Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/CSS Baltic

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

CSS Baltic[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

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

Toolbox

After very helpful assistance from Sturmvogel and Parsecboy, I bring you my first ship-related A-class nomination. Commissioned in 1862 and decommissioned in 1864, she saw no significant action during that time. One historian had written that she was "one of the most obscure Confederate ironclads" and that "Confederate documents relating to the vessel are almost nonexistent". Another described her as "a nondescript vessel in many ways", and a few months before her decommissioning, her commander stated that she was "about as fit to go into action as a mud scow". Hog Farm Talk 14:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 14:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

I will review this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow. Apologies. Busy. Slava Ukraini! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I've been a bit busier lately, anyway. Hog Farm Talk 22:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She deteriorated over the next several years and became rotten [...] "several" is I think too many years for two years.
    • Replaced with "two"
  • Footnote [a] gives Bisbee's name and qualification twice.
    • A relic of Bisbee's origin theory of the ship being knocked into a footnote for due weight purposes. Corrected
  • DANFS and naval historian Paul Silverstone state [...] Silverstone and DANFS [...] and DANFS as "smaller". Acronyms should almost always be preceded by a "the".
    • I caught three instances, which I think is all of them
  • Prior to Tennessee's completion in February 1864, Baltic was the only Confederate ironclad on Mobile Bay. The Tennessee here kind of comes out of nowhere; it has no introduction. Also, do we have an article for it or is it another future Hog Farm Four Award?
    • Linked, although I've currently got a requested move on it.
  • Through late 1863 and early 1864, Baltic's condition worsened, and naval constructor John L. Porter surveyed the ship's condition, judging it to be in such poor condition that he recommended that the iron be removed from her. I think this sentence would work better if the "and" after "worsened" was replaced with a semicolon; even better if there's a date or at least vague window of time (early 1864?) given for Porter's inspection of the Baltic.
    • Best I can do I think is "By March 20 ..." for a date on Porter's inspection
  • With the end of the war approaching, Baltic, Nashville, and other vessels were later sent up the Tombigbee, and they were captured by Union forces on May 10, 1865, at Nanna Hubba Bluff. Recommend breaking this sentence into two at the "and" after "Tombigbee".
    • Done

What a bizarre boat! I never tire of Civil War weirdness. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vami IV: - I've attempted to reply to everything, although I could add a bit of explanation for Tennessee if preferred. Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from Adam Cuerden[edit]

You can technically get a larger-resolution copy of the image from https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-58000/NH-58793.html - How useful that is I'm not sure, though, as they somehow got a ridiculously blurry scan. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 22:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure how useful that would be, especially with the extra blurriness. FWIW, with Bisbee noting that it's not known how accurate the image actually is, it probably isn't all that important to get a super high-res copy anyway. Hog Farm Talk 05:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA[edit]

Will do this at the weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: - Are you still intending to review this one? I'm going to be away from my print books for much of next week. Hog Farm Talk 13:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CSS Baltic was a casemate ironclad that" Maybe add here a note with the explanation of the "CSS" part? Since I have no clue what it stands for.
    • Footnoted. "Confederate States Ship"
  • "vessel that naval historian William N." What's his surname?
    • I've wikilinked it in the lead to make it clearer that the "Still" in the sentence is his surname
  • "Baltic was built in 1860 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" --> "CSS Baltic was built in 1860 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania"?
    • Well, it wasn't a "CSS" at that point. It didn't gain the prefix until the Confederates took her over
  • "Little is known about her, and Bisbee describes" Introduce Bisbee here since not everyone reads the note first.
    • Done
  • "According to naval historian Saxon Bisbee, the vessel was taken to Mobile, Alabama" And here remove the introduction of him?
    • Done
  • " legislation appropriating $150,000 for an ironclad" Is it possible to convert this amount of money to a modern one?
    • Done. (equivalent to 4.5 million per the template; they didn't get their money's worth)
I get $4,523,889 which might be a little bit over-detailed. Same as bellow.
@CPA-5: - I've rounded both of these off to the nearest thousand. Is this better? Hog Farm Talk 13:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was bought on December 13 at a cost of $40,000" Same as above and maybe add a comma behind the date?
    • Done
  • I see a lot of "feet" maybe move them into their abbreviation (same with the inches)?
    • Should be abbreviated except for the first usage now
  • Maybe add a picture of the navel mines of the 19th century? Since I didn't know it already existed that early.
    • I've added one. There were several types, although a number were based off of old wooden beer kegs.
  • "Bisbee states that the converted ship's draft was 7 ft (2.1 m), the DANFS and naval historian Paul Silverstone state 6 ft 5 in (2.0 m)" Infobox says something diffrent.
    • The 6 ft figure from the infobox is attributed to Still after the presentation of the DANFS/Silverstone figure. Something does seem to have gone wrong here because I'm missing the cite to Bisbee in here; I'll try to get that after work. Hog Farm Talk 13:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you searched for? Nice job! Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Sources all appear to be high quality and reliable.
  • Formatting all appears to be consistent.
  • You may get some nitpicking over the ISBNs being different formats - there's a tool here you can use to standardize them. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer not to standardize. Once or twice I've seen that cause pagination issues because the switch to ISBN-13 makes it look like a different edition, so I prefer to use the ISBN directly off of the copy I'm using. Hog Farm Talk 19:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias[edit]

I'll dust of my reviewers notebook and see what I can find.

  • For those of us outside of the US, could you clarify succinctly where "Mobile Bay" is in the lead. Something like "Mobile Bay, on the Gulf of Mexico." would suffice.
    • Noted in the lead and body
  • Per WP:CITE, quotations need citing wherever they appear, so the quote in the lead needs an inline citation in the lead.
    • Done
  • "She deteriorated over the next two years and became rotten, and her armor was removed.." Not keen on the repetition of "and" which makes this sentence feel like it has been overextended.
    • Split into two sentences
  • "By that August, she had been decommissioned, and she was taken up.." Remove the second of these "she"s.
    • Done
  • "..where she was captured on May 10, 1865." For clarity could you state who she was captured by?
    • Done
  • "..found that her upper hull and her deck were rotten.." Remove the second "her".
    • Done

More to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back, Harrias! Hog Farm Talk 23:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put the uncertainty about the year she was built in the main prose, rather than hiding it in the note; especially as the infobox offers both options. If the weight of sources support 1860 over 1856, say that. You do this well later in the paragraph.
    • I've removed 1856 from the infobox. At Talk:CSS Baltic#New Albany?, it was decided to relegate Bisbee to a note here, as Bisbee is likely wrong but given that he is a very major source in the CSA ironclads topic area, was worth still attributing in a footnote. FWIW, Bisbee's footnotes and support for the claim are not convincing, although his referencing is usually sound. Hog Farm Talk 13:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and Bisbee describes her.." Introduce Bisbee again on this first use in the main body.
    • Done
  • "..four horizontal return-flue boilers; the boiler were either.." It should be "boilers" plural on the second use here too. From the grammar, I assume this is just a typo. Alternatively, consider "..each boiler was either.."
    • Done
  • The "Joiner, Gary D. (2011)" source needs pp, rather than p for the page range.
    • Done

Overall, I enjoyed this read. The article is well-written and nicely puts the ship and its capabilities (or lack thereof) nicely into context. Really good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Harrias: - Thanks for the review! I've (hopefully) addressed all of the above concerns. I'm hoping to get it to FAC in time for a TFA on Dec. 13 (her purchase by Alabama), if the Bisbee footnote thing isn't disqualifying. Hog Farm Talk 15:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – as I said, a really nice piece of work. If I review at the FAC I will probably bring the footnote issue back up, but that isn't to say that I will oppose over it, only drill a little deeper. I'm content for ACR though. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:31, 10 May 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_Baltic&oldid=1088720672"