Talk:CSS New Orleans

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 00:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Starting review on behalf of @Zawed: per this. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• Reads OK

Construction and characteristics

• Columbus, Kentucky, violating Kentucky's official neutrality.: to avoid repetition, suggest "...Columbus, Kentucky, violating the state's official neutrality."
  • rephrased
• two floating batteries - CSS New Orleans: rather than a hyphen, that should be an em dash I think?
  • Done
• The second paragraph starts off with a series of short sentences, suggest combining some of these for easier reading.
  • Done
• guns and crew consisted of a slanted wooden: a missing word here I think or maybe it should read "...guns and crew, consisting of a slanted wooden..."
  • I've added a missing word
• ...so that portion protected...: a missing word here, should be "so that the portion protected" I think?
  • Added
• In the text, the conversions for the armament is given in cm but are in mm in the infobox
  • Standardized to cm
• Suggest identifying what kind of ship Red Rover was in the text
  • Added
• Presumably you would have noted it if known, but any idea on complement?
  • I was able to dredge up a bit of information on this. Hog Farm _Talk 01:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Service history

• Is there anything to explain the discrepancy between her intended armament and actual weaponry; there is quite a discrepancy
  • I can't; DANFS has the numbers outright but Daniel & Bock don't agree with that and Chatelain only has that the vessel was designed for that armament. DANFS is presumably based on this. While I could add that in there that doesn't resolve the discrepancy and I'm not sure where those numbers come from. The Official Records source of course has no footnotes so I can't judge whether it was mis-interpreting design specs as an actual armament or not. Reviewing Daniel & Bock's footnotes shines no light on this either. Hog Farm _Talk 01:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Chasing down Daniel and Bock's footnote for On March 13, New Orleans was reported to have been armed with a single 32-pounder rifled cannon and eight 8-inch columbiads. has the original (a CS army report) giving a total of 10 guns on the floating battery as of March 4, which given the transfer of a gun to McRae on March 7 squares well with a nine-gun count on March 13. This doesn't seem to be reconcilable given the sources I can find. There's this I reckon, but Scharf isn't a particularly great source and that page contains the blatant error of "Grotesque" for "Grosse Tete". I just dont' know how to reconcile this. Hog Farm _Talk 01:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• on March 14, leave the : "on March 14, leaving the"
  • Fixed
• with only a tenuous supply through: "with only a tenuous supply route through"
  • Fixed
• with three vessels, with one gun disabled : "with three vessels, resulting in one gun disabled "
  • I've rephrased the back half of this sentence

Other stuff

• Image tags OK
• No dupe links
• Sources look to be RS, but suggest linking University of Alabama Press
  • I've gone ahead and linked all publishers. Schiffer isn't the greatest but Canney is a subject-matter expert. Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• All print sources, no source checks done but happy to AGF given history of nominator.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Zawed: - Thanks for the review! I've addressed the prose concerns and have found another source that gives a rough crew number. Unfortunately, I'm stumped on the discrepancy between designed and actual cannons, though. Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: my suggestion would be to, when introducing the actual armament, to acknowledge the discrepancy between them and what was intended, e.g. "At this time, its armament differed from what was intended, being six 8-inch columbiads." You should also add a note to the infobox regarding the armament to make clear the numbers are intended not actual. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Zawed: - I've added a bit to that effect to where the actual armament is first introduced, and have added (as designed) to the header for the infobox. I did determine that Chatelain apparently wrote a magazine article on New Orleans and Memphis a couple years ago. I cannot access this source so I have no idea if it includes any further detail on this armament matter or not. I'm already citing Chatelain's other work, so I personally think it's OK for the lower GA criteria although it would be an issue for FAC, which this article is not going to. I'll understand if you consider the other Chatelain source essential and this needs to fail, though. Hog Farm _Talk 02:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Your change is fine. The main point, for me anyway, was to put in an acknowledgement of the discrepancy so that readers don't think an error has been made in the writing. I think this is up to GA standard, so am passing as such. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)