Talk:CSS Pontchartrain/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * "burned to prevent capture in September when the" what year?
 * Added
 * "Built in 1859 as Lizzie Simmons," but in the body you say "Lizzie Simmons, which was also known as Eliza Simmons"? Coupled with my point from the body, I'm going to suggest that you change this to "Built in 1859 for "
 * Done
 * Construction:
 * I'm going to suggest that we say what sort of service she saw before she was bought for war service - did she just carry cargo? Passengers? Mixed?
 * Passengers and cotton. I had to dig out an 1859 newspaper article to find that.
 * "Her sister ship would become CSS Maurepas." a tiny bit more here - name before CSS service at least?
 * Added
 * New Madrid:
 * "made several more sorties over the next three days, but were not able to dislodge it." It sounds weird here - suggest "made several more sorties over the next three days, but were not able to dislodge the Union forces."
 * Done
 * It's unclear - was the movement of stuff from New Madrid to Tiptonville a retreat from the fort at New Madrid? Were the Confederates abandoning the fort?
 * Yes, clarified
 * "Pontchartrain was tasked with transporting artillery ammunition and the defenders of an outpost near the fort." I'm not sure we need this specific level of detail - perhaps "Pontchartrain was tasked with transporting artillery ammunition and troops during the "
 * Done
 * Just the above issues and we should be good to go.
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the review! I've tried to address all of these points. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Pontchartrain was tasked with transporting artillery ammunition and the defenders of an outpost near the fort." I'm not sure we need this specific level of detail - perhaps "Pontchartrain was tasked with transporting artillery ammunition and troops during the "
 * Done
 * Just the above issues and we should be good to go.
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the review! I've tried to address all of these points. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)