Talk:CSS Oregon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 08:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Prelim

• No edit wars
• No duplicated links
• Earwig reports no copyvio
• Image source links both lead to a dead website
  • I've replaced the dead links with archived links. Hog Farm _Talk 19:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Lede and infobox

• Suggest linking to the particular Governor of Louisiana rather than just the general list
  • Done
• Is "taken" the best word here? Sounds quite forceful
  • Went with "selected"
• "in several minor actions..." worth noting even in the lede how these actions turned out
  • Done
• "Confederates ships"
  • Corrected
• You say in main text that she was built in 1846, does this mean the entire construction process was in this year? I note this because otherwise it's possible that she wasn't actually laid down in that year, per the infobox
  • Gaines says Built in 1846 at New York City for the Mobile Mail Line, Silverstone has a name/builder/date table which lists Oregon/(New York)/1846, and DANFS says Oregon [...] was built at New York City in 1846 for the Mobile Mail Line. Chatelain doesn't mention this. I don't think there's anything that can really be said here beyond "built in 1846"
• Should the commissioning date refer to her joining Louisiana forces or the CSA? There isn't a precise date in the infobox or text, is there one available? Also the actual commissioning of the vessel is not mentioned in text
  • I've moved the date from the commissioning to the acquired parameter. Sources don't really seem to indicate a commissioning date (I have clarified when the CSA took over from Moore et al). I imagine part of this may be related to the army taking over and not caring as much about traditional ship ceremony
• No reason not to put exact date of scuttling in infobox?
  • It's actually not clear in the sources of the exact date of scuttling
• Depth in hold and draft are not the same thing. To which does 9 ft 6 in refer? Also trailing zero should be removed in conversion
  • Gaines just says "depth", but Silverstone says it's draft, so I'm going with draft. I've rounded all conversions to two significant figures throughout.
• Out of interest, would her masts/sails have ever been used for propulsion?
  • Sources don't mention it, so I can't really say anything, but I would assume that the mast was a backup plan.
• Armament conversions are in infobox but not text
  • Added
• Is the size of the howitzers known?
  • Chatelain says "small". That's the best I've been able to find in the secondary sources

Construction and pre-war career

• Repeat previous comments on depth in hold/draft and construction date
  • See replies above
• "A sidewheel steamer, she also had a single mast and her hull was made from wood. She had one deck, no galleries, and a billethead." > "A sidewheel steamer, she also had a single mast. With a hull made of wood, she had one deck, no galleries, and a billethead". Probably not the best suggestion, but my point is that I don't think having the mast and hull points in the same sentence really works. (does that even make sense?!)
  • Done
• "no galleries" needs an explanation if there's no link. If she had no galleries, is it even worth mentioning?
  • Removed. DANFS mentions it, but I can't quite figure out what it's referring to. Removed
• "and a billethead" was this rare for her type of ship? Can you say what the figure was?
  • I can try to do some more research here, but it's not looking promising for further details. DANFS includes this as part of a quote, but doesn't say anything else about it and doesn't say where the quote comes from. Neither Gaines, Silverstone, nor Chatelain mention the billethead. Between the Oregon Question and the two other 1840s ships listed at SS Oregon, it's basically impossible to turn information that can be confidently tied down to this vessel. The best hope will be to try to find where the quote is from.
    • No luck on tracking down the quote. Only getting DANFS mirrors really.
• "the vessel was used..." you last mentioned California rather than Oregon so this sounds like Calinfornia was the one to transport mail
  • Corrected
• "Oregon was enrolled coastwise at New Orleans" not sure what this means
  • Not quite sure myself (it's in DANFS with no explanation, not mentioned in other sources). As best as I can tell, it's a legal term related to a licensing concept we don't have an article for.
• "reported to resemble" by?
  • DANFS, attributed
• You note that the two lesser owners of Oregon were from Mobile, so I assume this means that "the Geddes family" came from somewhere else?
  • New Orleans. Added

American Civil War

• "had the ship seized in 1861" when? If there's no exact date, suggest noting when exactly the civil war began to give some kind of timeframe
  • Not finding an exact date; I've indicated when the war began
• "Oregon repeatedly ran the Union blockade" can you say for what particular reason?
  • I've clarified that the Confederates relied heavily on blockade running due to navy limitations
• " to ports under the command of Captain A. P. Boardman" this sounds like Boardman commanded the ports, when I assume he actually commanded Oregon!
  • Clarified
• "Both the Confederate States Army and the Confederate States Navy were selecting vessels" I think you can do more to explain the situation here, why they're building up their navies etc.
  • This should be a bit clearer, as I've added that the Confederates had to build a navy from basically nothing with little infrastructure or industry
• "were chosen by the Confederate Army" when and why?
  • Summer 1861 and for military service. Clarified
• "at strategically located Ship Island" think this might be reworded to be a little less clunky, and would be worth explaining why the island was strategic
  • I've rephrased this, and indicated that it was in a significant place off of the coast
• "although the former returned with the steamer.." "although" doesn't seem necessary here. Saying that Oregon returned the next day with a different vessel is fine
  • Done
• "further men and supplies." for the new fort or something else?
  • Yes, for the fort. Clarified
• "CSS Arrow" what type of ship?
  • Added
• "USS Massachusetts" ibid
  • Added
• "did not take the bait" I think this is a little too informal
  • Rephrased
• "placed her under the command of Captain Abraham L. Myers." was Boardman still the captain prior to this? If not should probably be noted as well
  • Unfortunately, the sources aren't very clear
• "transferred up the Mississippi River" why?
  • Clarified
• "serving on Lake Pontchartrain." can you say what specifically she was doing?
  • Not specifically, but I've added that she was also expected to help defend LA and MS
• "USS New London and USS De Soto" what types of ship?
  • Added
• "the Confederates fired on them with two rifled cannon" where were these guns located? on both vessels? If so I'm not sure to what piece of armament they relate to on Oregon?
  • Again, not clear. Records indicate that Pamlico had one rifled gun, but it's not clear where the second came from. I tracked down Myers' after-action report, and it just says that rifled guns were fired at the Union vessel
• "forced to withdraw." to where?
  • Added
• "USS John P. Jackson" what type of ship?
  • Added
• "and the other vessels" > "and the other Union vessels"?
  • Done
• Link pilot
  • Done
• "USS Hatteras" what type of ship?
  • Added
• "moved on to Pass Christian." I had assumed that the battle took place in Pass Christian. If this was not the case, state where it actually happened?
  • Clarified that it was offshore of Pass Christian
• "CSS Bienville" yes...i'm going to say "what type of ship?" again...!
  • Added
• "moved passed" > "moved past"
  • Done
• If the exact date of her scuttling is not known, perhaps mention that?
  • The sources don't outright say that it's not known, but it's never clarified down more than at some point in April once the wheels fell off the wagon in the New Orleans area. Searching period newspapers didn't . I guess it says something about a warship that even contemporary newspapers don't have much to say about it.
    • Even the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies wasn't helpful - all I was finding was a Union report dated May 10 stating that their intelligence indicated that the Confederates had burned at some point earlier
• "The wreck later interfered with the escape of other Confederate vessels from Lake Pontchartrain. The wreck remained there" > "The wreck later interfered with the escape of other Confederate vessels from Lake Pontchartrain, and remained there..."?
  • Done
• "removed it in 1872 and 1873" > "removed it between 1872 and 1873"?
  • Done
• "while the rest of the wreck was burned."?
  • Done

References

• References all look good
• Not a massive quibble, but there is a lot of Chatelain referenced in the latter half of the article. If there are any other works that cover her service history I think it might be useful to reference them too, just to demonstrate coverage. If there aren't, then there's no problem.
  • I've added another source for the Ship Island stuff, but Chatelain seems to be the only particularly detailed source for the New London/Pass Christian stuff

@Hog Farm: That's my first read-through done. Will await your replies. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Thank you for your review! I've tried to address all concerns as well as possible, but the secondary sources don't contain much detail about the ship, and even the official reports are silent on key details. Hog Farm _Talk 03:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Your edits look good and the missing details aren't too much of an issue, although I'd like to have a word with those original Confederate record keepers! A few minor points remain:

• Pass Christian is duplicated in the lede

• Removed duplicate link

• "two of which resulted in the Confederate moving into shallow water" what does "the Confederate" mean? not sure if it's a spelling error or a strange way to refer to the ship

• Spelling error. Corrected

• "With a hull was made from wood"

• Added the missing word

• "to resemble" > "to have resembled"

• Done

• Cincinnati probably needs a link, not the most recognisable of American cities

• Linked

• "and both Oregon"

• Done

• "8 inches (20 cm) columbiad" I realise this is the fault of the convert template, but it's rather awkward reading!

• Fixed the only way I know how, which is to type it out and not use the template

• "while J. D. Swain was armed with a 32-pounder (15 kg) rifled cannon." why is this relevant to Oregon? If it's meant to be a comparison of the armaments provided to seized vessels, suggest this is made a little clearer

• I've added a detail I'm not sure how I missed - that the guns from Oregon and Swain were left behind on Ship Island. So hopefully this makes more sense to include now.

• "...and the Confederate Army eventually outfitted her" You seem to be making the point here that her service at Ship Island caused the Confederates to fit her as a gunboat, but the connection or reason between these two events is not clear. Is there a better timeframe than "eventually" for her conversion?

• Rephrased, and the source isn't clear

• "outfitted her into a gunboat" > "fitted her as a gunboat"?

• Done

• "She was armed with..." you've already introduced the 8-incher, assuming this is the same weapon. Clarify here whether this gunboat rearmament was a complete replacement of her initial armament or additions?

• Unfortunately, this is not that clear. My original research guess is that since the combined armament of Swain and Oregon resembles the final armament of Oregon that after the guns were left behind on Ship Island (see comment further above) that when Oregon and Gray Cloud came to evacuate the island, that Oregon got all four. But I don't have a source for that, so it can't be included.

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I've attempted to address these all as best I could. This one would definitely fall under the more difficult end of the research spectrum. Next up after I get Carondelet addressed (sorry this is taking so long) is an apparently low-quality ironclad. Hog Farm _Talk 18:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem! These are all interesting articles to review. I'm happy with your changes and am passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)