Talk:CSS Baltic/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 17:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Refs:
  • Not required, but the Steven Smith ref is the only one lacking a location.
    • Added
• General:
  • Do we have anything more on her use before the conversion?
    • Not really. None of the sources give much detail of the pre-war career beyond being a towboat and cotton lighter on Mobile Bay. My guess is that it didn't do anything non-routine; searching in old newspaper results has proven useful for other ships but isn't practical here due to the disagreement in secondary sources between 1856 and 1860 construction
• Lede:
  • "A towboat and cotton lighter before the war, she was purchased by the state of Alabama for conversion into an ironclad, and she was transferred over to the Confederate Navy in May 1862, with whom she served on Mobile Bay." That's a mouthful - suggest breaking into two sentences if possible. Also "with whom she served on Mobile Bay." is an odd phrasing. It's the "whom" which make the CN into a person, I think.
    • Broken into two sentences and rephrased
  • "The results of the conversion were a vessel.." clunky. I think "The result of the conversion was a vessel"...
    • Done
• Construction:
  • "vessel for conversion under the state law" do we really need the "under the state law" here? Feels like padding.
    • Removed
  • I'm going to assume that the engines were not changed in the conversion?
    • It does not appear so.
• Service history:
  • When exactly did Johnston transfer to the Tennessee? When did Simms exactly take over?
    • Not finding a good date for Simms taking over; the official Confederate naval records aren't even very clear on the issue (although February or March 1864 is most likely based on some original research I can't include). Best I have for Johnston going to Tennessee is after it was completed in February 1864; I've rephrased things to try to make that clearer.
  • "her indicate that it was likely not used for any other purposes" shouldn't it be "her indicate that she was likely not used for any other purposes"?
    • Corrected
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: - These should all be addressed as best as possible, although I haven't been able to turn up a good chronology of the Johnston/Simms command transfer. Hog Farm _Talk 02:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, passing now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)