Talk:USS Maria J. Carlton/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 12:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Prelim

 * How many USS Maria J. Carlton's were there? If this is the only one, you should scratch the date in the article name (would that break the review?)
 * Only one. Agree, and moved.. For some reason, around 2007 a bunch of ship articles were moved to this title (this one was created at this), the standards have changed. (I recently did an RM for USS Indianola to get the date)  I doubt that this will be controversial, since I'm the only person who has made a non-gnoming edit to this article since 2017.
 * American Civil War linked twice in the lede
 * Fixed the overlink
 * Earwig reports no copyvio
 * No edit wars
 * Image looks OK, although the warning sign on the PD tag still scares me! Suggest that a cropped version of the image focusing on the ship in question might be useful.
 * I would, but I'm actually not entirely for sure which one is this ship. The list of ships at the bottom isn't the most helpful
 * If I'm correct, Maria J. Carlton is the ship in the forefront directly to the left of the paddle steamer - she seems to line up correctly there with the names. Obviously don't take my word for it; if you can't agree that it's certain then leave it as is.
 * After further inspection, I agree. I had miscounted the number of sets of sails behind the steamboat. (I see the artist took the liberty of portraying the vessel as still having all her masts)

Lede and infobox

 * "during the American Civil War. Built before the American Civil War" being as this is a short lede, using the years themselves won't hurt here. Reading on I see you do cite the year of purchase, but you've now said that she was purchased by the USN twice in one line, which doesn't seem necessary
 * I've added the purchase date to the first sentence and removed the second mention. I'm not sure what to do for the built, as there's not agreement on the construction date
 * "the vessel was converted to into a mortar schooner" choose "to" or "into", but not both!
 * Corrected
 * "knocking out Confederate forts" - "knocking out" seems a little loose here, destroying or something similar would probably work better
 * Changed to neutralized
 * "She was the only Union warship directly sunk by artillery fire..." this suggests that a ships was sunk indirectly sunk by artillery fire?!
 * Changed to sunk solely by artillery fire. The intention was to couch the phrasing, as the source notes that USS Mississippi was knocked out of action by enemy fire, but actually sunk by her own crew
 * "Maria J. Carlton participated in the Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip on April 18, but was sunk the next day" > "Maria J. Carlton participated in the Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip on April 18 but, the battle continuing, was sunk the next day" - not a perfect suggestion here, but I think more could be done to emphasise that the battle continued into the 19th
 * Done
 * DMY is used in the infobox, and MDY in the main text
 * Standardized
 * 12-pounder or 12-pound? These differ between infobox and text
 * Went with 12-pounder.

Construction and characteristics

 * "had stopped at ports such as..." can you say what role she was fulfilling in this civilian life?
 * Not with what I've seen so far, but I'll continue to look.
 * I've actually removed this list of ports, as I've found a source that explains exactly what she was used for. Although I now have three different accounts of its buildings: Philadelphia, PA at an unknown date; East Haddam, CT in 1856; and Saybrook, CT in 1859
 * Chronology in this section needs adapting. Note her construction first, then dimensions, civilian life, and purchase by the USN. Confusing if you jump from naval ownership to construction, to civilian life, to dimensions, and back to naval ownership!
 * I've reordered the paragraph and also taken the opportunity to rephrase some stuff, as well
 * Note the size of the mortars when you introduce that she was first armed with them, not separately after the crew introduction
 * The whole paragraph has been rejigged now
 * Per the crew introduction; naming the master is sufficient when none of the other crew members seem notable. Their names alone tell me nothing!
 * Removed
 * Link acting
 * Done

Service history

 * While this doesn't matter, I was interested to find that the battle article doesn't actually mention the ship!
 * It was mentioned, but not by name ("one schooner was sunk"). I've added the name directly into there now.
 * Considering this isn't the largest article (with the life of the ship being so short it couldn't be otherwise), suggest expanding on the tactical importance/reasoning behind destroying the forts if that's possible
 * I've added that New Orleans (the city the forts were guarding) was the largest and wealthiest city in the Confederacy, which should make it clear knocking out the guard forts was a target
 * "Maria J. Carlton was then..." when exactly?
 * Not clear, but tweaked to "after her commissioning". Apparently in between Jan. 29 and mid-February.
 * You say but she lost her rigging etc like this created a problem for her, but the next sentence goes straight back to describing what I assume was her ascribed route to the Mississippi. Emphasise if the damage caused her to have a slower journey, or required repairs, etc
 * They made it to Key West on a jury mast, and were operating on the Mississippi River with only one mast. Added.
 * "On April 18..." is this when she joined the flotilla, or just the first date she's recorded as being part of it? If the latter, suggest replacing "on" with "by"
 * Significantly rephrased
 * "Queen's force moved..." assume this is on the same day, but could be emphasised
 * I've clarified here and with the change for the point above that April 18 represents the start of the battle, so this should be clearer.
 * "USS T. A. Ward and USS George Mangham" state what type of ships these were
 * Added
 * "Fort Jackson quit replying" replace "quit" with "halted" or "stopped", quit just seems a little too informal
 * Went with "ceased"
 * "Both sides resumed the action..." you have times for other events in the battle, what about for this?
 * Added the time that Queen's vessels opened fire
 * I wonder how many other crews had a shell pass through their magazine and lived to tell the tale!
 * Not many, I'm gonna assume.
 * "exited through the side of the ship. A hole had been torn through the ship" > "exited through the side of the ship, tearing a hole through it"?
 * Done
 * "Two or three men on the ship were wounded. The entire crew of the ship was saved" > "Two or three men on the ship were wounded but the entire crew was saved..."?
 * Done
 * Assume the crew was taken off by another ship, which would be good to add in if it's actually recorded anywhere?
 * Boats from the rest of the fleet; added
 * There doesn't seem to be a particular connection between the crew being saved and Farragut passing by the forts, so suggest these instances are put into separate sentences
 * Done
 * Switch around the surrender of the forts and the destruction of the ship
 * Done