Talk:CSS Pamlico/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 15:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look at this shortly. I note as well that seeing as ships seem to be my "thing" here, I'd be happy to review some of your other outstanding nominations but you might want some more opinions on your articles than just me, me, and more me! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Prelim

• No duplicated links
• No edit wars
• Image correctly licensed (could this be used on Oregon too?)
  • Added
• Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

• "Pamlico was burned" perhaps include why, avoiding what fate
  • Added in lead and body
• Built date can be included in infobox
  • Done
• Link long tons
  • Done

Civilian service and conversion

• Civilian service is a little too split up for my liking. Suggest moving more information about her service as a passenger vessel to before the explanation of why the Confederates were buying ships
  • Done, but I fear it's still a bit clunky
• "She was one of several passenger vessels..." if you're naming the passenger vessels here, then Arrow wouldn't be a "CSS" yet would she?
  • Removed prefix
• "The seizures led residents of areas on the lakeshore to complain..." did this come of anything?
  • Not that I've seen. Good old eminent domain.
• "A smaller vessel" are you comparing her to another ship? If not, suggest "a small vessel"
  • Done
• Link long tons
  • Done
• "and was placed" Doesn't work with the previous part of the sentence, needs rewording
  • Reworded both this part and the beginning of the sentence
• "On November 21, 1861, and February 27, 1862" Are both these dates required?
  • I think it's useful to indicate the armament at different points, given that it seems to have changed
• she was also reported to have been armed..." When?
  • Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be clear - Chatelain doesn't provide a date for this and Gaines just says that it was before her destruction which is fairly obvious

Military use

• "about" > "around"?
  • Changed. I'm assuming this is the instance in the boarding soldiers sentence
• "extra soldiers" extra? you don't note any soldiers being on Pamlico to begin with
  • Removed "extra"
• "on board" too much board in one sentence!
  • Removed
• In the Oregon article Pamlico discovers the two Union ships and Oregon joins her, but the wording here sounds like it's the other way around. Also other minor details like the challenge for closer combat aren't present here
  • I got a bit lazy and oversimplified, should be corrected now
• "as ineffectual" is there a particular reason given?
  • Unfortunately, no
• "part of a failed attempt" why did it fail?
  • Added

References

• References look good.
• NHHC names Dozier as "W. G. Dozier" rather than "Brian G. Dozier"?
  • Yes, it should have William G. Dozier per Chatelain. My mind was on baseball when I was writing this, so I guess I was subconsciously thinking of all the times Brian Dozier made KC lose

@Hog Farm: That's all I have for now. Will await your responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Round 1 is done, although I fear that the civilian service part may need more work. Hog Farm _Talk 04:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Hog Farm: Apologies for my long absence, life comes at you fast sometimes. My final suggestions and queries are as follows:

  • For the civilian service section, suggest a format something like this: Build date and operating location, then information on where she was making her passenger trips, then context as to why Confederates were looking for ships, then date of Pamlico purchase, then introduction of other vessels seized alongside her, then dimensions, armament, etc.

  • I've made an attempt at this

  • "who was transporting" > "which was transporting"

  • Done

  • "The Confederate vessels" to avoid too many "vessels", suggest changing to "The Confederates"

  • Done in a couple places where "vessels" seemed to be too thick

  • "were part of an to escort" missing word here Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Added missing word ("attempt")

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - No worries about the wait! I'd forgotten about it myself. I've attempted to address these remaining issues. Hog Farm _Talk 15:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Happy with those changes. Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)