Talk:CSS Alabama's Eastern Atlantic Expeditionary Raid

First comment
The contents of this page appear to be concise enough that the individual raids don't require their own articles. I suggest keeping this information in the main article. chrylis (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Patience. By the time I'm done, each raid will have easily 500 words plus the target list. All 7 raids put together is too much for the main article. Additionally, this keeps raid articles from the American Civil War in similar vein for scope and length.

Grayghost01 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears from your user page that you intend to write a thorough set of articles covering the (US) Civil War. For new articles that are being outlined and then filled in, an  tag helps patrollers see that the page is a work in progress.  Thanks for your contributions, and I look forward to learning more about the naval campaign (as very little attention is usually given to it).  chrylis (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

format
This is an unusual arrangement; most accounts of commerce raiders are all on one page, even the very busy ones like Moewe in WWI or Atlantis in WWII. If you are going to stick with this format you should put a summary for each on the CSS Alabama page; something like: "The first phase of the Alabama’s raiding voyage began on … when she started operations in the eastern Atlantic off the Azores. Over a .. week/month period she captured … ships/Union ships, .. of which she burned, before moving to a new raiding area off the New England coast. The [[...|second phase..." Other wise it spoils the narrative and is a bit uninformative. [[User:Xyl 54|Xyl 54 (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A very good suggestion and sorely needed improvement! I have added the summaries as you recommend. I had several reasons for creating an individual page for each raid.  (1) The length, duration and quantity of success of the CSS Alabama is so extensive that all the tables of her prizes, along with narrative, I considered to be just too long for the main article.  (2) By treating each expeditionary operating area separately, the scope is more equivalent to the treatment of raids by other units in military actions, especially land forces.  For instance, a Regiment in the CS Army, under equivalent rank as a unit (Captain-Navy, Colonel-Army) similarly deployed to various regions over a period of two to three years like the Alabama.  These operations are sometimes raids, at other times a battle or campaign.  The Alabama was specifically a raiding unit, and thus performed mostly raids.  Like a sister Regiment getting into battles, the Alabama occassionaly got into battles (like with the USS Hatteras).  Thus more of the reason on why the equivalency.  Lastly, several of the raids have just a basic narrative and prize table, and need to be filled in a bit to match the first one or two.  Grayghost01 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up
This article needs some major clean-up. The tense throughout the article needs to be past tense, and agree with each other: (i.e., "Alabama gave chase, and shoots a 32-pounder just", "gave" is past tense, "shoots" is present tense, should be past as well). The article also needs some additional linking, for example, many of the towns should be linked. Lastly, Image:Cssalabama ghost.png seems a little cheesy to me (and what's with the "MS Paint"-ed Confederate flag?) Why not just the plain version of the image? Parsecboy (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that many of these issues apply to the other "CSS Alabama's _____ raid" articles. Parsecboy (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, am translating "CSS Alabama"" into french
and a lot of thanks to the author (Grayghost01, I think ?). But were the last 3 whalers destroyed in 1862 or 1863 ? T.y.,  Arapaima (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)