Talk:USS Monitor/Archive 1

First Sentence
"SS Monitor was the first ever ironclad warship of the United States Navy." has been changed from '.. warship of the United ..' to '.. warship commisioned by the United.. '. If you read the first trivia point on the article, you'll find this confirmed.

Seemed a little crazy that the article began by saying something, then the trivia section proclaimed that that something was a commonly made mistake :P. I've checked into it, and believe this way is correct. Feel free to revert if you disagree - I shan't object. I'd certainly recommend that someone who knows this topic change the first paragraph to refer to USS St. Louis, the supposed first ironclad warship.

Michael.blackburn 06:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What does "standardizing image link" mean? -- Zoe


 * Using the handy [[Image:Filename]] syntax instead of the old ponderous tricky and difficult-to-track http://www.wikipedia.com/upload/filename . --Brion


 * Thanks. -- Zoe

..cannon fire (torpedoes were not a worry for another 50 years I believe that in this time frame the term torpedo referred to what we now call a mine - also at least one US ironclad, the USS Cairo, was sunk by a torpedo.  So the phrase seems to be a bit ambiguous?  -- Bob frasier


 * You are absolutely right, and I think the entire parenthetical phrase should be deleted. However, I have simply disambiguated it. --the Epopt 15:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, these mines are the torpedoes which Farragut damned. Applejuicefool 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably why mines are no longer torpedoes --Badger151 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Should perhaps the other ships in the Monitor class be mentioned? If I remember correctly the last of the monitors was Sölve. The article also fails to mention the problems with water flooding the ship in high sea. // Liftarn

Anyone have a better image of the Monitor we can use? The current one makes it look like the Monitor had masts, which it most certainly didn't. -- Carnildo 07:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * There are lots of images here. "To the best of our knowledge, all Online Library pictures are in the public domain and can therefore be freely downloaded and used for any purpose without requesting permission." [1] &mdash; Cam 01:28, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've selected what I feel is a better image. --Carnildo 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

irritation
I'm intrigued that the USS Monitor was "Designed by the brilliant but easily irritated Swedish-American engineer John Ericsson". I'd really like to know why he was so easily irritated, and what people did that really ticked him off. What a hoot! Is this a Monty Python sketch?

mcgiffert

[OK. Delete "easily irritated" and replace with "choleric". All the more meaningful...]

Removed sentence
I've removed the sentence
 * During WW2 the Monitor was misstaken for a submarine and bombed.

I find this quite unlikely, as the Monitor was on the seabed at a depth of 240 feet, and thus would be quite hard to find from the surface, given the technology available at the time. --Carnildo 19:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I've heard it is the main reason the wreck is in such bad condition. // Liftarn
 * Do you have a source for that? --Carnildo 19:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing online. Just a TV documentary I saw a long time ago when there was talk about bringit the Monitor up. // Liftarn


 * I too have heard and read that the Monitor was bombed during World War II because it was mistakenly thought to be a submarine. If I remember correctly the, the impact severely damaged the rear port quarter of the vessel. I will attempt to find a verifying print source.--Zurel Darrillian 15:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This needs a source, and soon.  MisterBoston November 7 2006

Cat
Should likely make note of the cat: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/27/monitor.cannons.ap/index.html
 * Better link http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2005/aug05/noaa05-r480.html Nil Einne 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The ship templates
I replaced the information box table with an information box template. This will standardize the information box, and make it very easy to code. Also any changes to be made across the board can be made on the template once, instead of all the articles individually.

To edit the template, hit the edit button in the lower right corner. If its too esoteric, I can make changes that are needed.

Ultimately we could replace all tables in the Category:Union Navy ships with this template, but thats for after this is ok'd by everybody. There is also a duplicate template for Confederate ships. I put both templates in the article Laurent Millaudon (aka CSS General Sterling Price, aka USS General Price).

Please let me know if this idea is worth pursuing. Thanks - PAR 22:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Check out David Newton's Template:Ship table.
 * —wwoods 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That abomination? The one that's impossible to edit because it shoves all the content off into meta-templates? --Carnildo 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That template is one of the reasons I made the new one. That template is not long for this world, because "qif" is soon to be deleted, I believe. I got burned writing some templates using "if" instead of "qif" and they were rendered inoperative when "if" was deleted. See WT:AUM to see whats going on. I could convert David Newtons ship table if people believe that is a better thing than the present template I have proposed. The problem is, I don't understand the "abomination" complaint. David Newton's template is not uneditable, it is very editable once you understand "qif" (and thats simple and easily learned). Content is not "shoved off", its handled in a very straightforward way. The problem is that meta-templates are a drag on the system and their status in the developers eyes is moving from "annoyance" to "shoot on sight". The meta-templates are being replaced by "class=hiddenStructure" construct, which needs to be understood in order to edit the template.

The bottom line is this: is there any objection to my rewriting David Newton's template using the new format, and then editing any or all ship articles to include the template? PAR 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to let people know: my table is now fully purged of meta templates. It affects the functionality a little bit but the main reason for using the meta templates in the first place, ie optional rows that are hidden when empty, is still available. David Newton 15:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

LSV-5 USS Monitor
Sorry, but LSVs are NOT Troops Ships. Troop Ships are of several designs, with most of the World War II Troop Ships of the APA classification.

LSV stands for Landing Ship, Vehicle. They are first cousins to landing Ship, Tanks (LST).

Here is a link that has pictures of the class that the Monitor belongs to:

LSV -- Landing Ships, Vehicle

National Geographic Special
In recent years, the Monitor was raised - or at least parts of her - and she is going through conservation treatment. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Monitor Museum
I found this link by plugging "USS Monitor" in Google:

The mariners Museum] SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

USS Monitor Is Raised!
About two weeks ago on National Geographic Channel I watched a show on it. They actually raised the Monitor and are doing work on it for its place in a museum. This MUST be added. -VonV

I forgot to mention they raised the whole final pieces of it.

Agreed. This point must be added to the article RSido 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Length of the USS Monitor
I'm working on the german Version of the TV-Documentary. They say it has a length of 179 ft. But the sources in the internet differ between 179 ft and 172 ft. One even mentions both lengths ( http://www.ship-modelers-assn.org/fam0407.htm). The "raft" on the top is 172 ft long. Is the ram the explanation for the other 7 ft? Kommitanz (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the answer you are looking for lies in the definition of length that each are using. There are a few ways to measure ships... see Ships.  Length can be refering to the overall length of the ship, or it can be refering to the length of the waterline on the ship.  The waterline is going to be longer since there exists a bow due to the fact that the ship must displace water to stay afloat. I'm not 100% certain of these sources, but this is my guess as to why there is a discrepency.  The US Navy's DANFS entry lists the ship's length at 172 ft. . -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick help!Kommitanz (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ironclad
was the Monitor the first ironclad in the world? Good friend100 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, iron-clad wooden warships had been in use in Europe for about ten years by the time the Monitor was built. Also, the Monitor was really little more than a toy compared to the iron-hulled warships that the English and French were building at the time; we're talking large, steam-powered warships with completely metal hulls that carried 10+ large naval guns and dozens of smaller guns, and were capable of crossing oceans. -2 January, 2007


 * Read the trivia section for information on an earlier ironclad in the Western hemisphere. Click on the ironclad link for more information on the history of these interesting vessels. — LactoseTI T 00:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow how do you know I was here? thanks for the info. Good friend100 02:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So which is it? Which of the two mentioned in the trivia section is the first ironclad commissioned by the US Navy? I am putting a warning tag on the the section to ask for this to be cleared up. I would try to resolve it myself but I wouldn't know where to look up the info. I'm also renaming the "trivia" section to "Miscellanea" as a lot of the facts presented in this section are not trivial - they just don't fit into a neat category. --Eqdoktor 07:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's quite confusing, and probably depends on what you mean by "first", "ironclad", "commissioned", and "U.S. Navy". Among other things, at the time the Monitor went into battle, she was still partially owned by Ericsson.  The USS Baron DeKalb and USS St. Louis mentioned in the article appear to be the same ship. --Carnildo 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The main reason Monitor tends to be mentioned as the first ironclad is because the Pooks (Cairo-class riverine gunboats) were only partially armored, while Monitor was completely armored. The Dark 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

first naval use of Screw propulsion
This claim seems to sit ill with that of HMS Rattler (1843). Any reason why it shouldn't be qualified or struck? GraemeLeggett 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of Guns
The article suggests that the terret on the USS Monitor contained 8 guns (4 pairs). I believe this is incorrect. I believe the terret only contained two guns. As the Monitor Center in the Mariners' Museum in Newport News, VA opened on March 9, 2007, I think it is likely that the "USS Monitor" entry will get a lot of hits and as such should be correct.

Current language: Designed by the Swedish engineer John Ericsson, Monitor was described as a "cheesebox on a raft", consisting of a heavy round iron turret on the deck housing eight large Dahlgren cannon and there were metal plates that swung down to protect the cannon, also there were four sets of these cannon's inside the revolving turret. The men who built this ship had to come up with an idea on how to move the metal plates, so the came up with a great pully system.

Proposed language: Designed by the Swedish engineer John Ericsson, the USS Monitor was described as a "cheesbox on a raft," consisting of a hearvy round revolving iron turret on the deck, housng two large (11 inch) Dahlgren guns, paired side by side. The orginal design of the ship used a system of heavy metal shutters to protect the gun ports while reloading. However, the operation of the shutters proved to be so cumbersome that the crews operating the guns adopted the procedure of simply rotating the turret away from potential hostile fire to reload the guns. Further, the inertia of the rotating turret proved to be so great, that a system for stopping turret to fire the guns was only implemented on later models of ships in the USS Monitor class. The crew of the USS Monitor solved the terret inertia problem by firing the guns on the fly while the terret rotated past the target. While this procedure resulted in a substantial loss of accuracy, given the close range at which the USS Monitor operated, the loss of accuracy was not critical.

Reference for shooting on the fly: Link:  http://www.civilwarhome.com/monitorturret.htm  - - Document written by S. Dana Green, Executive Officer of the USS Monitor.

Reference for Monitor turret turning away after firing: Link:  http://www.civilwarhistory.com/_uncataloged/cssalabama/css_virginia_engagementsMarch962.htm - - Document written by Catesby Jones, Executive Officer of the CSS Virginia

Reference for cumbersome nature of metal shutters - Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=wqGr8cklt1wC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=%22uss+monitor%22+shutters+turret&source=web&ots=JlSCNKceDT&sig=B_c9PD2VxNynfxQehhBdGTa5a8s - - "Arms and Equipment of the Civil War" by Jack Coggins, p. 135.

Posted by John N. Cox (JohnNCox@msn.com)


 * Sounds good. --Carnildo 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Who retreated?
I have noticed that in the main article on the battle, the Virginia retreats, thus ending the fight. However, both the Victoria and the Monitor article claim that the Monitor retreated (the captain being blinded by some gunpowder). While we can debate on the impact of the battle and who one, who retreated should be a more straightforward issue, and I am a bit annoyed that they do not match... I hope someone who is more knowledgeable than I can fix it! (and reference it, of course) Observer31 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Johninclt 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)== Who retreated? ==

The question of whether the USS Monitor or the CSS Virginia was victorious on March 9, 1862 is one that I believe Wikipedia should steer clear of. Partisans of either outcome are never going to concede victory to the other. Supporters of the CSS Virginia being victorious will point to things such as the wounding of Lt. Worden and the subsequent delay or failure by the USS Monitor to resume the fight and the claim that the "true" objective of the USS Monitor was to cover the James River flank of McClellan's army in its advance up the Peninsula to capture Richmond. Supporters of the USS Monitor being victorious will point to things such as the temporary withdrawal of the USS Monitor to shoal water was only to facilitate an orderly change of command after Worden's wounding and to restock the turret with rounds and powder and that the "true" objective of the CSS Virginia was the lifting of Union blockade of Hampton Roads. So, any opinion on "who retreated" is inevitably going to hinge on subjective interpretation of facts that are really not in dispute combined with elaborate constructions of straw men as to what was "true" objective of the opposing side. Given such a shakey and shifting foundation on which to base a conclusion, the conclusion itself can be no more sound than its foundation.

I would recommend that it be stated that, when the water was deep enough, the CSS Virginia conclusively demonstrated its superiority over wooden ships and that in combination with the batteries at Drewry's Bluff it prevented the Union Navy from covering McClellan's flank during the Peninsula Campaign and contributed to the Confederate victory there. I would also recommend that it be stated that USS Monitor conclusively demonstated that an agile, shallow draft ironclad armed with a pair of heavy guns in a rotating turret was a deterrent sufficient to prevent the CSS Virginia from ever again attempting to break the Union blockage of Hampton Roads. And with all due respect to the designers and builders of the CSS Virginia and with full acknowledgement of the scarcity of materials and equipment in the South, the USS Monitor had a more pronounced effect on the evoluation of naval ship design than did the CSS Virginia. Further, it may be worth pointing out that ultimate vindication of Ericsson's design for a "big gun only" ship came in 1905 with the victory of the Imperial Japanese Navy over the Imperial Russian Navy in the Battle of the Tsushima Strait when it was observed in post-battle analysis that the only real damage either fleet inflected on the other came from the largest guns. And as a result, the "Dreadnaught" design of battleship, with its rotating turrets of big guns, became the pre-emminent naval ship until the advent of aircraft carriers in WW2.


 * No, this question was settled a long time ago, and Wikipedia should not have to steer clear of it at all. Tactically the battle was a draw; neither could bring a clear victory over the other.  Strategically the Monitor won, as the Virginia's primary mission had failed, and that mission was to break the Union blockade in Hampton Roads and drive U.S. Navy warships from the area.  Carajou 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Depth charging the Monitor
During World War II, the Monitor was mistaken for a German U-boat and depth charged. This bit of trivia was removed by an editor who added the following line: Removed U-boat statement: this was already removed as unsourced, and I'm pretty sure you don't depth-charge something so far down. Obviously, this man was never in the Navy; he does not understand naval warfare; he does not understand operations involving anti-submarine warfare; he does not understand sonar or what it was like in World War II; nor does he understand theories and principles involving depth charges, and we are to trust his "word" that the Navy could not send a depth charge on "something so far down". How does he even think the Monitor was discovered in the first place? By ignoring the logbooks of destroyers operating in the Capa Hatteras area during World War II? Carajou 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviosly they are called "depth" charges, not shallow charges. This is an obvios naval warfare point that there is documentaion of it being charged at the new monitor exibit in the marines museum.Ed2052 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)ed2052

Design
There is a conflict between the use of the phrase 'Donkey Engine' and the related wikipedia article. The 'Donkey Engine' was invented in 1881, twenty years after the creation of the Monitor. Perhaps the term should be replaced with 'auxilliary steam engine' so that the reference doesn't create confusion.

Wemerson (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh captain, my captain
"after the captain" Who is being referred to, here? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  01:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I added some words for this (please check). It was the captain of the Monitor that was blinded in the battle that was a "draw" and "victory" for the Union, who lost two major ships sunk, three heavily damaged, three merchants captured, ~370 casualties, while the CS Navy had 7 killed and ran around taunting the US Navy fleet for two months, stealing their ships and flying their US flags upside down on them. Tears of laughter come to my eye everytime I read about this battle. I cannot help but laugh when I see all the paintings have white smoke coming from the Monitor and black smoke coming from the Virginia. The Union and Union Historians are so Monty Pythonesque. The scoreboard shows a loss, and they do the wave cheer! No wonder the confederates wanted to secede. Who wants to live on fantasy island? Oh, by the way, the story has often been told that he was blinded by "gunpowder". Gunpowder does not float around in the air like talcum at a lady's cosmetics counter. They blasted his wheelhouse and he was blinded by the explosion. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gunpowder shoots through the air quite impressively when guns are fired -- ever seen the jets of flame and billowing clouds of smoke produced when a blackpowder gun is fired? At the range the ships were fighting, it's like being hit in the face with a sandblaster. --Carnildo (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In my career as a Marine officer, I have never known of an instance of gunpowder blowing through the air, and certainly not for a distance of what would have been at least a couple of hundred feet from the muzzle of the Virginias cannons. Rather, in the thousands of times I was on live fire ranges, demolition ranges, firing Naval weaponry, qualifying with rifles and pistols, or in combat, I always observed that gunpowder, which is located in a cartridge behind a piece of ammunition, was always consummed and combusted.  I have had the results of that hit my face more than once.  Hot air and gases are what come out of a muzzle, and not much of that makes it beyond a few lengths of the rifle or cannon barrel.  As for what blinded the Monitors captain I cannot say, but my theory would be that an exploding shell hit the deck near the pilot house.  In that case the gunpowder would have also been consummed, and it would simply be hot gases that flew into the pilots eyes, along with minute particle of dirt or metal flown off the deck or the cannon shell.  Thus I would say he was "blinded by the explosion" and that would be a more fair and accurate picture of the event. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As a Marine officer, have you ever used blackpowder? Or is all your experience with modern smokeless powders? --Carnildo (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture?
I don't know if this matters to any of you, but does anyone have a sketch without the masted ship in the background, it's a bit confusing...--71.245.108.121 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good point; the ship behind the Monitor could be confusing to those who have never seen it before. There are some more pictures here:


 * http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/monitor.htm


 * Perhaps we could use one of them. Ems24 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
Does anyone think that the second paragraph of the introduction would fit better in a different section? For example, there could be a section on previous ironclad ships. Ems24 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NY Times article on its restoration + history
--Javaweb (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

The Reduced/Half-Charge Myth
I'm a bit surprised this myth not only survives but has been incorporated in this article. It was debunked over in the article on The Battle of Hampton Roads (see the Talk page section). I'm taking the libery of reposting that discussion below:

" . . . includes this incorrect statement: "Captain Worden, in Monitor, insisted on adhering to a Navy Department directive that limited his guns to half-charges of powder." This is a long-standing mis-interpretation of the facts. Time to drive a stake through the heart of this favorite false-fact of the popular history ilk. "The 15 lb powder charge was not a half-charge - it was the standard full service charge for the XI inch Dahlgren, developed, tested and published in the Naval Ordnance Instructions by Dahlgren himself. That powder charge had proven more than adequate for wooden-hulled ships of the day. Firing at higher powder charges would increase wear on the barrels and shorten tube life, so it was forbidden to do so. This is normal, and standard powder charges - devloped with the very same considerations in mind - are SOP in today's militaries. "The problem is that Dahlgren had requested funds and authority to conduct weapons testing against ironclad targets and was barred from doing so. So . . . there was no indication of whether the 15 pound charge was adequate or not when facing the Virginia. No one knew, and as the XI Dahlgren was considered at least one of the most powerful guns of the day, there was some complacency among the fleet. (Complacency not shared by Dahlgren, who wanted to test the issue.) "After - and I stress after - the Battle of Hampton Roads, Dahlgren was finally given permission to conduct firing against armored targets. It was a result of this testing - months after the Battle of Hampton Roads - that determined a 30 lb charge would suffice against ironclads. "So Worden did not use half-charges, he used the standard full charge for the period. As it turned out, 15 lbs was half of what later was considered adequate, but that doesn't change the fact that he fired the same full charges everyone else in the Navy was limited to. "A detailed discussion of this issue can be found in the International Journal of Naval History, by Robert Schneller of the US Naval Historical Center (http://www.history.navy.mil/Special%20Highlights/HamptonRoads/The_Battle_of_Hampton_Roads.pdf). See paras marked with endnotes 73 & 74 [Pages 31 & 32]. The latter includes a 1912 excerpt which is typical of those earlier popular histories which have stated the issue in terms that led subsequent popular histories to simply get it wrong."

Suggest the "reduced charge" passage be rewritten. 98.255.85.245 (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of writing out this long comment here, why not simply rewrite the passage yourself? --Badger151 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Origin of name?
Is it known how the name "Monitor" was arrived at? -- 92.226.2.138 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Gustavus Fox, far as I know. The Naming of the Monitor Jim.henderson (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos etc
The USN has released a whole lot of goodies on the back of the burials of the two bodies recently - see here. Plan view, photos during construction and after the battle etc etc.Le Deluge (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Project rating boxes
Is the WikiProject National Register of Historic Places box appropriate for this article? The USS Monitor is a ship, not a place. Also, why is there a WikiProject United States / North Carolina box when there are none for 'New York', the place where the Monitor was built and launched, or for 'Virginia', in the river/bay where the Monitor fought the world famous Battle of Hampton Roads? It seems we need to omit the 'North Carolina' box and 'Historic Places' box, and while we're at it, upgrade the other boxes to 'B' class, as the article is now "suitably" referenced, albeit not 100%, and "It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it appears to be a registered landmark/historic place, that project's banner seems appropriate. I'd have no objection to you adding a New York banner as well as you make a good argument. You've been doing good work adding more info, but I still wouldn't call it reasonably complete or fully referenced as there's far too much info at the end of the article that needs expansion or deletion and citation. MilHist/Ships standard for "fully referenced" is at least one cite per paragraph and we're far from that. Don't be so impatient or obsessed about the assessments, it will all be good once we submit it to GAN in a few weeks, and once I've done some more reading. Patience, Grasshopper!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, no sooner than I posted the message here I noticed that the account of the Battle of Dewey's Bluff was grossly understated. There was not even a section for it. Btw, I still don't quite understand the North Carolina project rating box. It should be replaced with one for Virginia. What has the Monitor got to do with N.C.? Don't think it's appropriate. Also, even though the Monitor was built in New York, she's not involved with that state's history in any other way. It would be like having a project box for the Atlantic ocean because that's where she sank. Currently there are five project boxes here. Project boxes for Military, Virginia and Ships seem to be well enough, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I never worry about having too many project banners, only about too few. North Carolina is reasonable considering that her hull lies offshore, Virginia for her relics and New York for where she was built. All I really care about is MilHist and Ships, I have no strong feelings one way or another for any of the others and will defer to those that do or do not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Finished Clancy, great details on the turret lift, nothing much on anything after about '07, damn it! OTOH, he did a good synthesis of her voyages from NY to Hampton Roads and from there to Cape Hatteras so I'll be adding some material there and replacing whatever elderly sources we already have on that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Project boxes: If the project subject is directly connected and involved with the article's subject I've no problems. I guess the only one I really object to is for N.C. It's there simply because Monitor went down -- 16 miles out to sea -- off its coast. Did the Monitor actually stop at Cape Hatteras? If not then the Atlantic ocean has more association with the subject than N.C. I'm not going to press the issue any further. If someone besides my self feels the N.C. box is inappropriate let's not include it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources: When you referred to replacing "elderly sources" some bells went off, mostly because of a couple of past debates I was involved with over older sources. A general comment. Sources should be evaluated on a per source basis and not be removed or selected simply because of the date of publication. (Realizing this is not your approach here -- updated info about the recovery is needed) Many sources for naval history for various subjects are indeed dated and are excellent, often having direct or closer associations with the historical subject, e.g. the people, involved. I've heard the argument that new sources have access to new information, and in that case they are more than welcomed. But as is so often the case, newer sources only offer new opinion, not new facts, and merely copy and reword the older sources, often losing info' and insights in the 'translation'. In many cases authors of newer sources are blatantly presentist, are educated, but naive and completely removed from the mindsets and societal customs that existed in the era in question. (I know this doesn't pertain to using Clancy and the recovery subject -- that involves a somewhat current event.) Imo, we need to have a good cross section of sources, content wise, and time wise. Having said that (don't mean to lecture), if Clancy offers new information lacking in the other source(s), let's replace them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

North Carolina project box appropriate
Having discovered that the Monitor was ordered to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to join up with other ships for an expedition to Wilmington, also in North Carolina, the NC project box on the talk page here is more than appropriate. Sorry for this gross oversight and for being so quick to ask for its deletion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Patented devices
The patented devices statement was made at the closing of a section that discussed many devices that existed on the Monitor so it is not at all meaningless. Obtaining 47 patents is something that Ericsson spent a lot of time and effort doing, so on that basis alone we should return the statement. We don't need to say 'this' device was patented and 'that' device was patented. Ericsson's great time, effort and involvement here should also be mentioned because it exemplifies the innovation that went into the Monitor, not an ordinary ship by any means. If we can later point to one or more particular patented devices that would be a nice addition also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that the statement made no reference to the fact that they were designed by Ericsson. The article already states that he designed the ship, turret and engine, I think that that suffices. I think that there's already enough mention of how innovative the ship and her turret were; we don't need to beat a dead horse. See USS New Ironsides (1862) for an example of a FA-class ironclad article that I intend to use as a model for this one. It's not the only approach, but it is a proven one. Obviously we need to emphasize the innovations used in this ship, but I think we're doing that, provided we can stay out of the weeds and not get bogged down in a micro-level of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The USS New ironsides seems like a good model upon cursory review. No problems. However, the Monitor is filled with Ericsson's inventions, including the revolving turrent. Mention of patents, (along with Ericsson) is a great way to exemplify that and the great time and effort he put into the designs and inovations of this most unusual ship. General mention of Ericson's patents is not a micro-level detail, it's an overall fact. The article has plenty of 'micro'-details, and are most welcomed. e.g. Draft, tons burthen, specs on guns, armor thickness, ship length, beam, vents, turret dimensions, boiler, engine, anti-personnel hoses, etc, etc -- not to mention all the planning, litigation, Navy board. Depth of coverage is what we need for a GA or better. (I'm hoping better.) Mention of patents (47 of them!) is a very definitive and general fact that pertains to this ship more than any other at that time and is also reflective of Ericsson as an inventor, so 'pleeeze' let me reintroduce this fact without any arm wrestling, and I will of course word things better, per Ericsson, as you suggested. Or if you want to include and word it, that would be great also. We got the source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * New Ironsides should give you a good idea of the appropriate level of detail for GA and FA. One problem that I've noticed in writing Wiki articles is that if you've got a wealth of detail available like we do for Monitor, the temptation is to include as much as possible when the better thing is to use details that a general reader will think important. Perhaps I fall on one end of the spectrum and and you on the other, but we both need to keep in mind that we need to appeal to readers both knowledgeable and not and must try to keep the eyes of both types of readers from glazing over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, we don't want to flood any section with details. Sections should be written so that the first paragraph or two satisfies the casual reader while the following paragraphs get into the finer points and satisfies the Civil War buffs, naval ship enthusiasts etc -- Another approach is to alternate general sentences with more detailed ones. In any case, I've come up with some additional sources that more than mentions Ericsson's involvement with patents. The man is almost synonymous with patents. I'm wondering if Ericsson doesn't hold the record for patents in the 19th century.
 * In The Life of John Ericsson, Church, 1911 he mentions Ericsson's patents more times than I care to count.
 * In Hampton Roads 1862: First Clash of the Ironclads, Konstam, 2002 he mentions Ericsson's patented turret. (pp.10-11)
 * In Ironclad Down: The USS Merrimack-CSS Virginia from Construction to Destruction, Park, 2007 he mentions several of Ericsson's patented devices, including an anchor hoist. (pp.29, 193)
 * In the book The Monitor Boys: The Crew of the Union's First Ironclad, Quarstein, 2010 he mentions The Monitor featured over forty of Ericsson's patented inventions and was totally different from anything else afloat.(p.45) Mention of 40+ patents nails that point.
 * We should at least mention that Ericsson's turret was patented following with a brief statement that the Monitor was a unique and innovative ship that made use of 47 patented devices invented by Ericsson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that you're making too much of this, but go ahead and paraphrase Quarstein's statement (which is p. 46, BTW) and find a logical place for it. Maybe the engine/propulsion section since that already says he invented the ship's engine?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I came up with a passage that is a little longer than I had originally intended so I thought I'd run it by you here first. With all this important history it was difficult to ignore a couple of things. Since the turret is well covered in the Design and description section I think the below passage is better placed at the end of it. The last sentence about Ericsson and his Monitor patents imo is a nice way to bring this section to a close:


 * Of all Ericsson's patented inventions it was Monitor's revolutionary gun turret which was soon used on other naval ships around the world. His Monitor design employed over forty patented inventions and was completely different than any other naval warship of the time. During the "boom time" during the Civil War, Ericsson could have made a fortune with his inventions used in the Monitor, but instead he chose to give the U.S. government all his patent rights saying it was his "contribution to the glorious Union cause". 


 * The sources are already in Further reading and ready to be moved to the bibliography so we're good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Update
Work has been done sorting out much of the text, some of which was out of place chronologically and in the wrong sections while a couple of redundant statements were removed. The former section Construction and service  was split into separate sections and contained very little text about actual construction. Several passages about construction were moved from other sections to the new Construction section some of which were lacking citations. Another new section, Crew, has been added noting the top ten officers and a few of the petty officers and contains and will contain the most important and notable topics concerning them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why Crew?
Why do you think it necessary to list the names of the officers, and especially the enlisted men when they're not notable, by Wiki's definition of notable? If they're important to the history of the ship then integrate their names into the text. What would be useful, and you did some of it, would be a division of the number of men in each duty section, like x number of stokers, x number of quartermasters, etc. See WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. You're getting way too deep into the weeds here and are trying to incorporate unessential information simply because it's available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot, MOS says ranks/titles are only used on first mention.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert :  Generally agree with first mention of ranks/titles in the text, however a second mention of rank or title is allowed if the name/title also appears in an info box, chart or some such listing. I'm hoping we can concentrate more on the quality of the content and coverage more than we do with how many times MOS is not carried out to the letter. As long as we're mulling over rules, WP says to ignore them if they get in the way of improving the article. We certainly need rules, but I try not to be a slave to them. If a particular item is standing in the way of GA or FA review I'll bend over backwards to accomodate matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * More than names are listed, the crew member's title and function are mentioned also. We could easily come up with a list of 'why this' and 'why that' and easily claim it's not important so let's be careful. Better to have a little more than enough than not enough. The crew was the life blood of the Monitor. Mentioning the top officers and petty officers by name and title/function gives insight into some of the activities aboard and will be welcomed by most readers interetsed in the Civil War and Naval history and will open the door to further inquiries. Their names are also notable simply becuase they were officers who served aboard this historical landmark. The few sentences about Christmas also gave insight into the crew's lives so I'm wondering why this was removed when we have paragraphs commited to mechanical topics. The crew are more important than many of these things. Remember, the crew were the most important 'parts' of the Monitor. The crew are who gave Monitor her history. Without them the Monitor would have been a lifeless hulk sitting in the water with no direction. Also, I know I read somewhere that the crew were all experienced. Odd that inexperienced crew members would be chosen over those with experience. Does Clancy say how many were not experienced? In any case, I'm aiming for a feature article, so we need to have depth of coverage. I seriously doubt it will not make GA for having too much information. All the topics were and are directly related to Monitor and her crew. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My two cents: The crew obviously belong in this article. Sure, the ship itself is famous, but what fundamentally happened was that the crew engaged the CSS Virginia in the first ironclad battle. Check out the Great Locomotive Chase article for a similar case; the locomotives themselves are famous, but the men participating in Andrews' Raid must be listed for the details of the narrative to make any sense, especially once you get to the various executions, instances of direct communication with Jefferson Davis, dramatic prison breaks, and so on. But unlike Andrews' Raid, which is considered an unimportant footnote in most accounts of the ASW, the short career of the Monitor and her crew is considered one of the most notable threads of the conflict for revolutionizing naval warfare and sparking a global arms race which lasted for the better part of a century. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 04:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert :  Yes, the crew is very important, and the section didn't get into a lot of details about these individuals as is the case with topics in most of the other sections, which I'm not objecting to, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct about use of title/rank in the main body of the article; that's what I meant, but failed to explictly say. I just automatically write to GA standard since I've written so many of them, so it bugs me when I see MOS failures. I'll try to just fix them without mentioning it from now on. We're not allowed to list captains of a ship over her career by Ships MOS, why should that be extended to lesser mortals? We have to integrate them into the main body, which is what I'm proposing that we do here. Yes, I know all about how important the crew is to a ship, but that's not the focus of the article. And I didn't delete the bit about Christmas, I moved to where it should have been based on chronology, right before they depart for Beaufort.
 * The Navy was too pressed for manpower to specifically select the ship's crew, I think. Aside from a few key individuals, they seem to have grabbed pretty much most of the enlisted men off the New York receiving ship, but Clancy doesn't have many details. Quarstein should detail the naval careers of everybody aboard if you've got the book; he did in his equivalent book on CSS Virginia, which I have.
 * As for FA/GA quality requirements, I strongly suggest you go to the WP:SHIPS front page and read through the FA articles listed there, by many other people than me, and see what the standards are. You may well be right that a GA reviewer may not have a problem with the amount of info that you want to cram into the article, but I'd bet that it would be a problem at A-class review and FAC. And I have no intention to adding stuff that has to be removed later as irrelevant or excessive detail because all that info has to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb to make sure that meets the MOS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert : Okay, Sturmvogel. I'll look into the crew further. And I didn't mean to come off sounding like I don't care about MOS. Will stay on top of it. Thanks for your help and experience with these matters. I think most of the details are interesting, given the ship and the circumstances by which she came into existence. And there is a limit of course to the amount of details we should include, however I don't think mention of e.g.the six petty officers are 'details' that push that limit in the section. The fact that their names come up in RS's and that they served aboard Monitor imo makes it appropriate to at least mention their names. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that a crew list doesn't belong here with the usual exception of the captain and perhaps one or two other officers, unless crew members are notable in themselves, they add nothing to an understanding of this topic and only clutter the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The small 'list' is presented in textual paragraph like form. By including the names and titles of the top crew members (i.e.Pay master, Surgeon, Assistant Engineer, etc) it gives the reader more of an insight into crew activity. Hardly clutter. One could also say that all the details about, armor thickness, maximum engine pressure, turret mechanics, turret dimensions, etc, etc are also "clutter". (they're not) e.g. Isn't giving mention to the ship's physician just as, if not more important, than mentioning the actual dimensions of the propeller? Also, it sort of broke my heart when the couple of sentences describing the only Christmas ever celebrated by the crew aboard the Monitor, days before she went down, were deleted. I think it's something that will help to put the reader on board the Monitor and imo was a nice way to bring that section to a close also. Will go along with consensus, as always.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Arguably a prose listing of job descriptions is informative, but the names of the individuals who served in those positions is, generally speaking, not. I can't comment on the Christmas celebration because I haven't seen the edits in question. Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could easily claim that the celebration was not important to the war effort, but it was a unique event held aboard the Monitor during her very short life span. The events of that day also include getting the ship ready for orders received that day directing the ship to North Carolina. Here is what the section looked like 27 June 2013. Closing paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Move the crew positions into the text; as I said before we're not allowed to have lists of captains, much less crewmembers. Many of those people so something notable enough to deserve a mention of the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, and I moved the Christmas bit back to where it belongs chronologically. The last sentence of that paragraph leads nicely into the beginning of the loss section. If you're disturbed about the long gap between Drewry's Bluff and Christmas, then find something to fill the gap.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just minutes after moving the Christmas account from 'Battle of Drewry's Bluff' where it didn't belong btw, it occurred to me it was out of place chronologically. When I went to move it to 'Final voyage' you had beaten me to the punch. Have done a little rewording and have incorporated it into section text.
 * 'We're not allowed to have lists'? Really? Many of the names will be very difficult to incorporate into the text for lack of sources. However there is a RS that presents such a short list, and again, they're notable simply because they were officers who served aboard 'the' Monitor, not just any ole ship. Again, their titles give us an insight into the orderly crew activity so there is that also. If there is a WP policy that says we can't list them in paragraph form, or in any way whatsoever, I'll be willing to strike most of the names of these men.
 * Just serving on the Monitor doesn't make them notable in Wiki terms, see WP:GNG and WP:MILNG; it's a pretty high bar for people to qualify. A few of them played a role either in battle or in the ship's voyages and can be worked in there. The others have to go; no lists of personnel allowed. If this is something that really interests you, you might consider starting an article on USN steamship crew roles during the ACW.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How are we coming along with Clancy? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm done; I just need to find the time to sit down and digest the lift material for the article. You've filled out most of the loss section beyond what Clancy had, although I'm not sure that you haven't gone a bit overboard. You're writing like it's an article for a magazine or something, but Wiki's an encyclopedia which means that we focus on the fundamentals; which I interpret to mean that we take a step back from all the detail that you've been adding.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Details

 * Sturmvogel, the notability to which you are referring pertains to whether or not a name is notable enough to have its own article. On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article -- I wouldn't go so far as to say this means we can't mention a crew member's name, esp if he's an officer. Re: Encyclopedic accounts and details. You seem to be also suggesting that we should remove many of the mechanical details covered in many of the paragraphs. A magazine article it would seem would not offer the details that an encyclopedia would, and should. They all work into, contribute and help to tell and bring context to the story. If you don't think so then perhaps you can cite some of the details that you don't think help the story, and I'm hoping that if you do, the details will not be just crewmembers. Looking at other military history articles, they seem to have more details than most other articles -- and rightly so it would seem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the listing of petty officers was a bit much. Have just removed their names, save Toffey's, Worden's Captain's clerk, and nephew. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily individual ship articles focus more on the ship's activities than the technical side and vice versa for ship class articles. Monitor, being a single-ship class gets both barrels, plus she's a technical revolution and gets still more detail. I could have gone into the methods of fastening the individual turret armor layers together, the thickness of her hull, and the sizes of the beams under her deck, but I showed mercy on the hapless reader. Do we really need to know that the crew was dissatisfied about the quality of the Christmas meal? Or that a bunch of different types of pumps, for which we lack information about types and relative capabilities, were unable to dewater Monitor on the night that she was lost? Or would a simple statement that "the onboard pumps could not pump the water overboard faster than it leaked in" or somesuch convey essentially the same info? Sometimes the details that you're adding raise more questions that need to be explained and aren't. Again, read the existing GA and FA-class articles; that's the level of detail that we should be striving for, no more and no less.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the Christmas meal was an event that occurred aboard the ship. An added comment about the crew's opinion of it I don't think should be an issue. At least it serves as a way of keying in the reader with the crew. Many history texts make comments on the human element from time to time so the account doesn't come off like it was written by Mr. Spok. In any case, what I'm seeing is your acceptance for some details but not others. The 'Design and description' section is practically a page of details, whereas the different pumps you're taking exception to are only mentioned with a couple of sentences, no details, and are tied in with the ship going down. Mentioning the final attempt with hand pumps and the bucket brigade exemplifies the prolonged and desperate effort the crew made in the attempt to keep the ship afloat. Details about the specs, pump capacities, etc are not mentioned as is the case with the engine, etc, which, btw, I also find interesting. Again, I am confident this article will not only serve the 'hapless reader' but Civil War and Naval buffs, our largest audience, who will no doubt be very impressed with our attention to detail. In any case, I believe we're near done with the details, most of which are written into the story which is just about  complete, btw. Are we missing any chapters or major topics? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not your average ship article
For a good dose of details, look at the  'Design and description'  section. -- Reminder: The Monitor was a most unusual ship, born of extraordinary circumstances, involving many different people and military and industrial institutions while incorporating many new inventions. The ship played a major role in the Civil War, esp in terms of how ships were built thereafter. The ship also marked a turning point in naval history, world wide. As such, this article is not at all your average ship's article and shouldn't be treated as just another ship's article. Monitor is to ships as John Paul Jones is to commanders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I know all that, and I wrote the article for HMS Dreadnought (1906), the only other ship that had a whole class of warship named after her and it isn't anything like what you're doing here. What I want are very detailed descriptions of the ship's two battles, information on her activities before she sailed for Beaufort and some detail as to her loss. I want to know that Keeler had to relay messages from Warden to the turret officers, that Greene took over from Worden after he was blinded and that Fireman X punched a hole in the fanbox on the voyage down and got the fans restarted. The highlights of people interacting with their ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Like with the crew's involvement with the pumps. We can mention Dahlgren, smooth-bore, 11-inches, gun weight, 8 man team for each gun... -- but we can't comment on the different pumps? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know the difference between the different types of pumps and why they used them in the sequence that they did? I don't have a clue. If my ship had been leaking like it was, I'd have been using my most powerful pumps as much as possible and as early as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are many details in the article that invite more questions. To answer yours, the Adams pump, the largest, used so much steam pressure the engine would have to be turned off and steam diverted to it, which is mentioned. They had smaller pumps, and even a manual pump, to avoid compromising the engine, and we can mention that too if you like. Won't take but another sentence. The turret malfunctioned during battle. Why? Did one of the gears crack or come off its axel? Bolts would pop of when struck by cannon shot. Why? Weren't they put on tight enough? "The "raft" consisted of three to five layers of 1-inch (25 mm) iron plates". Why five layers? Why not one thick layer? -- Are you saying that if an item invites a question we shouldn't mention that item? Otoh, if you'd like me to clear up a few points in the article I can do that also. In any event I think we're at the point now where we have just about all the details we need. Will be very selective  about adding any others at this point.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletions
Unless something is factually in error or is completely unrelated can we please discuss sourced content before anyone decides to delete it? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That goes for the NHL infobox, in my opinion. The fact that the USS Monitor is a ship does not make the ship *not* a National Historic Landmark. The NHL infobox is a useful project to systematize information about US National Historic Landmarks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except ships are not LAND-marks. It's like calling a Bus a landmark simply because it was involved in some historic event. Even the Spruce Goose doesn't have a NHL box. And ships are not measured by the Acre, like a plot of earth. Since they went ahead and registered the Monitor as a landmark I suppose we have to let it ride. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The ship may not be, but the wreck is, & that's measurable by area.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought ships and anything out to sea, underwater, wasn't a 'landmark', but I suppose that's belaboring the term. Sorry for the hastey deletion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sketchy language
Twice now I have had to restore the term "rising waters" and "rapidly rising" instead of the less definitive "flooding". To answer the question: ''"rapidly rising water"? what, exactly, does it suggest?'' It suggests, uh, rapidly rising water. Using "flooding" by itself doesn't articulate that point. The opinion that this is "tedious" is not a reason to insist otherwise. Also, "call from the engine room" was deleted, and restored, because this is where the coal was which was getting soaked, which is referred to later in the text when the Monitor was losing its steam. Other definitive items were also restored, like "temporarily", as first attempt with pumps only helped temporarily. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of the second repetition of "rising waters". One instance is enough, and it is even better to explain that the rising waters are inside the ship, not outside. In essence, the ship is progressively flooding, which is of course the reason why "flooding" was supplied as a fix. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Pumps were pumping water inside the ship, not outside. First mention of rising water was mentioned in relation to pump which only helped temporarily. As it wouldn't hurt to replace one usage of 'rising water', I have just replaced one usage with 'flooding'. However, second mention of 'rising water' is qualified by "rapidly". Flooding used by itself in this instance wouldn't articulate the situation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Clunky prose is not going to make the article better. The repetition is at fault. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion but using a phrase twice is not exactly repetitive, and as I've explained, is used to describe different events in relation to how the different pumps were performing at different points in time. As I was saying before your last edit here, I have replaced one usage with 'flooding'.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠It's not only a problem of repetition. It's a problem of tone. The "rapidly rising water" has the smell of sensationalism. It's not the detached, distant tone I'd expect of an encyclopedia (or, indeed, of a history). Besides which, if the ship is taking water faster than the pumps can manage, what else is it but "rapidly rising"? Give the reader a bit of credit.
 * ♠In fact, the whole section could do with a rework on that basis. Explaining where the flooding is, & where the "leaks" are, would be useful, since despite the "call from the engineroom" & the wet coal, it's unclear how the water is getting in. I'm presuming it's through the ventilators (given her swamping) & not hull weeping or popped rivets, but "leak" leaves a different impression.
 * ♠I'd also wonder what part of "flooding" is "sketchy"? Other than you dislike it. It was pretty standard USN usage in WW2, & it's common enough in Blair's Silent Victory. (IDK if it's naval standard usage, but it may be; if so, it clearly is the term to be preferred, as a term of art.)
 * ♠BTW, by admitting "flooding" implies "rapidly rising water", you've made my point for me: the two are interchangeable.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  13:31 & 13:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm seeing now is a lot of conjecture to prop up a lot of opinion. "Flooding" by itself doesn't explicitly imply "rapidly rising" and such a term is a far cry from "sensationalism". (e.g. 'The defiant and life threatening, bone chilling, freezing, rapidly rising water...') The event by itself is sort of sensational, given the prolonged efforts and circumstances, the rescue efforts and the deaths, surrounding the sinking. And if you feel "flooding" and "rapidly rising" are interchangeable (I don't for reasons stated) then there's no need for this prolonged issue over a couple of sentences whose prose are more than adequate in terms of describing the events in question . As I've said, I've replaced "rising water" with "flooding" in one instance where this works. The article still needs some work, citations, etc. Issues far more important than this particular item. Don't quite understand your focus here. Also, 'while you were at it', you deleted a primary source without a discussion, not even a comment in edit history. One that I intend using in conjunction with a secondary source, as is allowed. What was your issue there? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The flooding below, all on one level, occurred on that level. Will look for a source that describes where exactly the water was coming in besides the places already mentioned. We know much of it was coming in from above, through the vents and turret gap, already described in the article. Will see if I can cut it any finer than that. Haven't seen a source that mentions any compromised hull or other such problems, yet. What sources have you looked into? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠That this event is dramatic, I don't dispute. It's how it's going to be handled by an encyclopedia that's the issue. That requires a more detached tone. That, really, is my only concern here: the quality of the prose.
 * ♠If I've deleted any sources, that was purely unintentional.
 * ♠I was presuming much of the flooding was through her ventilators, but IMO that could be clearer in the text.
 * ♠As for what sources I've looked at, none. I had no intention of making this a project.
 * ♠That said, I see no conjecture, nor any need for your snarky tone.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Garrison problem
Do you have access to Garrison? If so, is his statement about the 90-year-long commission sourced? I think that he's confused the two USS Monitors because there was another one during WW2 and the Navy has never allowed two ships of the same name to be commissioned at the same time. Garrison claims that Monitor wasn't struck until 1951, but I think that's a typo because the second Monitor was struck in 1961 and the first one would have been struck not long after her loss. If it's sourced, lemme know what that source is so I can verify it. If not, I'm going to delete it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm on it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just remembered. That is one of the books (among many) I withdrew from the public library and have since returned. Give me a day or two and I'll look into it again. Web listing offers no preview. Meanwhile I've got no issues with hiding or deleting the statement in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
 * Let's wait until you get a hold of it again to confirm.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow is the 4th and I'm not sure if I'll make it to the library by Friday. Week-ends are out and they're closed Monday, so on retrospect it may be a little longer than a couple of days before I get to that book. At least the statement is tagged. It does seem odd that the Navy waited some 90 years before listing the Monitor as not in commission. Wonder if there's an interesting story behind that. Meanwhile I'll see what I can find on line regarding the decommissioning and anything else. I take it Clancy, 2013, offers no insights here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos in 'Rediscovery and recovery' section

 * Great photos! Re:The photo of the recovered turret in the museum. Fascinating, but the caption says 'replica'. What appears in the photo looks like the actual recovered turret. Is that so? All in all, nice work. The way things are going it looks like Wikipedia's account of the Monitor will be the envy of all online accounts for this ship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The actual turret and guns are still in the conservation tanks. That's a replica of what was visible when the turret was lifted out of the water, including one of the skeletons. Didn't upload that photo, though, since it was just the skeleton and some debris. Told you that we'd be able to fit more photos in as we added more detail. I'd ultimately like to move the right-side turret replica photo into either the description or the battle sections, but we'll have to see how much room is available once we're closer to finalizing those sections.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the replica photo ties in with 'Discovery and recovery' I'd recommend keeping it in that section. Now that you've added a wealth of information/text there's plenty of room there. Besides, the 'Design and description' section already has two design drawings, both of which depict the turret, while the battle sections don't tie in with either the sinking or later recovery. Speaking of photos, I'd like to find one that shows the Monitor in profile clearly for the lede photo at the top of the page. The current drawing is okay, but because the Monitor is in front of another ship her appearance comes off less distinctive. Monitor almost looks like she has masts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The clearest thing that we have of the ship, other than the design drawings, which are a possibility for the infobox image, is a photo of the replica which used to be on here a little while ago. And I'm not sure that I want to do that even though it gives you an excellent idea of what she looked like. BTW, not that fond of the battle engravings as they really don't convey all that much info about the battles/ships. The paintings are better, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there's only one engraving for battles (not including the painting for the battle of Hampton Roads). Yeah, I'm not all that crazy about the Drewry's Buff battle engraving either. Guess she'll do for now until something better comes along. Also, with all the photos taken during the Civil War I would think there would be more taken for a famous ship like the Monitor than are apparently available, which is not a whole lot from what I've seen. Something else to hunt for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The photo of the turret braking the surface and seeing the light of day for the first time in 140 years seems more suited for being the lede photo for the section, as it epitomizes the section's theme, 'Rediscovery and recovery'. On that note, the photo should be enlarged a bit also, imo.
 * Wikipedia:Image use policy: Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default.
 * Up to 300 px wide is allowed for lead images.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not too concerned about size of these photos as they're all thumbnails. Don't want any one photo to dominate, although the replica turret comes close. I prefer to keep photos close to the paragraph(s) in which their subjects are discussed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That works too. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

'Rediscovery and recovery' section and sub section
The 'Rediscovery and recovery' sections look good. One thing I'm not clear on is why there's a Recovery subsection when there's a 'Rediscovery and Recovery ' section. I've fixed the title redundancy and apparent oversight as the 'Rediscovery and recovery' section didn't cover anything about actual recovery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

P.44 of Broadwater
Can you send me a scan or screenshot of this page? I can't access it through Google Books as it was looking through all the raising stuff. You used it to say that construction proceeded smoothly, but that's not confirmed by Thompson who says that iron plates were frequently not delivered on time. And since he's citing Stimers' letters to the Chief of the Ironclad Office, or whatever its called, I'm inclined to believe him.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't understand. p.44 is available for viewing -- at least on my end. Try this link:
 * Work progressed remarkably well, with materials arriving at their various facilities when needed.
 * Broadwater's statement is an overall comment. No doubt there were times when materials didn't arrive 'promptly', but the ship was completed on time. If you want to tweak the wording to reflect that worked generally progressed smoothly, with occasional delays in iron plates (w/ ref) and that the ship was still completed on time, that's fine by me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Clean up
Much thanks to Trekphiler for the recent clean up, however, there were a few items that needed attention after edits were made. i.e. grammar, awkward prose, etc. Also, some sourced context about the crew was reintroduced, removed for opinionated reasons not discussed. General comment about hidden notes: They are usually included to alert editors of links to the page, or other important considerations -- they are not intended to be used for personal opinion or for asking questions that belong here on the talk page, some of which can be answered with a little reading, so these should be removed also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Trekphiler, please stop using hidden notes as your personal sketch pad while insisting about changing sourced content because of some opinion. 'Aboard' is commonly used by naval personnel and civilians alike. (Sturmvogel, thanks for restoring that one.) Also, the crew's condition, once again, exemplifies the prolonged ordeal they had gone through and is completely related, and referring to it as "trivia" is yet another opinion. Historians saw it fit to include these things in their works, and anyone interested in Naval history will welcome this information. If you disagree, please discuss instead of instigating an edit war over your particular opinion. Your edits are becoming disruptive and meddlesome. Worden was treated for his wounds, while the crew was treated for their exhaustion with a meal. If we were to say 'the crew wore green socks', that would be considered trivia, as it has nothing to do with the ordeal they went through. Again, please discuss before removing factual and sourced content. If you can establish a consenus to remove the item, fine, we'll remove it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Garrison
Okay, I have Garrison, 1994, in hand. There's not a lot of details offered on the topic of decommissioning but this is what it says:
 * Its rusting shell lay on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean for ninety-one years before the U.S. Navy officially listed it as "out of commission" in September 1951. Then in 1974, scientists from Duke University located its rusting remains lying 220 feet underwater, fifteen miles off the coast of Cape Hatteras.

If there isn't another source that refutes this claim we should leave it in place it would seem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Broadwater, 2012, p.62, gives us this:
 * ''Research and case law in the 1970’s and 1980’s determined that the U.S. Navy abandonment of the USS monitor consisted only of striking the vessel from the Navy list, an action more accurately case as a decision to “surplus” ships, not a legal abandonment of the warship as an item of federal property. In fact, aside from express  authority from Congress, the act of abandonment is outside the authority of any agency, including the Navy. The Navy can decommission a ship, but must follow “surplus property” procedures administered by the General Services Administration (GSA) to actually dispose of the ship.’’
 * Since the navy hadn't followed such proceedures it would seem they weren't in a position to decommission the ship, until 1951, but why '1951' remains unclear. This is yet another one of those details that raises more questions, but again, if we were to remove all such details the article would implode. The statement is sourced, but if there's an appreciable consensus to remove this particular detail then we'll need a discussion at least. A ship's decommissioning is an important item in terms of its history/article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Decommissioning and striking from the Navy List are two different things. The former means that it will no longer have a crew assigned, but is still a legal warship. Striking means that it's no longer a legal warship under int'l law and is going to be disposed of one way or another. Sunken ships are decommissioned, as that's kinda pointless, but are instead struck, I'm more and more inclined to think that Garrison might be confusing abandoning with decommissioning, especially since Garrison doesn't provide a source for his statement. Since DANFS doesn't explicitly mention date of striking or of decommissioning, I'm not inclined to mention it either since it's the best source out there for the ship's status re the Navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything is possible I suppose, but it would seem Garrison would have seen such an error, if indeed it was one, by the time the book was proof read by himself and the publisher before going to print, so I'm inclined to think it's not an error. In any case, it is an unusual item as decommissioning goes, so we can leave the tag in place until we can look into the matter further. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How many FA articles still have typos that are caught by some IP well after promotion? That's more eyes on than typically view a book manuscript and no publisher would have an editor who would know the difference. Especially one that isn't a naval-oriented press like Conways or Naval Institute Press. Christ, Garrison isn't even a naval historian and can't be expected to know the difference! I doubt that you'll find much more on the subject because it's not mentioned in DANFS. Check Broadwater and Quarstein, though; those would probably be the best bet, but if there's no mention by either then I'm gonna delete that bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Will look into it, and you have a point about typo's being overlooked -- but entire statements? That's sort of stretching the point. I don't think it's a good idea to start deleting sourced items soley on the assumption that 'they're wrong' simply because they're not sourced by a preferable author. If no other author, anywhere, mentions it, well, oaky, maybe it's best we strike the statement. For now it's oaky, tagged with 'dubious'. -- A note about DANFS: They're good for summary info, but they never source their content, and usually don't get into the sort of details like an encyclopedia text or other account does. i.e.It's nothing unusual for them not mentioning anything about decommissioning either way unless they treat this topic as one of their priorities as topics go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * DANFS don't need no stinking sources; it's written by the Dept. of the Navy and reflects what information it has in a summary format (somewhat). Usually indispensable for peacetime activities, otherwise poorly documented, of ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Not in Quarstein; it's gone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ambigeous reference
I just replaced a reference in the Construction section that simply read 'Monitor', having no author name, publisher, year ... nothing else, with prior references, while also restoring some historical context, so the section doesn't come off reading like a naval report. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll note that I've reverted your replacement of my note because I reworked the reference to DANFS as a regular entry in the bibliography under the name of Monitor with all relevant info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The ref itself displayed in the text should at least read, 'DANFS: Monitor'. To be consistent with the convention used here the ref in the 'References' section should also link to the bibliography entry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Scaling down text?
If there is a desire to scale down the text, we might want to begin with the Discovery and Recovery sections which together are almost three pages long and are the largest sections on the page -- esp since they go on at length about the recovery team, recovery ship, much coverage about the recovery process, techniques used, etc, etc -- all tangential topics to the Monitor. On the other hand, if there is a desire to give the readers as much relevant information as possible, let's be consistent and treat all the sections the same, as a few of them have had important content and historical context removed, all of which were and are completely relevant to this page's subject heading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You might be a bit more thorough in reviewing what I've done as some of what you think I deleted was merely moved or rewritten. Just like the Christmas bit. I was going to add some more material on her sea trials, but ran out of time, so don't be so quick to revert my changes. In general though, I'm far less interested in human interest material than you are as I think much of it's not that relevant to the ship's story and generally nothing extraordinary or very interesting. Forex, do you really think that Monitor was the only ship that had a special Christmas dinner that wasn't as good as the crew had hoped? Just about every ship had some sort of special Christmas dinner, good, bad or indifferent. And, BTW, you still need to integrate the list of officers and senior POs into the text as you've repeatedly been told. Just like I did with Stimers.
 * As for proportionality, the ship fought in only two battles over her 9 months of existence. In the first she inflicted no significant damage nor was she damaged; in the second she really couldn't participate because her guns couldn't elevate. So there's not much to write about there. In marked contrast to her rediscovery and recovery where there's all sorts of stuff going on. And I find your comment on this subject rather interesting as I only had a couple of sentences on her construction to begin with and you expanded it into a whole section that I was in the middle of rewriting when you reverted me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you have rewritten some of the things elsewhere and I have overlooked them, that's fine. I'll have to reread the entire article to see what's what. When I saw that you had apparently deleted that warning to Ericsson stipulating he had to refund all money if the ship wasn't up to snuff I was sort of put off. This item is very important to that chapter of the story. Re: Human interest. These items consist no more than a comment at the end of a statement and help to bring the reader into the picture. If the entire account is written like a police report you will lose half of your readers before they finish this long article. Good writing and depth of coverage is part of what's considered during a FA review. Didn't recall any such statement ever taking up more than a sentence, the last one being a comment at the end of a sentence. Reminder: Even though Monitor had only fought in two battles, there is much more to her history than the actual battles as I'm sure you know. Also remember, that the Monitor is world famous because of one battle, a very significant one. -- No one would have ever bothered with the Rediscovery and Recovery if it were not for that one epic battle. i.e. The Titanic was famous because she 'only' sank once. Last, you are doing a lot of nice work, but you need to discuss things more and explain your edits in edit history, esp when they involve sourced content and good faith contributions from other editors. You rarely do either on your own initiative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that you add sourced material in good faith, I just often don't think that it's important or worthy of inclusion. I don't use edit summaries very often, usually because I tend to make lots of changes at one time, not one at a time like you do. Easiest thing to do is to compare revisions, that's what I usually have to do after a dozen or more of your individual changes. I know quite well that Monitor is important, but that doesn't make writing her story easier or any more proportionate. The article on the Titanic isn't going to have squat on her journey until she struck the iceberg, but will have lots on her sinking and rediscovery, kinda like what we have here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: "...even those who had bet that the ship would sink straight to the bottom".  (Heh, heh) ...nice touch. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't want to play the edit cop, but if several changes are made with one edit this should, more than ever, be cited in edit history, esp important items. i.e.Changed this to that, and moved this item here and put it there. Easy. Also, making several changes with several seperate edits makes it easier to review each edit. If there is a lot of rewritng, adding and deleting it's often difficult to see what's what in the Diff's if it was all done with one singular edit. Whatever. Also, while Rediscovery and Recovery are important to the account, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are more important. Again, without 'the' Monitor, there would have been neither Rediscovery or Recovery. Monitor the ship is the most important topic. This is not to say however that the sections need to be trimmed down. I am an inclusionist, esp where it concerns history articles. The more historical context, the more accurate the overall picture. Yes, there is a limit, but none of the sections have exceeded that limit IMO, including the Rediscovery & Discovery sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Turret again
I notice the article states Ericsson's revolutionary turret, although not without flaws, was a unique concept in gun mounting that was soon adapted and used on naval ships around the world.. As I recall, there was a Brit called Cole who invented a better turret at the same time, discussed in a thread above, so how can the Ericsson turret be described as "a unique concept"? And since when was Ericsson's design "adapted and used on ships around the world"? IIRC it was the Cole turret which was adopted, not Ericsson's. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's debatable. Cole may have also designed a turret, even a better one, but the turret design itself was still a unique concept. Ericsson's turret was the one that brought the concept to the attention of the naval world and was instrumental in its further use and development because of the battle between the two ironclads. At that point (1862) Cole's turret was not tested in actual battle, at was Ericsson's. Because of Monitor's experiences engineers now knew what to do as well as what not to do when designing and building turrets. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, that last comment sounds a little OR-ish to me, and it doesn't really reflect the statement in the article anyway. And as I recall, my sources state that Ericsson declined the Cole model in favour of his own patent but it was the Cole model that was widely adopted. I can't confirm that ATM because my sources are back at home and I'm currently living elsewhere, but I'll be checking them when I get the opportunity. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it may be a little OR'ish to assume that engineers ignored these experiences. In any case, I have no qualms about relating the most accurate statement, per RS's. It seems in this case we're going to have to consult more than one to get an average account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The actual quote goes: "Of Ericsson's forty patented features on the Monitor; it was the gun turret design that caused a major naval revolution. In a few years gun turrets would be on the deck of every major fighting ship in the world." More like a few decades as the central battery ironclads were built until the very end of the 1870s. That said, the Battle of Hampton Roads certainly popularized the idea and it seems a bit unlikely that Coles would have gotten as much public support for his superior design of turret if the Monitor's turrets hadn't been successful. I have no intention of introducing a history of the turret, but it was not, by any means, Ericsson's invention; he only patented one design of turret. A greatly flawed version for which I'll provide details when I expand the turret description sometime soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Experimental craft
A passage relating that the Monitor was an experimental craft has been reintroduced in the Construction section, which ties in with the problems the vessel encountered during her maiden voyage and in battle. Didn't see this point explicitly made anywhere else after it was removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure that it's all that relevant as most of the problems weren't related to her innovations. More like crew stupidity and problems with too short funnels and other openings allowing water in, which was all on Ericsson. But I still have to remember where I read all the problems during her trials so I can add that to the construction section and then we can see how it all fits together, although I'm thinking that it will be kinda redundant once we detail all the problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a whole lot of time for trials as the vessel was urgently needed, and water coming in through vents, turret gap and blowers and turret failing, etc can hardly be put off on "crew stupidity" -- however, it would be nice to see content covering Monitor's trial period, such that it was. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The crew stupidity was jacking up the turret and trying to caulk the gap.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right... Do you know of any sources off hand that cover Monitor's trial period? She was launched January 30, commissioned February 25th and left New York bound for Hampton Roads March 8th, so there was only a short time to discover problems (which often present themselves at the worst possible time) and fix them. Apparently the trial period didn't involve going out to sea at all, let alone in rough waters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just added it. Going to add turret information so don't edit that while I've got the in use tag up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Right now I'm tweaking refs and doing related bibliography work so I don't think our ships will collide. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anyone say anything about test firing shot or shell at the Monitor itself? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. I suspect that armor thickness were based on the information available on Gloire and Warrior.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Novelty Iron Works
In the Construction section the link for Novelty Iron Works wasn't quite appropriate. Novelty was only one of Etna Iron Works' suppliers. In the American Civil War section on that page it says.. ''Webb's usual engine suppliers, the Morgan Iron Works and Novelty Iron Works, were heavily inundated with orders and unable to meet his needs. Webb was so relieved to find an alternative source of supply...'' -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you were right. I was thinking that Novelty was one of those companies bought up by Roach, but that doesn't seem to be the case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)