Talk:CSS Fredericksburg/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 19:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look at this one. I see that you've requested some sources from Sturmvogel. If you expect more to come from that, would you like me to wait before starting the review? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't anticipate any major changes coming from either Canney (who covers 100+ vessels in <200 pages, I believe) or Silverstone's newer work (as I'm using his [much cheaper] older book). Neither source is necessary for GA; Coski and Bisbee are the only two "must-use" sources I think. Hog Farm Talk 20:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Prelim

 * Images look OK. Suggest changing File:Battle of Trent's Reach.jpg to PD-US-expired.
 * Done
 * No edit wars
 * No duplicated links
 * Earwig reports no copyvio

Construction and characteristics

 * Should begin by saying what type of ship she was. A little awkward to leave this until the second paragraph
 * Done
 * "In the spring of 1862" seasons should be avoided
 * Done
 * "was either 34 feet (10.4 m)" comma
 * Added
 * A note explaining why the dimension figures vary so much would be useful
 * Unfortunately, there's no real explanation in the sources indicating why this would vary; each just gives a figure. Bisbee seems to be pulling from some old documents/newspaper articles, DANFS doesn't have footnotes at all, and Gaines' footnotes aren't the most helpful
 * Link long tons
 * Should be done
 * "was contracted"?
 * Added
 * "Shockoe Foundry" if there's no link, perhaps a location?
 * location added (Richmond)
 * link direct acting
 * Adjusted the link piping, as I'd actually been linking to that marine steam engine article on the two words "steam engines" immediately afterwards
 * "Details about the ship's propulsion system are not fully known" considering the article does provide details of the engines etc, I think this should be clarified to note what exactly is missing, unless it's the later information on boilers etc, in which case the sentence seems unnecessary
 * I've rephrased this to "Not all details about how the ship's propulsion system operated are fully known" and have reworded to try to stress elsewhere that it is not known if those engine plans were exactly carried out or not. Between the new phrasing pointing out unknown status of blueprint vs final plus the references to engine positioning and and propeller connection not being known, this should work better
 * "naval constructor John L. Porter" was Porter the builder? If he was he should he introduced earlier than this
 * Porter designed the ship and supervised the work, which I've added
 * Link boilers
 * Done
 * "measuring..." are these the measurements for each boiler or for all three together?
 * Each, clarified
 * "An attempt to launch her on June 6, 1863, failed" why?!
 * The Confederates were evidently unable to get her into the water per Coski, I've clarified this
 * "Construction was prolonged..." is this post-launch construction/fittings? Should be clarified
 * Post-launch completion. Clarified
 * "lack of iron" why?
 * It was just in short supply. The Confederates didn't have iron much at all.  I don't remember which vessel it was, but I remember reading about a point where the Confederates were having to decide between not completing an ironclad's armor or dismantling a key railroad to get iron, and while building CSS Arkansas they fished machinery/metal from the bottom of a river to put on the ship
 * "she was armed"
 * Fixed
 * If Gaines provides details for the armour then I don't think stating beforehand that Silverstone thinks they're completely unknown is entirely useful in its current format. Gaines is, of course, more recent?
 * Fixed. I think Silverstone sometimes gives too much weight to DANFS's silence in that work
 * "In March 1864" year already introduced; was this also when she was armed, or should that statement be changed to "Armed by March 1864..."
 * Chronology isn't perfect but I've tried to clear this up as much as possible

Service history

 * "could not initially move..."?
 * Added
 * "though" unnecessary
 * Removed
 * "the river had been obstructed there in 1862" would be interesting to know how, can't have been an easy task
 * Added.
 * Suggest moving Mitchell's introduction to the first reference to the squadron
 * Done
 * "a Confederate offensive" doing what?
 * Clarified
 * "that required a day to repair" we skip to June after this, what's she doing in between? Does the offensive continue, how does it end?
 * Nothing happened, because Mitchell and his officers decided they couldn't win. I've clarified this
 * "moved"
 * Done
 * "five blockships were sunk at Trent's Reach" no article yet, suggest noting where this was in relation to City Point
 * Added
 * "began building the Dutch Gap Canal" is there a date for this? Assuming it was after the bombardment of Trent's Reach
 * Clarified
 * "06:00 to sunset" is there a better time than sunset? Could be a variety of times
 * Coski says 18:00, so I've used this
 * "Signal Hill" what is there? where is this?!
 * Clarified - a battery downstream from Drewry's Bluff
 * "repulse a Union attack" can you elaborate on what form the attack took?
 * Added "small", which seems to be the best word based on Still and Coski
 * " to come and fire at..."
 * Added
 * " them to construct"
 * Done
 * "the wooden ships of the fleet" are these the aforementioned gunboats?
 * Yes, rephrased to "wooden gunboats"
 * "replacement cannon" any details available?
 * Coski just refers to it "a new gun"
 * "becoming bleaker for the Confederates" why?
 * Several military defeats. I can flesh this out more if needed, but not sure if a whole lot of detail is needed on this topic
 * "for the operations"
 * Done
 * " However, Virginia II ran aground"
 * Removed
 * "Fredericksburg withdrew back to Battery Dantzler" I didn't think that Fredericksburg had come from Dantzler in this instance, making the "back" unnecessary?
 * Removed "back"
 * "dueling with Battery Danztler..." if Fredericksburg had withdrawn to Danztler, and Union forces then engaged that position, what was she doing then?!
 * Clarified - Virginia II and Richmond were still moving upriver when fired upon. Fredericksburg doesn't seem to have done anything; Dantzler seems to have been doing the shooting itself. I've rewritten this bit to try to clarify things
 * "the Confederate vessels withdrew to Chaffin's Bluff" does this include Fredericksburg?
 * Apparently yes, although Coski and Still provide no details of anything Fredericksburg did during the retreat. Does changing the phrasing to "and the surviving vessels of Mitchell's squadron withdrew to Chaffin's Bluff." make things better?
 * "Fredericksburg in February" might sound a little less awkward
 * Done
 * "were taken upriver from Chaffin's Bluff to the obstructions at Drewry's Bluff" wait, where exactly is Drewry's Bluff in relation to Fort Brady?
 * I've clarified that Fort Brady was on Signal Hill. I've introduced earlier in the article that Signal Hill is downriver from Drewry's Bluff, so this should cover it
 * Suggest linking sediment in lede and main text
 * Done
 * "According to Bisbee" > "Bisbee reports"?
 * Done
 * NHHC provides some information of the fate of her crew, which I think worth adding
 * Added
 * Think another image would be nice. File:Alleged wreck of CSS Drewry in 1865.jpg might be good, but there's also File:CSSRichmond.jpg which CSS Richmond claims as Richmond but Battle of Trent's Reach claims as Fredericksburg! Also File:Scuttling of the Richmond ironclads.jpg.
 * I'm having trouble verifying pre-1927 publication for those, so I've added an image of one of the gun emplacements at Battery Danztler, since the battery plays a significant role in the article