Talk:CSS Junaluska/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 18:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

A horrifyingly short but totally complete ship article? A Napoleonic editor can only dream! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Prelim

• No duplicated links
• No edit wars
• No images to check. Suggest adding File:Gun-boat-fanny.jpg which does include Junaluska, though which one she is I don't know
• Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

• Suggest adding CSS prefix to Younalaska unless you're specifically referring to her possibly serving under that name before her military service
  • Silverstone seems to indicate that this is a civilian name
• Ship country is missing from infobox

Service history

• "made a trip to Fort Hatteras" no reason why?
  • It's unclear from Oxford. Oxford mentions the commander of the vessel being worried that something had happened to another vessel after they arrived at Fort Hatteras, but it's not clear if that's the reason why they went or if the state of things after arriving caused the worry
• "Junaluska participated in a naval expedition"
• Ref. #12 has Junaluska under the command of a "Captain Slacum"? The source also provides some more precise dates for the Chicamacomico expedition and would allow you to connect up why the ship had been ferrying the 3rd Georgia earlier on, etc
• "After the action against Fanny" little confusing to have this here when chronologically we've already gone past Fanny

References

• this source says that Junaluska was serving in the Mosquito Fleet/North Carolina Squadron under, I think, this William F. Lynch? Also matches up with the unit details given in Ref. #12.
• this source, which I can't access, describes Junaluska specifically as a canal tug and looks to go into a little detail as to what made her such a useless warship
• Adding to the first point here, this source notes that after the capture of Fanny, Junaluska did not stay with the squadron
• References look good. AGF on print source.

@Hog Farm: Hi, that's all I have for now. Will await your replies. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I'd seen the Trotter source but didn't think it was RS (never heard of the publisher), but it looks like it's fairly commonly cited in books by trustworthy publishers so I'd say it's fine. A local library has a copy, but it'll be Friday or Saturday before I can get there - is that wait fine? Hog Farm _Talk 22:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• The Quarstein reference I can't access page numbers on via Google books, but the same library that has Trotter holds a copy of Quarstein, so that'll be a wait until Friday as well. Hog Farm _Talk 01:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Hog Farm: No problem, happy to wait. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I didn't go through and check mark on this review page which ones I've been through if I just made a simple change, but I've actioned or replied all above. Hog Farm _Talk 01:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Hog Farm: Changes look good. Junaluska is the kind of ship that could do with more academic interest, if only to elaborate on how bad she was! Passing as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)