Talk:Whistling Dick (cannon)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the United States Military Academy misidentified Whistling Dick? Source: Bearss 1957 p. 30 - I own a paper copy (long story); I don't think this source has ever been digitized
  • ALT1: ... that Whistling Dick was "of rather modest proportions"? Source: Bearss 1957, pp.25-26, quoting a Confederate artilleryman
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Missouri Amendment 2
  • Comment: I think there is the basis for a very good quirky hook here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Created by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 05:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Whistling Dick (cannon); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Right: New enough and easily long enough. Sources are offline but I trust Hog Farm implicitly on their reliability. Article has no issues with CV, POV, or other concerns that would get in the way of DYK. Hooks are both cited and of some interest, but the second one is much funnier and is the obvious choice. QPQ complete. Easy pass! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 03:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I plan to review this article. I've skimmed it and the only obvious thing is that the article needs an "infobox weapon". I think you would be justified in using the data (from Ripley, p. 366) for an M1839 18-pounder garrison gun. Since the piece was rifled, the projectile weight would of course be greater than 18 pounds, so you wouldn't need to put that, since it's really unknown. The gun may have been manned by gunners from either the 22nd Louisiana Infantry Regiment or the 23rd Louisiana Infantry Regiment. One cannot say for sure (Bergeron, pp.125-130). Djmaschek (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Djmaschek: - Just as a heads up, I will be traveling for work this week and probably won't be able to access my copies of Ripley and Bearss until sometime between Wednesday and Friday. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Review 1

   @Hog Farm: Items of concern are listed below. Please fix or argue your case for not fixing. Djmaschek (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

   • Introduction: "dueled Union Navy ships" > "dueled with". It just sounds odd.

   • Changed

   • Introduction: "and may have been melted down afterwards". It would be better to write: its fate is unknown. Presson's speculative comment at the end of the article is appropriate. But your three major sources don't mention the gun's fate, so I wouldn't put that in the introduction.

   • Done

   • Pictures: I cannot find any pictures of M1839 18-pounder guns. However, there are some photos of 24-pounders at Battery B, 2nd Illinois Light Artillery Regiment. The 24-pounder was slightly larger and apparently mounted on a similar carriage. I am not going to insist that you use any of these photos. Obviously, none have a built-up breech, since they are not rifled.

   • Given that even West Point has been confused about what this gun was, I'd rather not put a picture without reasonable confidence that it's right.

   •  Works for me

   • Infobox: The article needs an infobox, but I see you are already working on it. I would use caliber instead of diameter and you can find siege carriage weight at the bottom of Ripley, p.376.

   • I've added an infobox, and have switched diameter to caliber. I'm unsure about adding carriage weight, since there's no way of knowing if the Confederates were actually using a proper siege carriage, given that part of the point of this gun is that the Confederates don't appear to have been using this piece as intended and since there's no way of knowing for sure even where this piece came from. At least to me, there just seems to be too much uncertainty to get into ancillary details like that here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

   •  Works for me

   • Regiments: You do not need to say anything about the 22nd or 23rd Louisiana, since we know nothing about how the Whistling Dick was manned. Just FYI, those two units were confusingly renumbered 21st and 22nd in 1863.

   • My reading of Bearss suggests that the 1st Louisiana Heavy Artillery Regiment is the most likely for the river defense stretch, with Company E being probable (Higgins report implies the regiment, and Bearss notes a tablet marker in Vicksburg claimed that it was Company E of that unit - I can add this, but would feel most comfortable attributing to the plaque via Bearss, given the uncertainty over this gun). Hog Farm _Talk 01:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

   • 18-pounder: I think this article needs a short section with a separate heading describing the specs of the M1839 18-pounder. That is, just a few sentences using stats from Ripley, pp. 366 & 376. Since, the authorities seem to agree it was a built-up 18-pounder, I think it's appropriate. In line with 3b (Focus) it should be brief.

   • I'm uncertain that this is due weight, especially since I feel like we're basically guessing even with the infobox. The bore and length are safe to assume stayed roughly the same, but I'm less confident that we can say the same about the weight because of the probable banding, and the range, accuracy, projectile use are going to have significant differences because of the rifling. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

   •  Works for me

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): See infobox & image comments under 1a.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Djmaschek: - I've got a couple differing opinions above about including some data. Would you be interested about having a few other editors weigh in (post at WT:MILHIST, ping the other active Civil War editors, ping the MILHIST coordinators, post a message at WT:GAN, or something else entirely) to try to get a consensus on this stuff? Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: GA class. I've created many articles about Louisiana units (thanks to my copy of Bergeron), but unfortunately none about the 1st Louisiana Heavy Artillery Regiment of whom Beltzhoover was its lieutenant colonel. Djmaschek (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)