Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/CSS Missouri

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

CSS Missouri

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): User:Sturmvogel 66, Hog Farm (talk)

CSS Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Sturmvogel 66 and I bring you a co-nom for another Confederate ironclad. This one was trapped on the Red River by low water and never saw combat; it was sold for scrap after the war. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass, no images (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It did have File:C.S. Ram MISSOURI.jpg but I removed it because the licensing needed work and wasn't bulletproof anyway. Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I've re-added the image with proper licensing, so it should be checked again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this image, what is the original publication before 1927? (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the fellow's sketchbook; I'm not sure that it was ever published within his lifetime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the details of authorship in Bisbee, it's apparently this guy, who died in 1913. Hog Farm Talk 22:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • Link poppet valve.
  • "although a speed of twice as fast had been promised". Suggest → 'which was twice as fast had been promised'
  • "Link t-rail.
  • "leaked like a sieve". Graphic, but not very encyclopedic.
    • Spoilsport!
  • "One ship was placed with riverboat captains Thomas Moore and John Smoker for one ironclad"? Should "ship" read 'contract'?
    • It's really a tossup, IMO, since both contract and ship were used in the previous sentence.
  • "with the being awarded to George Fitch for the other". :-)
  • "is known to still survive". Delete "still".
  • "The keel of the first ship was laid the following month". Suggestion: give the actual date. A lot has happened since you mentioned October 1862.
    • I'd like to, but nobody knows exactly when.
  • "The low water prevented". Suggest deleting "The".
  • I assume nothing is known of what happened to her after she was sold?
    • Not that I've ever been able to find.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments. See if my changes are acceptable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kges1901

edit
  • Link 'green timber' to green wood, Bisbee connects the leakiness of the ship specifically to the timber
  • wreck of the Union ironclad USS Indianola, the 32-pounder piece Needs a conjunction or a semicolon
  • Might be better to specifically mention that Fauntleroy wanted a blue water command of a blockade runner rather than being with the brown water navy to provide a better explanation for why he didn't want to command the Missouri
  • Mention that Carter was the experienced former commander of the General Polk and that Confederate Secretary of the Navy Mallory specifically tasked him with overseeing the construction of the Missouri
  • Potentially more useful to note that the guns were delayed because Pemberton took the cannons slated for the ship to use them for the Vicksburg defenses (Chatelain, p. 263)
    • Added
  • her Missouri after the state and her erstwhile Confederate government. Seems anachronistic to refer to states as female
  • Bisbee mentions that the most important difficulty that Missouri faced was getting fuel to even operate due to lack of coal and shortage of the alternative power source, wood. Chatelain notes that the ship's voyage to Alexandria relied in requisitioning wood from local plantations.
  • Chatelain mentions that crew desertion became a problem in the final months of the war and the Confederates had to impress soldiers from the army to make up for this. This seems pretty relevant to the ship's operations and potential combat effectiveness
  • Bisbee mentions specifically that she was sold for scrap (p. 168)
  • The article doesn't mention the ship's complement which is usually in other ship articles. Chatelain includes that Carter surrendered 41 officers and men at Alexandria (p. 288). Kges1901 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how relevant the 41 officers and men figure really is, since part of her crew had been pulled for Webb's run. Hog Farm Talk 21:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's an interesting [1] article by Katherine Brash Jeter in the Louisiana History journal, that shines a light on the problems of the manning of the Missouri, most importantly that the Confederates lacked seamen and had to resort to soldiers, but this worsened the desertion problem due to the harsh conditions of ironclad life. The article includes the detail that Carter requested 72 men for his crew from Kirby Smith in late 1863. The ORN might have more information on her designed complement. Kges1901 (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

edit
  • The sources are high quality RS, with Chatelain and Bisbee having multiple positive academic reviews.
  • The primary source ORN is used appropriately
  • A suggested source for expansion prior to FA would be A Man and His Boat on Carter's career for additional details, published by the University of Southwestern Louisiana in 1996[2]. There is also a nine page article about the Missouri by William Still in the academic journal Louisiana Studies, vol. 4 (1965). Kges1901 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've incorporated the Jeter source. I'll try to hunt down Still's article. The Carter book appears to be at least partially just primary-source writings by Carter himself, and the editor (Jeter) is already used as a source. There's apparently no publicly-held copy in Missouri, but I can try to talk UArk Fayetteville into letting me ILL their copy if this ever goes to FAC. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA

edit
Hi CPA-5, will you be doing a full review on this? Just a query, not a nag. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog. I've been on holiday to Italy and it was fun (even though the weather was hot) I might do a review if this comment is adressed. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I missed this! I'll get that lead expanded soon. Hog Farm Talk 12:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: - sorry for the delay on this! I've gotten the lead expanded out a bit. Hog Farm Talk 20:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Hey Hog no problem got used to it. The lead looks much better, I think we only need info about the Description section and then we're done there. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Little reminder here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Sorry about the delay. I've had a really busy last couple weeks and forgot about this. I've added another couple sentences from the description section, so there's now three sentences summarizing that. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Hog Farm: I've made my review. If you can address them then we might pass this nom. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/CSS_Missouri&oldid=1105787896"