Talk:USS Galena (1862)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * " her armor was too thin to prevent Confederate shots from penetrating. " -- you should link "Confederate States of America" here.
 * Indeed.
 * "his ship would float despite the weight of its armor" -- Is there any idea at this time how much the armor would weigh or if this would be problematic?
 * No firm numbers, but nobody except the Brits and French were experienced with iron armor at this time
 * "Despite a preliminary rejection, the board accepted Ericsson's proposal on 16 September after he explained his design in person the previous day." -- Were any of their initial concerns about the design mentioned?
 * Yes, but since they were about the Monitor, I didn't think that they were relevant here. I was trying to show here how closely twined Ericsson and Bushnell were at this time, but I can trim it down if it's a distraction.
 * "it was uncertain if the original design could support the proposed armor's weight." -- Again here, it might help if we note the estimated weight of the armor.
 * "she lead her squadron up to Drewry's Bluff, about eight miles from Richmond," -- Was the convert template omitted for a reason?
 * No, just me being forgetful.
 * "Galena was broken up in 1872 at the Norfolk Navy Yard" -- and sold for scrap I assume?
 * Probably, but not actually cited anywhere. And since she was broken up in a navy-owned shipyard, her material may have been recycled to some extent.
 * The characteristics in the infobox don't match the cited ones in the article. (Since this is a common issue in ship articles, maybe we should start noting the infobox stats as "class standard" and citing them separately?
 * No, just me failing to specify length overall in the infobox
 * Spotted two duplicate links.
 * Fixed
 * External links all appear to be working. Images appear to be properly lisenced. There are no disambiguation links. I see no problems with article stability or neutrality.


 * Placing the article on hold pending improvements. — Ed! (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Exceptional as always. Passing for GA. — Ed! (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)