Talk:USS Monitor/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about USS Monitor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nominated for GA

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The USS Monitor article has been nominated for GA. A preliminary review was conducted above. To start the review and/or leave comment go to the GA nominations page or the USS Monitor GA review page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary style

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The article is currently at 63 kB of prose. That's a very big article. Yes, the Monitor was highly influential, but the ship itself doesn't seem notable enough for such a massive treatment. This is a very informative, well-researched article, but it could use a lot of trimming (per WP:SUMMARY).

For example, the treatment of the two battles is almost as long as the actual battle articles themselves. There's an almost excruciating amount of detail in some cases. If you look at "Final voyage", there's a very long paragraph on waves crashing, pumps failing and orders being handed out. Even a dramatic sinking can become fairly dreary with a blow-by-blow recount. All those minor details make for even less encyclopedic reading when it comes to presidential hand shaking, the receiving of one-dollar dinners and rudder realignments.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Most naval historians agree that the USS Monitor is among the most notable ships in U.S. naval history and marked a turning point in naval history altogether. You can ask for other opinions at WikiProject ships and elsewhere if you feel strongly about this. There are plenty of GA and FA articles that exceed 63 kb becasue the subject involves itself with many things. You are the first person to come along and regard some of the coverage as "dreary". The USS Monitor involved many people and events (not just battles) during the Civil War, and as lengthy as you may feel it is, it is still a summary as there are entire books written about this vessel and its history. After it passes GA review it will be nominated for FA, the requirements of which demand a well written and well covered account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, even 100 printed pages (this would be around 30-35) would of course be a "summary" of all the available literature. But also completely unreadable. Monitor is primarily well-known because of it's influence, not it's extended career or anything like that. And the only person who is genuinely notable due to Monitor is Ericsson. Compare this article with ship-related FAs about far broader topics: it's as long as dreadnought, longer than ironclad warship or battleship and twice the size of pre-dreadnought battleship.

At the very least, the finer details of the two battles should be moved to separate articles, because the amount of information here can't really be considered a summary.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree entirely with everything you say here. The Monitor was and is known because of the epic battle she fought 'and' because her role in it changed the course of naval history. The two ideas are inseparable. Ericcson and the ship's commander, Worden, and even some others, are also fairly well known, albeit not as much as Lincoln. And like the dreadnought, Monitor became its own class of ship. The article is a well written summary with excellent scope. The dedicated articles covering the battles Monitor was involved in need to be longer and better written, which is why the battle sections in this article rival them in size and coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Add :The Battle of Hampton Roads article is more than ten pages long while the section covering that battle in this article is less than a page, so comparing the section here to that article in terms of length was not very appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago22 comments3 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There is inconsistent use of United States Navy and Union Navy. Which is it? In the lead, the "United States Navy" is still used, Union Navy is sometimes rendered as Union navy, and is not linked in the text, but it is in see also, where it should not be (given it will be linked in the text) I've used Union Navy throughout and linked it in the lead and body. Y. The reason for Virginias destruction should be in the lead Y The prose should be consistent regarding the definite article used in conjunction with ship names ie "the Monitor or merely Monitor etc, at present both are used with no clear pattern or rationale, I suggest dropping them is the most appropriate consistent response Y Same with the personal pronoun "she" used for ships, the same ship also being described as "it" at one point or another. Fixed remaining example in lead. Y suggest Worden's rank be given in the lead Y Army in the lead should probably be "Union Army" Y (and linked) Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	there are quite a few examples of overlinking, commencing from the "Duel of the ironclads" subsection (suggest you use User:Ucucha/duplinks Cape Hatteras is still overlinked, as are the hydroblaster pressures Y The statement in the lead "marked a turning point in naval warfare" does not appear to be supported in the body (per WP:LEAD) Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	One dead link and several that need stabilising per Checklinks link at bottom Y
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I'm going to flag up-front that it is very difficult to justify a readable prose size of 64K (10.3K words) given the scope of the article, which is essentially about one ship that was in active service for less than a year, regardless of how seminal its creation was in naval warfare. For example, the GA-Class HMS Dreadnought (1906) is less than half the size, and even the general FA-Class article on Dreadnoughts as a class of battleship only just closes on this size. I consider that the size of this article is right on the edge of readable prose. I would expect this aspect to get a very hard look if it was taken to MILHIST ACR and/or as a FAC. I recommend that the major contributors endeavour to develop quality WP:SPINOFFS from this article to reduce its size.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	However, none of the image have alt text accessibility - not a GA requirement Y
	7. Overall assessment.	Listed, with a caution about its size

Checklinks some links need fixing, one dead Y

Comments / questions

Peacemaker67 -- The CSS Virginia was destroyed by confederates as they were retreating and had nothing to do with the Monitor. Are you sure we need to mention this in the lede? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Virginias existence (or not) is highly relevant to Monitors activities, as they effectively cancelled each other out. Monitor could only travel up the James River if Virginia was out of the way, which is why I assume she is mentioned in that paragraph of the lead. All that is needed is the insertion of the phrase "as they withdrew" into that sentence.

Article size: There are several FA articles whose size far exceeds guide lines, such as Ronald Reagan, Barak Obama, etc. Evidently allowances are made for articles whose subject is broad in its scope. Will there be 'any' allowances made here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That may be true, there may also be FA ship articles (which would be a more relevant comparison than two-term Presidents) that I am not aware of that exceed the guidelines, but were they were only operational for less than a year? I challenge the idea that this article is "broad in its scope". In what respect? It is essentially about a single ship. What exactly is broad about its scope? The issue here is that articles need to be of a readable length, so people will read them. The obvious solution here is to spin off the detail of the battles. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such ship's articles off hand, but the concern here is simply about size regarding GA and FA articles. In cases where there is much history involved some articles naturally are longer than average size. There are other such articles besides those of presidents. I've encountered them before and can cite them if you insist and think its necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

FA articles whose size is larger or comparable to USS Monitor: USS Constitution, USS Iowa turret explosion, USS New Jersey (BB-62), Tanks in the Spanish Army, Antarctica, The Beatles, Australian Defence Force, Yasser Arafat, Battle of the Nile, Ancient Egypt, Gerald Ford, Supernova, William Shakespeare, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

re: Broad scope. While Monitor was in service less than a year, the subject's scope includes important events that led to its conception, design, building, battles fought and involve notable people like Ericsson, Commander Worden, Green, Sec of War Stanton, President Lincoln, and its loss at sea, rediscovery-recovery, turning point in naval history, etc. This is not some ordinary vessel of the time that was only involved in a couple of battles. I'm hoping we can keep most of the content/context in the article about this unique vessel and advent in history. Just as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc, involve much more important history than other presidents, so does Monitor compared to most other naval vessels. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll say one thing, a comparison with a non-ship article is a "red herring" as far as I am concerned, there are plenty of important ships that have high quality articles of readable size. Comparing like with like is appropriate, comparing this article with an article on Lincoln or an ancient civilisation just doesn't ring true. The whole point of having a wiki is that people can click on links to find out more details about other things outside the article's main focus. The battles are an example of material that should probably be put into one or more WP:SPINOFFs to improve readability and navigation of this article. I haven't decided yet, I'm just flagging it as an issue that concerns me, as the article is right up at the edge of readable prose size. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for you consideration. Yes, I included examples of FA articles of other ships and ship related subjects for you, as well as the others. In any case, the coverage of battles, e.g. the Battle of Hampton Roads goes hand in hand with the Monitor -- just as Lincoln and the American Civil War do. i.e.The Civil War is well covered in Lincoln's biography where it involves him. The main article (for Battle of Hampton Roads) is about 8 to 10 pages long, while the section for that battle in the Monitor article is about a page and a half and covers just the basic battle and Monitor's involvement. In any case, it's good to see that you're thinking about these things rather than coming down with an iron hammer on issues. I'm willing to go along with almost anything you advise -- just hope we can keep the content in tact as is practiced in other GA/FA articles whose subject is involved. It's very important to the quality of the narrative and history, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you point out specific examples of excessive detail/coverage so that y'all can discuss what's worthy of being retained, Peacemaker67. Gwhillickers has already shown that he thinks the current level of detail is appropriate and will need at least some sort of guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, specific examples rather than personal innuendo would have been a smarter approach. Are you referring to all details you added regarding armor thickness, diameter of guns, engine bore and stroke, butt joints, pump pressures and all the details in the Rediscovery and Recovery sections? These are all okay by me, as ships of this sort are highly technological entities and such broad coverage and attention to detail is welcomed by most naval buffs, historians and students of naval history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not referencing anything in particular, just saying that specifics are generally more useful than generalities. That said, your comment about "general innuendo" isn't clear. Who or what are you referring to, exactly?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Generalities are needed and serve as a way of introducing specifics, details. We can't just dive into details without general context. After weeks of reading, writing, sourcing, trips to the library, buying books, I believe we did a good job providing a balance of both these ideas. Monitor was a unique vessel, in many respects, and to begin gutting the article of details would take away from the sort of things naval ship enthusiasts would love to read about, imo. e.g. Details about armor thickness gives us more insight into the battle where the two ships were hammering each other at close range. Ditto with cannon bore, ship's speed, ventilation for a crew that was doing battle locked under what could have been their steel tomb. All the details about the ship sort of materialize when we come to read about the battles. Enough said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, regarding the use of 'she' vs 'it' in reference to Monitor, I think I've fixed what you were referring to, but not quite sure here. What say you? -- Also, the 'Alt' in the captions as you say are not GA requirements, but since you noticed these I'll go ahead and include those directly. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Peacemaker, when you say the hydroblaster pressures are over linked do you mean the PSI is converted to other units of measure more than it should be? Since 'hydroblaster' only occurs once in the article it would seem this is what you meant, so I'll go ahead and remove the conversions from psi. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, he meant that there was an earlier link to psi referring to engine pressure. I reverted your change and removed the link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  - Just leave me to do the ticking in the table, that way I can keep track of what I am happy with. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In any case I can't seem to find that dead link. I checked 'External links', even removed a couple that were not going to the intended page. If it can be removed without effecting anything else you are welcomed to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is being used to reference something about a museum? I've tagged the link as dead. If you search the page for dead link you'll find it. If it isn't working and you can't find any alternate source for the info, the dead link and the information that was sourced from it will need to be removed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Y Fixed. Here is the new link. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Listed. I strongly recommend that you use Template:refbegin and Template:refend on the subsections of the Bibliography section to compress them a bit. So far as I am concerned, the size remains an issue, but as it is lineball, I'm giving this article the benefit of the doubt for GA. I would expect greater resistance at MILHIST ACR or FA. I recommend that serious consideration be given to developing one or more spinoffs to reduce its size. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, first let me say Thank You for your time and effort. I will consider your advice about article size strongly. It would seem that the Rediscovery and Recovery sections might do well with their own article, esp since there are none. I will consult with Sturmvogel, as he was the major author there. I still feel strongly about including the many details (perhaps not every solitary one of them, but indeed most) as they give depth of understanding to the sections covering the battles and the sinking. As you might have gathered, I am an inclusionist, esp when it concerns history. This is not to say I welcome unnecessary information. If a given detail can fit into the narrative beyond just citing the detail, it should be included, imo. At any rate, thanks for your considerations and flexibility on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Definite article in ship names

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see that someone went through a couple years ago and added definite article to all ship names, in the interest of consistency. Unfortunately this clashes with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). I fixed the first sentence of the lead but refrained from fixing the rest (just the ones with USS or CSS prefixes) pending discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Monitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041212084431/http://www.moc.org/ to http://www.moc.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Cost conversion to 2018 dollars reverted

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hello.

In the field at the top of the article, I added a conversion to 2018 dollars: Ship original cost=$275,000 ($7.35 million in 2018 dollars) This was reverted by Sturmvogel, who says "Currency converters do not work well with capital costs". Sturmvogel has provided no information on why this is the case. I will add the currency again and invite him to discuss on this page.Newzild (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

When you add something and get reverted, the polite thing to do is discuss it on the talk page. Adding it back in before the discussion even starts is aggressive and confrontational.

You did not give a source for your conversion. Where did you arrive at this? If you've used the Consumer Price Index, Sturmvogel is quite correct in reverting you.

And giving a fixed end date is unhelpful. When I come back in 2028 and read this article, that number will be useless to me. We normally use Template:Inflation to get the most up-to-date conversion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Inflation converters use the cost of living to derive their figure, but warship costs have far exceeded that number. The battleship HMS Barham (04), built a century ago, cost about 2.5 million pounds. The latest British Type 26 frigate, a ship about a quarter the size of the battleship, costs 8 billion pounds for 8 ships, once R&D is factored in. So run your converter again based on 2.5 million from 1913 and see how many tens of millions of pounds it yields, compared to the billion actually being spent.

Also, do some digging, there have been plenty of other discussions on Wiki invalidating inflation calculators for capital costs that have nothing to do with changes in the cost of living.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The inflation conversion is misleading at best even in dealing with items affected by COLAs. It doesn't (can't) take account of cost changes that have varied at rates other than the nominal COLA. IMO, it shouldn't be used at all. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Just to use some examples from my own experience from when I was a kid in the late '70s, paperback books in the US have increased by about a factor of 6 or so, but gasoline has merely doubled. And I have no idea what those ratios are for those in the UK, Germany or Zimbabwe.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

♠I was thinking of the U.S. auto industry in particular. Prices in the '80s were artificially inflated as a result of the "voluntary import quotas". There's also changes in wage/pay structure that complicate things even further, so even using the number of weeks/months' wages (which I would have favored) isn't truly accurate, either. And when this is all true, using a script seems like a really bad idea.

♠FYI, if anybody cares, this issue's also been raised (by me...) here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:27 & 16:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)