Talk:Battle of Hampton Roads/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

There are a number of problems here. It needs a good copy edit as some of the text reads oddly. The lead paragraphs are usually not cited. Those Union ships that didn't have engines should be noted as sail frigates because that was one reason why the Virginia managed to ram them. Don't overreach on the claims. Forex, broadside ironclads were built at least through 1868 with large numbers of guns because the turret was actually slow to catch on with a number of navies. Clarification is needed regarding the Virginia's armor. Readers are going to think that she had only 2 inches of armor until you explain that she had two layers, each of 2 inches, for a total of four inches. The Monitor didn't have ball bearings for the turret, but rather a central spindle by which she was rotated. (I've uploaded pictures on Commons showing the replica turret's interior that could be added to show this). That spindle was why Ericsson's turret design wasn't used by anyone else as it was incapable of scaling up to handle the turret weights of the 1870s. Give the gun caliber and number for both ships and be sure to talk about the half-charges used by the Monitor and the Virginia's lack of armor-piercing shot. The Taureau wasn't a battleship, but is best described as a coastal defense ironclad or frigate. The Mariner's Museum has a replica of the Virginia under construction, not actual guns or armor, IIRC. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to respond to your comments; the recent (unsigned) edit of the article was by me. For some reason, Wikipedia signed me out while I was writing, and I did not notice until I had already saved the edit. In no particular order, consider:
 * 1. You are dead right that the Ericsson turret did not rotate on ball bearings; I knew it was spindle-mounted, and I do not know how I let that one slip past me.
 * 2. I have changed the characterization of the French ship Taureau to "armored ram." In defense of the reference source, she was not described as a "battleship," but as a "coastal battleship." The difference seems to be derived from French terminology; see List of battleships of France. The term is also used in the article Naval ram.
 * 3. The steam-powered Union ships are now distinguished from the three frigates.
 * 4. Armament of both Virginia and Monitor is described in the appropriate sections. The shot/shell and half-charge handicaps are also stated.
 * 5. I think I am being whipsawed on the issue of citations in the lead, as a previous critic took me to task for not putting them in. The style manual (Lead section) is ambiguous. I have no preference either way, but will complain vociferously is this is held against the article.
 * 6. I do not understand your comment about the Mariner's Museum. Do you want me to add a statement about the replica Virginia?

I forgot to sign the above. PKKloeppel (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 5: AFAIK you are not generally required to cite paragraphs in the lead since it recapitulates more detailed information given in the body where you are required to cite. But you can check out a few featured articles and see how others handle it. 6: This is the sentence I was objecting to re the Mariners' Museum: Portions of the Virginia, including her armor, anchor, and guns, have been displayed for many years there and the Mariners' Museum[1] in Newport News. I cannot confirm that this is true at either the Naval Shipyard Museum in Norfolk Naval Shipyard or at the Mariners Museum, which I visited last winter. I'll readily believe that both or either have smaller artifacts, but I'm doubtful about the bigger stuff mentioned, especially since her anchor is specifically listed as being in Richmond. And to clarify my comment about the replica of the Virginia at the Mariners' Museum, the replica is of the Virginia as she was still being built. You can walk inside and see gun carriages being assembled, etc. Fascinating stuff, IMO. That should be worked into the article. Clean up these last details and you'll have earned a pass. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

When I reread the sentence that you quoted, I had to agree. It was pretty crappy. I have taken care of it by deleting it, as I don't think it added anything anyway. See if you agree with the way it is written now.

As for the cites/no cites issue in the lead, I did a quick scan of the first ten feature articles listed in the History category. Eight of them included cites, two did not. Do not infer too much from this, as I did not do anything other than note the presence or absence of footnotes, so they may have been referring to items that were not covered later in the article. Still, it seems clear that lead footnotes are accepted.

Your statement concerning the mock-up of Virginia at the Mariner's Museum is fascinating. I did not know anything about it (which may explain why I did not write of it). I will try to find enough about it to include it in the article, unless you beat me to it. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at a bunch of A or FA-class battle articles and see how they handle lead citations, but I'm not inclined to think of it as a deal breaker in this case. I didn't see anything about the replica when I checked out the museum's website so I don't know how much you might be able to find. I'll think about adding here or in the Virginia's article, or both if I feel up to it. Most of my ironclad sources are in storage so I'm not sure that I want to bother unless I can go whole hog. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)