Talk:CSS Scorpion/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 4 March 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:
 * "she fell into Union hands" uh... I realize that's a euphemism but... the image is ... rather Wiley-E-Coyoteish of a big boat falling from the sky...keep in mind that not everyone reading is going to be familiar with idiom in the US and .. maybe reword?
 * Done
 * Construction:
 * "breakaway" call a spade a spade - rebellious or something similar.
 * Went with "rebelling". I'm never quite sure how to term the CSA - I was always taught growing up that it was a de facto independent country, but that view doesn't seem common in the better-quality RS
 * likewise "suffocating" is probably a bit too idiomatic - can we rephrase?
 * Went with "slowly destroying the economy of" for lack of a better idea
 * "In an attempt to break the blockade, the torpedo boat CSS David attacked the Union ironclad USS New Ironsides on October 5, 1863, damaging the Union vessel. Afterwards, the Confederates continued to build additional torpedo boats. While some were built to a similar pattern to David, a group, known as the Squib-class, were built at Richmond, Virginia, to a different pattern, with Lieutenant Hunter Davidson playing a significant role in the design." I get the implication, but we probably need something a bit more basic - "The first use of torpedo boats in attempting to break the blocade came in October 1863, and the success caused the Confederates to build additional torpedo craft. Several designs were used, including a group known as the Squib-class built at Richmond. Lieutenant Hunter Davidson played a significant role in the design of this class."
 * Went with something pretty similar, although I've used "partial success", as the craft neither sank the target nor broke the blockade
 * Short choppy sentence - "One of the Squib-class torpedo boats was Scorpion. She was constructed in late 1864" - suggest "CSS Scorpion, one of the Squib-class, was constructed in late 1864..." Also suggest starting a new paragraph with "One of..."
 * Done
 * Again with short choppy sentences starting with "Her steering gear was towards.." Perhaps (you'll need to make sure the footnotes stay with the info - I'm not trying to worry about that with this suggestion )"According to a Union engineer, her engines could make her go at "a fair speed for a boat of her kind". Her crew of five or six used steering gear towards the front of the vessel. Her armament was a single spar torpedo mounted on a spar shaft of either 18 or 16 feet. The torpedos themselves were 5 inches (13 cm) in diameter, and could be raised or lowered on the spar by the ship's crew using a chain and tackle system. Thin plates of iron served as armor on the ships's sides."
 * Done with a few tweaks; it was technically the spar itself that was raised or lowered, not the torpedo
 * Service history:
 * When was she completed? Do we know when she took up service?
 * Unfortunately, the sources aren't very clear. Confederate naval records are a mess and many were lost as the war ended.
 * "between the Confederate ships" appears redundant to me...
 * Recmoved
 * "the gunboat CSS Hampton and the torpedo boat CSS Hornet to the ironclad CSS Fredericksburg, the gunboat CSS Beaufort and the armed tender ship CSS Drewry to the ironclad CSS Richmond, and the gunboat CSS Nansemond and the tender CSS Torpedo to the ironclad CSS Virginia II. The torpedo boat CSS Wasp was towed by Drewry," ... do we need these details in an article about Scorpion? Suggest just enumerating how many ships of each type were taking part... then giving where Scorpion was.
 * Done
 * 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) 18:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - I've replied to all above, although there was one point I could not action. Hog Farm Talk 04:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Recmoved
 * "the gunboat CSS Hampton and the torpedo boat CSS Hornet to the ironclad CSS Fredericksburg, the gunboat CSS Beaufort and the armed tender ship CSS Drewry to the ironclad CSS Richmond, and the gunboat CSS Nansemond and the tender CSS Torpedo to the ironclad CSS Virginia II. The torpedo boat CSS Wasp was towed by Drewry," ... do we need these details in an article about Scorpion? Suggest just enumerating how many ships of each type were taking part... then giving where Scorpion was.
 * Done
 * 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) 18:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - I've replied to all above, although there was one point I could not action. Hog Farm Talk 04:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)