
  • Is it "in" or "on the Bay and River?
  • Probably on
  • By February 1863, the ship was too deteriorated for active service,[10] and was relegated to placing naval mines to protect Mobile Bay.[21]
Add "she" between and & was
Done
  • On May 20, Simms wrote that Baltic was very rotten and was "about as fit to go into action as a mud scow".
Did he indicate where she was rotten ?
No, and I've consulted both the quoted material in Bisbee, and the original source material Bisbee cites (a letter by Simms)
  • On July 21, Simms was appointed to command Nashville, and the rest of Baltic's armor was removed to put on Nashville.[27]
to "be' put on
Done
  • With the end of the war approaching, Baltic, Nashville, and other vessels were sent up the Tombigbee.
Tombigbee "River"
Done
  • The next month, Union authorities surveyed Baltic and noted that below the load line, she was in good condition, but that the portion of the hull above the load line and the deck were both rotten.
  • Drop the comma after load line
  • Gone
  • Change hull to "her" hull
  • Done

@Hog Farm: Finished - I found the article a bit unusual; in that the subject of it had so few redemming values. Pendright (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - Sorry for the delay on this. I've actioned everything above as best possible. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - Supporting - Pendright (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/CSS_Baltic/archive1&oldid=1101234869"