Talk:CSS Baltic

Tonnage

This article states that the vessel displaced 624 long tons. The Naval History and Heritage Command lists its tonnage at 624 ('t' is used by DANFS as the abbreviation for tonnage; dp is used for displacement). Tonnage is different from displacement and is not weight (mass). Unless we know actual measurement used for tonnage (most likely American tons burthen) the term used here should be changed to tonnage as that is what is stated in DANFS. Kablammo (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kablammo: - Both Bisbee and Joiner, who are arguably better-quality sources than DANFS, refer to the 624 figure as "displacement". Does that affect anything? Hog Farm _Talk 01:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect they are wrong, especially as this vessel was a merchant steamer which are not and were not measured by displacement. DANFS is generally reliable. It may be possible to find sources from the vessel's merchant career; I have come across some reports to Congress which contain such information from the mid-nineteenth century. I will poke around to see if I can find anything of relevance. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue with that is that there were several steamers of the time named Baltic, with SS Baltic (1850) being the one that causes the most issue. Especially since it's not clear from Bisbee vs. DANFS if the steamer was built in 1856 or 1860, a lot of care will need to be taken in trying to attach contemporary reports to this specific name. Hog Farm _Talk 01:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I was aware of the Collins liner as it once held the Blue Riband. It likely was surveyed by Lloyds. Our Baltic appears to be akin to a riverboat built for riverine, harbor, and coastal trades, correct? Kablammo (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Bisbee implies it was mainly just used in Mobile. Hog Farm _Talk 02:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Silverstone's latest book, Civil War Navies, provides the distinction between the various types of measurement where known; he doesn't do it for Baltic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Kablammo - I've switched to tonnage. Hog Farm _Talk 14:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the article further (without remembering this foregoing discussion). Tonnage by definition is not displacement, and is not measured by units of mass, i.e., long tons. I suggested above that it could be tons burthen, but we apparently do not know that. Unless we know the actual measure used, it may be best not to specify. Kablammo (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Bisbee gives displacement and just a straight "tons" measurement; I'll check the others again soon but I imagine it may be necessary to just go with "tons". Hog Farm _Talk 19:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've switched it over to tonnage of 624 tons with an explanatory note since Silverstone does not clarify it in any way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

New Albany?

Some additional mentions of the Baltic from New Albany:

• http://carnegiecenter.org/exhibitions/nauticalnostalgia/

• https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.89.111/903.af2.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/newalbanyshipyards1859.pdf

• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Engines_of_Rebellion/ptdfDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22new+albany%22+baltic&pg=PA206&printsec=frontcover

• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Base_Ball_In_a_River_Town/SpsZDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22new+albany%22+baltic&pg=PT22&printsec=frontcover which has this statement: "... in 1863, Captain Charles Meekin, a leading riverboat captain of the day, turned the fasted and most luxurious New Albany steamboat, the Baltic, into an asset of the Union army."

If correct, the New Albany boat is not our subject. Kablammo (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kablammo: - The third one is the Bisbee source which states that Baltic was the New Albany vessel, and the fourth is not RS. I suspect that Bisbee may not be right here (although I've seen about 4 different dates for that Baltic vs. Diana race including as early as 1854), but as Bisbee's work is a well-respected recent scholarly work, I think the 1856/New Albany origin warrants an attributed mention to Bisbee. Any thoughts on this Sturmvogel 66? Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Canney and Silverstone both say that Baltic was a towboat before the conversion so she's definitely not a luxurious passenger boat. I do think that Bisbee's statement about her origin is worth putting in as a note, but can be deleted from the main body.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Bisbee and Still agree that it was a towboat/cotton lighter as well; it really doesn't match in purpose/use with the New Albany boat at all. I've relegated Bisbee's 1856 New Albany origin statement to a footnote, and have removed the sentence " Originally, Baltic had a length of 156.5 feet (47.7 m), a beam of 37.3 feet (11.4 m), and a depth of hold of 7.6 feet (2.3 m), with a displacement of about 450 long tons (460 t)" as this is only found in Bisbee and Bisbee is sourcing this to 1856/1857 newspaper articles that he also uses as his source for it being built in New Albany. I guess all that's left is working out if displacement or tonnage is the better statement for the 624 tons figure. Hog Farm _Talk 05:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

First two sentences

I encountered this article when it appeared on the Main Page. As a featured work, it is well crafted. My issue: the first two sentences contain terms unfamiliar to me. The terms were linked to separate articles, which explained them. I believe that the Introductory section of Wikipedia articles should be fully understandable on sight to the average reader--with some exceptions for highly technical subjects. As most editors are probably aware, Wikipedia articles are mirrored, copied, and appropriated by a variety of aggregating websites, and the opening sentence or two of an article will also frequently be found as a blurb in a Google search result for the topic. In most cases, perhaps all, mirrored articles do not contain working links to terminology used in the articles, nor do Google search results. I have been led to a great many Wikipedia articles via Google searches, and that means I have seen a great many such blurbs. And, regrettably, a great many of those blurbs contain lingo, jargon, engineer-speak or other unfamiliar terminology that acts as a roadblock to quick and clear understanding of the topic. So it is with this article.

Here are the unfamiliar terms:

casemate

lighter

Casemate was linked as part of the phrase "casemate ironclad". I hovered on the link and saw in the first sentence of that article's Introduction that the phrase referred to a type of gunboat. I was familiar, as probably most American readers are, with the term "ironclad" as often referring to a type of fighting vessel used in the Civil War. Thus, the first sentence of the linked article did not yet answer my question, what does casemate mean? I continued reading, and the second sentence explained that the cannons were housed not in a turret, but the vessel "instead had a single (often sloped) casemate structure, or armored citadel". That was a reasonably good explanation, but I noticed the word casemate had its own link in the sentence. So I looked at that article and learned, in the third paragraph of its Introduction, that the meaning of casemate had expanded: "With the introduction of ironclad warships, the definition was widened to include a protected space for guns in a ship, either within the hull or in the lower part of the superstructure." So now I had a clear idea of the term's meaning--after looking at two articles in addition to the one I began with. I want to point out that nowhere in the Baltic article is casemate defined, though "casemate ironclad" is linked three times.

Lighter appears in the article in the second sentence, which begins: "A towboat and cotton lighter before the war..." Hovering on lighter, I read in that article's Introduction that it is "a type of flat-bottomed barge used to transfer goods and passengers to and from moored ships".

I believe that the Introduction to a Wikipedia article--except for the most technical--should offer the reader a clear understanding of the topic without reliance on linked terminology--especially terminology that is unlikely to be familiar to most readers. Multiple Policy and Guideline recommendations support that idea--that the Introduction should be readily comprehensible to the widest possible audience, and that technical terms and jargon should be employed in the Body of the article for readers who want to take a deeper dive into the subject. I repeat that mirrors and Google blurbs do not contain working links to separate articles.

Here is how this article can begin:

"CSS Baltic was an ironclad gunship that served in the Confederate States Navy during the American Civil War. A towboat and cotton barge before the war, she was purchased by the state of Alabama in December 1861 for conversion into an ironclad."

Possibly, the terms casemate and turret might be very briefly differentiated from one another in the Introduction (and not merely by reliance on linking). Otherwise, if editors feel the article can survive without that information in the Introduction, then in an appropriate place in the article Body, the terms casemate and lighter can be introduced, defined and linked. DonFB (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@DonFB: - I'm open to ways to simplify wording, although the idea that no technical terms should be introduced in the lead is going to be unrealistic for most articles. The lead can be simplified from "casemate ironclad" to "ironclad warship", which should be self-explanatory as "a warship clad in iron". The link for the lighter was intended to refer to the line The lighter barge gave rise to the "lighter tug", a small, manoeuvrable type of harbour tug. in the lighter article, which isn't obvious and does need a fix, but referring to Baltic as a barge in the article would be inaccurate. I'll look around to see if I can find a solution for the lighter, but the link isn't the best right now. Hog Farm _Talk 14:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. "ironclad warship" is a good revised phrase with the added benefit of giving a universally understandable identification of the subject of the article in the first sentence--a ship. The terms "towboat" and "tug" seem almost synonymous, so I question whether both words would be needed. Suggestion: "A cotton tugboat before the war..." "Cotton" could even be omitted from the sentence. DonFB (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a bit of a difference between a towboat and a tugboat (the formerly generally pushes, the latter is most commonly used to pull). @DonFB: - I've removed the reference to a cotton lighter from the lead as knowing it's a towboat will give the correct impression. The opening of the lead should be quite a bit simpler now. Hog Farm _Talk 23:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. DonFB (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

033763175322022

119.155.187.23 (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 10:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)