Talk:USS Galena (1862)

Construction?

What was unusual and ineffective about the armor of this ship? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

CN added, January 10, 2012

The reason I asked is because I just read an article in a compilation of Yankee articles (called Yankee Steam) that indicates that the Galena was rebuilt in 1878, without iron, then ran aground in 1891 (p 131, if you're interested). Essentially saying that Galena '62 and Galena '80 are the same. So, is the Yankee B.S., or is Wikipedia? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Galena (1862)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• " her armor was too thin to prevent Confederate shots from penetrating. " -- you should link "Confederate States of America" here.
  • Indeed.
• "his ship would float despite the weight of its armor" -- Is there any idea at this time how much the armor would weigh or if this would be problematic?
  • No firm numbers, but nobody except the Brits and French were experienced with iron armor at this time
• "Despite a preliminary rejection, the board accepted Ericsson's proposal on 16 September after he explained his design in person the previous day." -- Were any of their initial concerns about the design mentioned?
  • Yes, but since they were about the Monitor, I didn't think that they were relevant here. I was trying to show here how closely twined Ericsson and Bushnell were at this time, but I can trim it down if it's a distraction.
• "it was uncertain if the original design could support the proposed armor's weight." -- Again here, it might help if we note the estimated weight of the armor.
• "she lead her squadron up to Drewry's Bluff, about eight miles from Richmond," -- Was the convert template omitted for a reason?
  • No, just me being forgetful.
• "Galena was broken up in 1872 at the Norfolk Navy Yard" -- and sold for scrap I assume?
  • Probably, but not actually cited anywhere. And since she was broken up in a navy-owned shipyard, her material may have been recycled to some extent.
• The characteristics in the infobox don't match the cited ones in the article. (Since this is a common issue in ship articles, maybe we should start noting the infobox stats as "class standard" and citing them separately?
  • No, just me failing to specify length overall in the infobox
• Spotted two duplicate links.
  • Fixed
• External links all appear to be working. Images appear to be properly lisenced. There are no disambiguation links. I see no problems with article stability or neutrality.

Placing the article on hold pending improvements. —Ed!^(talk) 02:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Exceptional as always. Passing for GA. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

note 1 is in error?

Note 1 claims that Monitor was the first ship with a turret, because the tests by Cowper Coles "started a month later". However, Coles' tests with HMS Trusty were in 1861, and Monitor was not launched until Jan 1862, which would seem to make it impossible for Monitor to be first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.220.37 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)