Talk:USS Monitor/Archive 2

Anti-personnel defense
Garrison refers to a anti-personnel defense of boiling water sprayed by hoses, but there's not mention of any such thing in Quarstein, Thompson, Clancy, or Baxter. I'm very much inclined to call shenanigans on this bit as propaganda or misinformation. Does any other source mention it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't know off hand, but to assume Garrison just spun such a story out of thin air is not enough reason to strike the topic. "Propaganda"? To what effect? Garrison's book was published in 1994, long after the Civil War. Ericsson's ship was filled with innovations and inventions, so it's no stretch of the imagination that he came up with an idea, not even a new invention, to hook up hoses to a boiler that would already have a huge supply of boiling water. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but Garrison might have just read some newspaper report or secondary source that alleged such a system. Does anyone else like Broadwater mention it? As you might have guessed I don't hold Garrison in high repute as a source and unless somebody else more reliable confirms this systems' existence its gonna get deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Be it as it may, we can't start deleting content backed by reliable sources on the notion that the author "might have...". Don't know why you have this thing against this particular author, of all authors. Garrison has written extensively about the Civil War, and judging from the titles and content of his books, this author goes beyond the common and generic subjects and digs deep into areas where many (most?) Civil War authors are lacking in coverage. As such Garrison is more than an average asset to the bibliography.


 * Books written by Webb Garrison:


 * The Amazing Civil War
 * Lincoln's little war
 * The Encyclopedia of Civil War Usage
 * Strange Battles of the Civil War
 * Atlanta and the War
 * The Unknown Civil War
 * Civil War Schemes and Plots
 * Friendly Fire in the Civil War: More Than 100 True Stories of Comrade Killing Comrade
 * Unusual Persons of the Civil War
 * Amazing Women of the Civil War
 * Civil War Trivia and Fact Book
 * The Lincoln No One Knows: The Mysterious Man Who Ran the Civil War
 * Brady's Civil War: A Collection of Civil War Images Photographed by Matthew Brady and his Assistants


 * Garrison's statement about using hoses and boiling water is not some amazing or strange claim, or something that was not feasible for the time in question. Again, given Ericsson's penchant for employing innovations and unusual devices, inventions etc. the claim is nothing amazing. If Garrison was some fly by night author who didn't specialize in the Civil War I would be inclined to go along with your suggestion. Meanwhile I'll look into Broadwater and other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Garrison seems to be more of a trivia disseminator than a serious historian. Does he footnote any of his stuff? I put a lot more weight on specialist naval historians like Canney, Thompson, Quarstein, Broadwater, and Clancy than I do on more general historians for stuff about the ship itself. For the context and consequences of the ship's battles, a more general historian like MacPherson might be more appropriate, but it all depends. I do not understand why you're being so credulous about some of these guys; you've run into the exact same problem with the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemmings stuff where you have to assess who is the best source for certain material.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Garrison has written many books, some of which get into topics not covered by your average Civil War author, so writing him off as a "trivia disseminator" is perhaps a little far reaching. Besides, most of his works cover general and specific themes and are not about what you refer to as "trivia". Yes, one of his books mentions 'trivia' in its title but you seem to be belaboring the term to suit a singular and overall opinion about all of his works. I defend the source only because his challenges thus far have been opinionated and superficial and seem to ignore the many areas of the Civil War this author has written about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How are books like The Amazing Civil War, The Unknown Civil War and Strange Battles of the Civil War not collections of trivia and gee-whiz stories? Again, does he footnote anything? If not then he's a lesser historian than Canney, et al. Of course I'm opinionated; I've been studying this stuff off-and-on for 35 years; I know how to evaluate sources. In this context, I'm indifferent to whatever else he's written as he's not a naval specialist and this stuff is easy to get wrong if you're not. I'm not that fond of Konstam either, but that's because I've found mistakes in his other books, so I'm a bit leery. I don't know how reliable his books that you've referenced here are as I've not yet compared them to the other books, or to the official reports in ORN. Ospreys are generally good introductions to a topic, but lack the depth and detail that I generally want.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Other sources
Here are some other sources that mention use of hot water and hoses to repel boarders:


 * The Man who Made the Monitor: A Biography of John Ericsson, Naval Engineer, By Olav Thulesius


 * TIN CAN ON A SHINGLE, The Full Story of the Monitor and the Mierrimac, by WILLIAM CHAPMAN WHITE


 * Letter from Lieutenant Badger, U.S. Navy, to Lieutenant Wise, U.S. Navy, advising the use of "liquid fire" to repel boarders on the U. S. S. Monitor.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironclad Legacy: Battles of the USS Monitor, Gary Gentile


 * It seems you didn't read that last reference fully because it says "The Navy was experimenting with "liquid fire" (scalding water pumped through hoses), and a satisfactory demonstration was performed but the system was never installed on the Monitor." Gatoclass (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thulesis is talking about CSS Manassas, not the Monitor, Badger wasn't a crewmember of the Monitor and is discussing a rumor, and the White book is a popular history and not very credible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gatoclass, admittingly, Gentile's book only offer's a 'snippit view' so the claim and context to which you refer is not visible. Do you have the book or otherwise are able to view the entire page? Sturmvogel, Re:White's book: A book that offers a general account is not automatically "not very credible" so we need to see something else that supports this opinion. Also, I don't see anything in Badger's letter that writes this man off as espousing rumor. Thulesius's book also only offer's a snippit view, and the book is about the Monitor. Don't see anything that tells us he's referring to CSS Manassas. And we still have the Garrison source which is more than credible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's an account that discusses the experiments and ideas developed by the Union and Confederacy to disable the other ironclad and mentions the use of hoses and steam to repel boarders, but it doesn't quite say that hoses were specifically used on the Monitor, though the account does lend credence to the idea. -- Mr. Lincoln's Navy -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Look again, I got a full preview of the page of Thulesis and he's talking about a report that that system was on Manassas, not on Monitor. Start from the bottom of the prior page. My point about Badger is that he's talking about something about which he has no personal information, just what somebody's told him, ie rumor. And I do not assess Garrison as more than credible; I assess him as less reliable than the other historians that I've been mentioning. And I've seen references to steam hoses for another Confederate ironclad though I can't recall exactly which one, so I'm not dismissing the idea in general. Does Broadwater mention it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only getting a 'snippit view', apparently because I've reached my "viewing limit" but I've no reason to doubt your word here. Broadwater evidently doesn't mention it. Re: Garrison; So far your challenges to his credibility are not very convincing. If you could cite more than one factual error, important ones, this would at least cast a shadow of a doubt on the man's credibility. Again, along with general coverage of the Civil War he writes about topics that are not covered by your average Civil War author, so that says he's done much more in depth studying on the subject. You don't come by this material by simply reading your average history books. Referring to his work as "gee wiz" stories without reading his works is not exactly a fair challenge. So as it stands, we have two accounts that are conflicting with little more than opinionated challenges to the others. I respect your many years of reading experience, but we still need to see something concrete if we are going to embark on the practice of dismissing reliable sources. Btw, several of his books employ foot notes and from my experience many well written accounts don't have in line foot notes, but they do offer a bibliography. I should have signed Garrison's book out again during my last visit to the library. Will see if I can get over there tomorrow and check out the bibliography. Apparently the man is deceased so there's no emailing him for a clarification. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the failure of any of the list of historians that I've been listing to mention any such system is proof enough for me. Nobody worthwhile confirms the existence of any such system and Gentile's book even specifically says that it was not fitted on Monitor. You are right that a bibliography is good, but footnotes are even better when assessing competing accounts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there was no actual attempts to board the Monitor or the Virginia it seems we're not going to find much written about this topic. If anything we can mention that boarding was a concern and that there are conflicting accounts as to whether the Monitor had any provisions for dealing with boarders. The Monitor was such that the crew were pretty much confined. Does anyone know how many hatches were on the freeboard deck? We know there was one atop the turret. I would imagine there was at least one before and aft the turret. Still, this wouldn't allow the crew to deal with boarders very well. If enemy boarders were already on deck, it wouldn't be very difficult to pick off the crew as they came through the hatches one at a time. Seems to me they must of had something to deal with boarders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't have to have any system to repel boarders because none of the other monitors had any such system. If it happened I suppose that they would have the accompanying ships deal with the boarders for them. There were two hatches in the turret and two on the deck according to Thompson.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced statement
Sturmvogel, in the Design and description section there's a statement that you recently added and tagged for no citation: "Hits at the top of the turret also had the potential to bend the spindle, which could also jam the turret.. I've no reason to doubt the claim, it's very likely, but I'm just curious. If the statement is unsourced, where are we getting it from? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know I read it; I just need to find it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the source in question but one of my sources also documents the problem with jamming of the Ericsson turrets due to hits, although I'm pretty sure my source states that shots near the base of the turret were the main problem. Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Rediscovery section
While the Rediscovery and Recovery sections are generally well written and offers the readers many interesting and informative details it needs to have an introductory sentence or two. As it is, the Rediscovery section starts right off with details about naval equipment, etc. It doesn't say e.g. One hundred and eleven years after its sinking the Monitor was rediscovered off Cape Hatteras on the floor of the Atlantic ocean under 220 feet of water. -- or something to this effect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, go for it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Intro sentence has been added to the section with some other minor edits, however, they may need re-editing. i.e. The section mentions that the Navy discovered an object in 1949. Was this the Monitor? I ask because it said the object was found 310 feet below the surface, not 220 feet. If this was the Monitor then the statement that it was discovered in 1973 needs to be clarified. If not then the section needs to be clear that the object found in 1949 was not the Monitor and the depth of 310 feet restored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference in depth alone proves that it wasn't Monitor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It didn't prove it to me, it left me wondering if someone got the depth wrong since the statement itself didn't say what the object was, either way, esp since this statement is followed with a statement describing plains to raise the Monitor just two years later. Here are both sentences taken together:
 * The Navy tested an "underwater locator" in August 1949 by searching an area south of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse for the wreck of Monitor. It found a 140 ft long object bulky enough to be a shipwreck, in 310 ft feet of water but powerful currents negated attempts by divers to investigate. Retired Rear Admiral Edward Ellsberg proposed using external pontoons to raise the Monitor in 1951...
 * What is also not made clear to the reader here is that the rediscovery didn't occur until 1973 -- yet here we are in 1951 describing plans to raise the Monitor. This more than suggests they were planning in 1951 to raise what they found in 1949. This passage needs some work so the readers don't have to piece this together, assuming they know they have to in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel, the section looks better. Now jar-heads like myself won't get confused. (Clink! Clink!) Just out of curiosity, did they ever identify what they found in 1949? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. Cape Hatteras is known as the Graveyard of the Atlantic for all the ships lost there, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Lede image
The lede image is 'okay' but it almost looks like the vessel has masts because of the ship behind it, which also tends to obscure the image of the Monitor. The page once used this image but it's rather small, even in full view, so I captured the image, enlarged it and added a background tone so the image doesn't appear to be so stark or glaring. If it meets with approval we should use this new image as the lede image, as it provides a better view of Monitor imo. I tested the image in my sandbox  to show how it would appear in the actual article here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter to me, but if that's what floats your boat... I'd almost rather have a photo of the replica, though, than a computer rendering.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the image of the model being used (I have thought of promoting it there myself) and have no objection to the enlargement, but I don't like the background tone, the original white looks fine on my monitor. Gatoclass (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm here at the public library now and looking at the background tone with this rig (ugh!) the tone is pittiful. It looks 'lime green'. On my persoanl rig the tone looks beige-grey, much better. How about we use a flat (lighter) grey? The original snow white background behind the almost black Monitor image produces too much glare or contrast. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks sort of green on my monitor too. You can darken the background slightly if you think it appropriate, but it isn't glaring on my screen. Gatoclass (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have just uploaded a newer version (same image) with a more neutral grey background. See my sandbox. In any case, the image is better than the existing one in terms of depicting the various features about the Monitor. Note: This is how the ship looked after the Battle at Hampton Roads where the pilothouse underwent repairs and was reconfigured with sloped sides to better deflect shot. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)-- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

New image
The newer image of the Monitor with grey background has just been added to the page. Let me know if there are still any issues. Hopefully the background will look okay on most rigs. As soon as I get the chance I'll get out to the public library again and see how it appears on those rigs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Turret variations
From time to time photos appear with different turret configurations. The photo at right has a second or upper level turret, while the one at left shows the turret with what seems to be a circular metal barrier enclosing the upper deck of the turret. As of yet I've come across no literature that mentions these things. I'm most curious about the second level turret (right). This enclosure is made of metal and if you look closely, has rivets in its side, suggesting a permanent structure -- it almost looks like it's supposed to be a pilot house, but we know that that exists below in the forward section. If anyone has any ideas about these two configurations it would be interesting to hear about it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The left pictures shows a rifle screen fitted above the turret. Monitor had one fitted during her late 1862 refit. But I'm not entirely sure that this is actually Monitor. The right picture definitely ain't Monitor because that's the ship's pilot house on top of the turret. A configuration adopted for most of the subsequent monitors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you're the uploader; a piece of advice is to provide a link or at least a specific file number so the original image can be examined. Since neither of these ships is the Monitor, I've removed that category and placed them in the more generic Monitors of the United States since I can't tell offhand if they're Passaic or Canonicus-class monitors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling they might have been other Monitors. Since neither of these ships are 'the' Monitor then I should remove their links from the caption in the image in the 'Crew' section. Thanks for info. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Turret reconfigured
According to William N. Still, 1988, p.68 (see bibliography) while Monitor was in drydock undergoing repairs in Washington, in October 1862, she was outfitted with an "iron shield to go around the top of the turret". The photo was obtained at NavSource Naval History USS MONITOR: Action Against Virginia, and after double checking it turns out the title of the photo is  'Monitor's officers ', so the photo at upper left was taken aboard the Monitor after all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Navsource attribution is incorrect; Monitor never received a pilothouse on the top of her turret and that picture clearly shows a dark shadow under the canopy that can only be the pilothouse.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because somebody says something doesn't make it so. According to the original source, this was not taken aboard the Monitor. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a pilothouse. The source you linked to says Fifteen officers on deck of a Union monitor warship. Sort of a generic statement that doesn't specify any particular Monitor. Under 'Notes' it also says: Formerly identified as "the original Monitor" in Miller, Vol. 6, p. 165. ... In any case, 'the' Monitor, according to Still, 1988, was at least outfitted with a iron shield atop her turret. Also, Louis N. Stodder Acting Master of 'the' USS Monitor seems to be in that photo, seated at right, front row. i.e. Same distinctive bushy sideburns, same face. Of course the photo isn't exactly clear. What do you think? I read somewhere the other day, can't remember where off hand, been going through a lot of sources, that the USS Monitor was temporarily rigged so she could be steered from the turret. Are you absolutely sure Monitor never received an enclosure, a pilothouse, in her later days? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Did Stoddert remain with the ship after Hampton Roads? Or did he transfer to another monitor at some point? I've never heard that that the ship was ever modified to be steered from another position. AFAIK, she was being steered from the pilothouse when she was lost.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Stodder was Acting Master of the Monitor right up to the end. Shortly before Monitor sank Commander Bankhead called for volunteers to cut the tow line to Rhode Island. Stodder and two others came forward. When they went out on to the deck the two others were swept away by a large wave and drowned. Stodder managed to hang on, get to the tow 'line'  (13" in diameter!) and chopped through it with a hatchet.  According to Still, 1988, pp.67-68, after Monitor was taken out of drydock she was stationed just outside Fort Monroe and underwent numerous improvements. This was in early November less than two months before she sank, so I doubt we're going to see many photos of her during this short time. In any case, it seems we need to do some more digging here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, poke away, but I'm content with Canney's list of the rifle shield, 5-foot smokestacks and later a telescoping one that merged the two funnels, the reinforcement of the pilothouse, the awning, and the raising of the berth deck by four steps from the wardroom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relocation of the Pilothouse, (which was blocking any fire at 0 degrees (+ -) forward) I would think, would have been a major change. Ericsson admitted later that the location of the pilothouse on the aft forward deck was a mistake, so there was a definite and acknowledged need to move it. Does Clancy offer us any other clues? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Article at the Mariner's Museum 'The Monitor is No More shows an illustration of the Monitor about to go under. The ship is outfitted with the iron shield around the turret. It doesn't show any pilothouse however because of the angle. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Clancy makes no mention of the pilothouse being on the roof, nor any arrangement for steering from up there. And since the turret's been recovered, he'd have had to mentioned it if it existed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact that Clancy doesn't mention it is compelling evidence that it didn't exist. Btw, does Clancy say anything about the red signal lantern they recovered? This is what was used to signal the Rhode Island that the Monitor was in trouble. The Mariner's Museum has a picture of it here but they don't say much else about it, however the NOAA site says it was probably the last thing seen as the Monitor went down, yet it was the first item discovered in 1977. Sort of an eerie coincidence. Be nice if this was mentioned in the Recovery section. We have the web sources, but it would be better, imo, if we had a publication with an author's name attached to it for a reference. I'm not very found of 'cite web' sources, They too often turn '404' sooner or later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Page status
At this point opinions are needed as to whether this article is (near) ready to be submitted for GA or FA. If there are still issues with the page we need to hear about them so we can move forward. Citations, or lack thereof, are among the most important, so we should address these first it would seem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections I'm going to nominate the page for GA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses, hoss, this article ain't near ready for GA. I've been moving this last week and haven't had the time to overhaul it as it needs. Won't be able to start on it until next week at the earliest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoooah there! Okay, 'Ben'. I at least thought it might be "near" ready. "Overhaul"?? You seem to be suggesting that the work we've done over the last couple of months is a hatchet job.  What seems to be the main issue(s)? Citations? Prose? I've gone over most of the cites. (new: Aside from the one entry you're still back tracking to find cites for) I don't see any that are in need of attention though some may need to be better placed in line, rather than at the end of the paragraph. I've seen several cites simply listed at the end of a paragraph in GA articles before. Some editors however insist that they be used mid way or at the end of the given sentence. As Clancy and the Discovery and Recovery sections go, that will be your job it seems -- I don't have access to Clancy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel, it's been awhile since you surfaced. Are you settled in yet or what? I'm about to hide the unsourced item you entered and go forward and nominate the page for GA. If there are issues with the page the GA reviewer guys will point them out, I'm sure. -- Gwillhickers 02:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all confident that any GA reviewers will pick up factual issues as how many people know anything about Union ironclads? It's still missing information about the refit and the crew list needs to be reformatted into the body of the article as we've discussed before. As I've mentioned before I'd like to see more info on the roles of rest of the crew like we have for the turret crewmen; can you mine Quarstein to get that info?
 * Insert : By refit I assume you're referring to when the Monitor was sent to the Washington naval yard in September for repairs: This is already covered in the article, in fact I just moved this content and put it in its own section Repairs. Also, if the listing of officers in the crew section becomes an issue then we can scatter their names throughout the text and let the reader sort them out. Listing all the officers in paragraph form should be a welcomed feature. Without it the reader has to hunt and gather. Such a listing exists in other texts. Don't quite understand why we should not have them organized and listed in one location, as well as giving these individuals coverage where appropriate. Don't mean to be difficult, but let's see how this little listing flies (or floats) with the GA guys or whomever. Certainly we don't want to string all the names of the officers into one sentence. -- Gwillhickers 18:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm in the WP:WikiCup and I'm not going to be ready to rework the article for another week or so. Without reviewing the article, I can state that a cite at the end of the paragraph is fine, provided that the entire paragraph used a single source. Multiple sources generally will require multiple cites, unless you used both sources for the entire para. Anybody who tells you different can be told to go piss up a rope. (As you might have guessed, I've run into several of the species, and despise them for attempting to cause me extra work for no valid reason.) If you're all afire to have somebody assess the current state of the article, request a MilHist B-class assessment from WP:MHAR; I'm certain that all the work that you've done has earned it that status; it's just not up to my standards for GA, which isn't much different than FAC, so I'd prefer to settle all our differences about formatting, etc. now, rather than later when I'll want to send it through ACR and FAC as quickly as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I'll do that, and while I'm at it, I ask for their opinion about the listing of officers in the crew section. (✅) -- Good luck with the Wikicup, but if you get a chance, drop in here and give us a hollar. -- Gwillhickers 18:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel I've just finished providing citations for all the CN templates, (Parceboy added a few more when I asked for a quick review) including the one for the passage you entered about the turret jamming from taking hits. My source (Reed, 1869) says the spindle could bend from taking direct hits from heavy shot, anywhere on the turret, not just near the top, so I changed the wording on that note. -- Gwillhickers 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw you added the citation for this bit, but you didn't address the editor's comment I left there. What does "original" mean in that context? It needs to be explained, since Wyoming certainly doesn't belong to the "original" generation of American monitors. Does it simply mean that she was the last of the comparatively large monitors (essentially just excluding the converted LCMs of the Brownwater Navy in Vietnam)? If that's the case, then say that. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the statement altogether. I didn't add it to the article and am wondering what relevance it has. It's referred to as an "original monitor", but was built in 1898 so I too am unclear as to what is meant by "original". It would seem the original Monitors were built during the Civil War and were direct modifications of Ericsson's design. Other than that it's referred to as a "monitor" I see no relevant connection to this article. Does this by itself warrant its mention in this article? Not IMO. We should strike the statement. -- Gwillhickers 15:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd go ahead and cut it, since it doesn't seem to have any relevance to this article (and no one can tell exactly what it's supposed to mean as it is). Parsecboy (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Embedded lists
Just a note to those concerned about the short listing of officers in the Crew section. Such lists are allowed if they sum up various items which are later mentioned in the article. See Manual of Style/Embedded lists and in particular: Manual of Style/Embedded lists. The list used in that example is almost identical to the one in this article. -- Gwillhickers 22:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Image in dispute
The image of the memorial stamp on this page was proposed for deletion more than a month ago. Don't know how much longer it's going to take, but while the we can't nominate this article for GA or FA as the case may be, so it would be helpful to get over there and weigh in, either way, so they can wrap this matter up and we can move forward with this article. -- Gwillhickers 16:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A few comments
Have just had a read of this article at Gwillhickers' request. While I haven't done a thorough review against the GA or FA criteria, I can't see it being far off reaching those standards, and it's a fascinating article and a pleasure to read. The human aspect of the ship is unusually well-covered for a warship article (I imagine there are more sources for this ship than most!). A few comments: Time permitting (I don't have a great deal, sadly...) I would be very happy to help work on these points and get this article where it deserves to go. Great stuff, thanks for all the work that's been going on! The Land (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Towards the beginning of the article, it would be good to put in some of the international context in ironclad-building. In part, this is because it's a common misconception that Monitor was the first ironclad, or that ironclads were an American invention, and this needs to be corrected. But also, it serves to highlight the uniqueness of the monitor design.
 * Towards the end of the article, it would also be good to talk at more length about the impact of the Monitor. This was interestingly different in different countries - the US went monitor-crazy for decades, the RN's breastwork monitors were similar but different, ocean-going turret-ships were problematic for pretty much forever.
 * I have the occasional comment on the prose (for instance in the lead, "new inventions and innovations") - if it would be helpful I could flag these up.
 * Thanks for giving the article a ping. Yes, without coverage of the crew and their involvement the article would look a lot like an inventory list of parts in paragraph form. The crew's activities give added insight into e.g. the pilot house, guns, pumps, etc, and of course the crew is part of the ship and arguably just as notable. Will try to add perspective about the origins of the ironclad concept per reliable sources. I think we can assume that the idea of iron plating, like the wheel, wasn't an idea that came about by one person. The need for it sort of presented itself when the cannon came into the picture. -- Gwillhickers 02:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a hopefully fairly decent account in ironclad warship which suggest some sources. Though that's very general and this article could also include something about the development of Ericsson's own ideas. :- ) The Land (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Statements covering the evolution of the warship prior to the Monitor and the Virgina have just been added,, w/ citations, at the beginning of the Conception section. -- Gwillhickers 08:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Pressure to build quickly
You've misconstrued the need for speed in building with Stanton's, (and others) panic over the destruction of the Cumberland and Congress, which is what Wells, etc., was referring to in his diary. I'm not not inclined to think that that whole bit is worth saving, but it's clearly inappropriate where it currently is and needs to go. The time crunch is referred to in the parts about the approval and construction where her short building time is mentioned, as well as the fact that she didn't quite meet the contractual provisions. I can go back and review the accounts of her building, but I'm not aware of a whole of pressure from Wells, etc.; he sent Stimers and the other guy to supervise the construction and kept careful tabs on her progress, but he wasn't harassing them to get her in the water quickly, as far as I remember.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I recall, they had to agree to get the job done in 100 days. Sounds like they were under pressure, and since they knew about the Confederates building an ironclad I think it would be wrong to assume they were in no hurry to complete the Monitor. I'll go over the cites again. -- Gwillhickers 15:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They were, but you're conflating two issues: The need to beat the Virginia into service, as evidenced by the 100 days in the contract, and the panic after the destruction of the Cumberland and Congress. Since Monitor was already en route when the latter happened, it's not relevant here, although it is relevant to the Battle of Hampton Roads article and the speedy contract is already covered well enough, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They were under pressure from the time the planning took place all the way up to Hampton Roads, so whatever you do, make clear these points. -- Gwillhickers 15:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Conception section
"Antiquity" is vague and we don't have to refer all the way back to the stone age to make the point. Like you have, I prefer to use actual (but not specific) examples, so I'll be restoring I would like to restore the Viking statement: It's a good intro' sentence for the section, it's definitive enough and adds color to the section, while we can keep the important points you've introduced regarding practicality of heavy iron armor per steam power. Also, do we need more than two modern examples? The Vikings example refers to no particular ship or war, as this is the Monitor article. I thought mentioning the French experimenting with Armor during the Napoleonic era (not a particular war or battle) was specific enough. We need to trim one or both of the specific war and battle examples with specific dates and links and make the referrals more general, as I did originally. We should not be making specific referrals by name and date to ships and battles that are not directly involved with the Monitor. i.e.Your British referral is good. -- Gwillhickers 15:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the referral to the Stevens Battery is good, as it involves the US Navy and their changing attitude towards ironclads leading up to the Civil War. -- Gwillhickers 16:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Viking shields were just as often wooden as metallic so I don't want to use that example. There are reports of lead-armored galleys and such in Greek and Roman accounts, but I'd prefer to keep that lead sentence generic as possible as none of it's really relevant to Monitor herself. It's really just a setup for the more concrete details later. The Stevens battery was a dead end, but is important to keep because it shows that the USN was (sorta) interested in ironclads. The floating batteries and Gloire are important because they validated the concept and showed that it worked. Without them, nobody probably would have been interested in untried technology. They also establish the European context that the Land mentioned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's just a "setup for the more concrete details later", the Viking example, whether they used wood or metal shields, conveys the idea for the age old need of armor protection on warships, as again "antiquity" is far too vague and offers no example of this age old need at all. Yes, as I've said, the Stevens battery is well suited, per the US Navy and the same general time period involved, however, the specific battles and wars with names, dates and links with no connection to the Civil War, let alone the Monitor, needs to be changed to more general referrals. The French experiments during the Napoleonic era, with Britain responding in kind is general, yet specific enough, and works well. Mention of the Stevens Battery should then follow, as it came after. Currently the section refers to the Stevens Battery before the name/date specific examples you've listed in the lede paragraph. Mention of the practicality of ironclad per steam power is an excellent addition. We have enough general examples to convey the idea that ironclad ships didn't originate with the Monitor and Virginia and was an idea that developed over the course of naval history. -- Gwillhickers 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Vikings as a more specific reference adds more, but whatever. I'm not gonna fight you on it. Same with the Napoleonic Wars stuff. The specifics for the Crimean War and Gloire need to stay, whatever your feelings, as they explain the general climate that caused Monitor, Virginia, and the other American ironclads to be selected over unarmored alternatives.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "general climate" for armor protection was always there, per the need for it -- the Civil War is what put the match to it for the American navies, north and south, not the Crimean war or that other battle. If you are going to use specific examples, with specific names, dates and links, then at least we should provide an example to show that this idea goes well back into naval history during Viking or Roman times. If not the Viking example then perhaps Greek or Roman. Whatever. The first sentence should give the readers something tangible and offer a way to spark interest and draw them into the section. "Antiquity" is fuzzy and doesn't quite cut it. Vikings, Greeks or Romans, does. Which one shouldn't be an issue. If you can better tie in the Crimean war, then I can go along with that, but we don't need two specific modern examples not tied in with the US Navy and the Civil War. No fighting here. Just the testing of ideas. -- Gwillhickers 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The real need for armor didn't arise until Paixhans developed his shell gun in 1827 and the subsequent improvements in gun tech that made any conceivable amount of wood penetrable, but it really wasn't worth the cost to pursue armor tech without imminent danger of a war. Forex, the failure to complete the Stevens Battery in the face of escalating costs. The Crimean War proved that armor worked and was proof against shell guns. If that's not relevant to Monitor than I don't know what is and goes right to The Land's request for more context for its development.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting stuff. As I said, I can go along with mention of the Crimean war if we can tie it in with  the Civil War/Monitor with better wording. i.e.Did Ericsson ever acknowledge this war in his attempt to sell his Monitor? Anyone? As the first intro sentence goes, I will be the first to admit that this is remote to the Monitor itself, but again, serves to bring context to the idea of armor protection throughout naval history and leads into the section nicely, imo. It would be nice if we could give the readers more than a reference to "antiquity". -- Gwillhickers 00:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article as it shows right now ( very appetizing piece ), I do not see any advantage at finding the word "Viking" in it. That would be like reading "fish" ? But SV, I do not fully agree with your restrictive deduction about the floating batteries. They showed that it worked but the metallic hulls were there in the meantime and everybody were crazy about innovations. --Askedonty (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have done our best to make this article an exceptional and in depth piece of history writing, the envy of the internet as Monitor accounts go, so it doesn't come off reading like a police report or some auto-generated, copy-reword-paste job with generic and truncated prose at every juncture. I'm sure there is room for improvement but it was nice to hear that it was, uh, edible. Coffee? :-) -- Gwillhickers 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regarding alternative history I was just thinking that even if Crimea had been a disaster the idea would probably still have been tempting and also there is not that much in common between Monitor and La Gloire. In fact considering the question of costs of course Sturmvogel66 is very probably right. Is it known where the Confederate took the pieces of armor for Virginia from ? --Askedonty (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Confederates used old railroad ties and had them flattened into bars a few inches wide at the Forge in Norfolk, and then laid them about vertically and bolted them around a wooded casemate. The innovations that came out of this war are fascinating. -- Gwillhickers 00:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the armor was old railroad ties, but it was all reforged into 2-inch bars in the Tredegar Iron Works in Virginia and then shaped to fit (if necessary) in the Naval Yard at Gosport. The bars were laid in two layers, vertically and horizontally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, built in Norfolk, but the armor was forged in Richmond. According to the CSS Virginia info box, the bars were four inches. Perhaps four inches wide, two inches thick? In any case, I noticed that the Monitor article nor the Virginia article doesn't mention anything about the production of Virginia's armor. We might want to at least commit a sentence to Virginia's armor in comparison to Monitor's armor for context. Perhaps in the section that mention's they were pounding each other at close range. -- Gwillhickers 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Intro to section
Reference to 'antiquity' is ambiguous and lead sheathing on Greek or Roman galleys is also not a good example for the intro simply because the use of lead sheathing was primarily used for water tightness and protection against the Mediterranean shipworm. ( 1 The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima, 1994, p.201, 2 New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare, 2010, p.267 ) Unlike shields hung over the sides, lead sheathing on the sides of a ship offered no protection for the men on the open deck during battle. We don't have to go all the way back into antiquity to demonstrate the need for armor protection in battle, the Viking era is a suitable example and serves well as an intro for the idea of the age old need for armor protection and is an example used in a reliable source about the Monitor. Also, if we can tie in the Crimean War efforts better with American Civil War concerns that would be another improvement. As the statement presently reads we are asking the reader to assume that the Crimean War is what prompted efforts made in the Civil War. Considering the same general time frame of both wars this is not unreasonable but it would be better if we could make a definitive connection if possible. For starters I'll look into sources on Ericsson to see what I can come up with. -- Gwillhickers 10:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Have found a source that connects Ericsson's ideas of ironclad armor with those of the French and added it to the section. (The Monitor and the Navy Under Steam, Bennett, 1900, p.640) -- Gwillhickers 10:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your link to Bennett, p. 64 is broken.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I fear the conceptual similarity between the Viking's shields and ship armor might have something of a a kind of a XIXth century urban legend, in the way of a flattering, perhaps iconic, image for navies at the time. The purpose of the disposition was rather the protection of the warriors/rowers from behind the upper half of the shield, than by the bottom half. That disposition dispensed with the need of a parapet, and permitted swiftness of the boat, a bit like in some countries there is made usage of particular sport cars on speedy highways for law enforcement. -Askedonty (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The strenght of the image is also due however to the visibility of the military exercise which was linking men to boat, merging them into one machinery, but this is where antiquity was an equaly valid referal. --Askedonty (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally although there is no precise indication that ship armor has ever been more or less successfully developped during Antiquity the common hypothesis about it is not that the idea had been made without: ( A History of Ironclads). I'm still expecting to find perhaps more about lead sheating. It seems that they were plates. One author, Bradley Workman-Davies, writes that they might have been manageable enough to be removed during campaign: A Review of the Design and Use of the Roman Boarding Bridge, and he is suggesting they had a partially protective role in case of ramming. --Askedonty (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Most ships of antiquity were galleys and those used in war were often made into rams. In any case, the Conception section is still missing info about Ericsson who entertained ideas of ironclad vessels and guns on rotating mounts back in 1846. I'm reading up and getting clear on a few chronologically placed items on this in a couple of sources, one of which is Church, 1911, pp.177-178, etc. Ericsson's Princeton had a lot to do with ideas that led up to the ironclad Monitor. -- Gwillhickers 18:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Princeton was a conventional wooden ship using Ericsson's engines, screw and a gun that he designed. How does this relate to the Monitor? Ericsson had been building steam engines and screw propellers for almost a decade by then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Though Princeton was not an ironclad it is what convinced the navy to move forward with steam powered ships. As you know it also had a propeller and swivel guns mounts. I don't wish to say that this ship by itself is what gave birth to the Monitor design but it did play a role given many of its basic similarities, the most obvious of which that it was a steam powered warship, allowing it to deal with greater weight. The apparent tone of your question seems to suggest that the Princeton was a rowboat. -- Gwillhickers 21:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that she was the first steam-powered ship in the Navy. However, considering that she was quickly scrapped for rotten timbers and that the accident left Ericsson under a pall with the Navy for the next 15 years, I'm not sure how much weight to assign it as steam propulsion was coming regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Meeting of Mary Touvestre with Welles
Do you have a firmer date on when this meeting happened? In Feb. 1862 Monitor was either fitting out or on trials. An exact date might help to confirm if Welles really did push for Monitor's early completion as Allen alleges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources have you checked? -- Gwillhickers 20:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You added that part, I haven't checked it at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not feeling very obliging at this moment. If you need to confirm what one source says with another source or need an exact day date you are free to look for one. -- Gwillhickers 21:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but be advised that this section may be moved to the construction section, depending on the date of the meeting, and if I can confirm Allen's story about pressure. That may explain the minimal trials that the ship had, but I'm gonna need a smoking gun like a letter from Welles to link the two together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing in Welles or Thompson. Found it, although Allen doesn't even mention any dates. Davis 1975 mentions that they met around 2 February, a few days after Monitor was launched. However, the kicker is that Welles didn't order Monitor to Hampton Roads until 20 Feb., five days before she officially commissioned. Seems hard to make that into any additional pressure. Davis does, though, give a good account of info received on the Virginia that might be useful to condense and add to the construction section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Content in question
If there are issues with any cited content we need to hear about it before anyone simply makes massive deletions. i.e. A cooperative effort. If there are items that are not clear, or not cited as well as they could be, or at all, we have 'citation needed' and other such tags for this purpose. -- Gwillhickers 20:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We already discussed above how that bit wasn't appropriate; its deletion should be no surprise. Redeleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You posed questions about urgency, which were addressed. No mention of what was or wasn't appropriate or what should be deleted was mentioned. If there are items that do not belong, kindly point to these items. I have always been reasonable, flexible and have made compromises with you in the past -- this approach of yours now is the only surprise. -- Gwillhickers 21:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your response was: "They were under pressure from the time the planning took place all the way up to Hampton Roads, so whatever you do, make clear these points. -- Gwillhickers 15:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)" I'm doing what I'm going to do, but perhaps you didn't expect me to be so ruthless. We're all heroes in our own story and I've been reasonable, flexible, and have compromised as well. I don't like the bit with the Vikings as I don't think it's a good antecedent nor particularly relevant, but you seem to think that it's important so I'm not gonna argue with you about it anymore.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We were discussing urgency and your massive deletion, never mentioned, not the Vikings intro which shouldn't have been an issue. I said make clear these points, regarding urgency. Wiping out the paragraph entirely is your idea of making things 'clear'? This is your idea of 'reasonable'?  -- Gwillhickers
 * I mentioned the Vikings bit to show that I'm not exactly operating unilaterally here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you kindly explain why you decided to remove the entire paragraph in question? After several appeals you have yet to do this. All you've done was raise a question about any urgency for Monitor's speedy completion, even though this idea has been cited. A day later (today) you make the leap to delete the entire paragraph. I've tried to restore these deletions but you keep reverting with no discussion that would explain why all this cited material needs to be removed from the page. You had a question about an exact day date, but this hardly explains, let alone justifies, the removal of an entire paragraph. Would you please explain why the entire paragraph should be removed?  Are there any factual errors? Is there something that can't be fixed? Any lack of citations? You haven't said anything there. All you've done is raise a question about an exact day date, as if this justifies the deletion of the entire paragraph, the contents of which has been cited by several Reliable Sources. I'm going to restore this important info. If you have any issues please articulate them and don't make a fourth deletion which would violate the 3RR rule. Must it come to this? We've come this far with no major issues in the past Is this something we can't manage?  Disappointed. -- Gwillhickers 23:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This was all discussed earlier. The bulk of the paragraph pertained to stuff that happened when Cumberland and Congress were sunk the day before Monitor arrived. As she was already en route it's not pertinent to this article, although it's relevant to the overall Battle of Hampton Roads article. As such there's no need for this material.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Battle of Hampton Roads forms the heart of this article and is what made the Monitor famous in epic proportions. Without that battle Monitor, though the first one built, would have been just another Monitor class ship performing blockade or naval support duty and this article would be little more than your average warship's article. The urgency and events that occurred after the initial battle are just as important to this article as they are to the article that only covers that battle. i.e.There are nearly a dozen dedicated pages devoted to Thomas Jefferson: Presidency, slavery, Monticello, Declaration of Independence, Louisiana Purchase, etc, etc. By your way of thinking, the entire Jefferson article, more than 30 pages in length, should only be a few paragraphs long. The Battle of Hampton Roads article is more than ten pages long. Coverage here is only about two+ pages. The text you want removed should be placed in that section instead. -- Gwillhickers 04:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a much more reasonable argument, though I'd still tend to disagree that it needs to be included at all in this article as opposed to the overall Battle of Hampton Roads article because the ship had already set sail and couldn't be moved any faster. If you could link all that to Monitor being ordered south sooner or completed faster, you'd have a damn good case for treating that material in the way that you did. But nobody's established that link yet, and until one of us does, I don't think it should be in this article. As for your characterization of my writing; it is to laugh. I've got an A-class review going now for a battleship that fired all of four shells in combat in her entire career that's 20K long. I just believe in focusing on the ship itself and you like to add a whole bunch of material that I think is irrelevant or extraneous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though Stanton's raving occurred after the fact there was still an urgency for this sort of thing before the fact, which is why the Monitor was launched with its turret needing work, before the Battle of Hampton Roads. Yes, many ships are launched with minor items that need tending to, but I think it's safe to assume that once they learned about the Confederate ironclad nearing completion the urgency was heightened. Anyways, I wasn't poking at your writing, it's very good, just your reasoning for removing material completely. IMO, the crew, Ericsson, Lincoln, Stanton, etc are just as (perhaps more) important as the ship, because as I said before, without these people the ship would be a lifeless hulk sitting in a shipyard collecting barnacles. Most reliable sources cover the crew's and other notables' involvement well, esp when they act heroically. They make the story, the history. The parts, nuts and bolts are just the stuff in between the lines. While I am fascinated with the turret, armor, pumps, guns, etc they don't make the history by them self. To focus on these things is akin to making out an inventory list. This is an article about history. The Monitor went down in history (no pun) because of the men who built her, and because of the crew who gave her direction. That is my position. -- Gwillhickers 05:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of shorting anyone their deserved place in history and those who deserve it will be mentioned, be it for clearing the engine airbox or replacing Worden after he was wounded. But I think that it's best to integrate those people into the main body rather than simply listing them; I see little reason to list people who did nothing noteworthy (And being on the ship isn't noteworthy at all). That said, I'd be interested in expanding the crew section to explain how it was organized; we already do that for the turret crew, but what about the engineers, etc.? Quarstein lists everybody aboard the Monitor, surely we can put together something like: "there were 15 stokers, with one of the 3rd assistant engineers in charge, etc.? I think that we're just coming at things from different angles; I'm a bit stricter and you're a bit looser.
 * We also have be careful about not doing original research, just because we think something happened for X reason, doesn't make it something we can put into the article without evidence to back it up. Forex you're making a very reasonable conclusion that the news of the Virginia's impending completion caused work on the Monitor to be sped up. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. She was launched with her turret unfinished, which was perfectly normal. No extra workmen were hired in Jan-Feb. to hurry her along, according to Thompson's account of her building. And I just reviewed the correspondence regarding Monitor as she was being finished and there's nothing there pushing to get her down to Norfolk. To review: Welles orders her to Hampton Roads on 20 Feb, 5 days before she's even commissioned, but no date is specified. Steering problems as they attempt to depart on 27 Feb. Second trial conducted successfully on 4 March, and Welles orders her south again, again with no date specified, but she doesn't leave for another two days. So where's the urgency? I'm seeing Welles give Worden and the Monitor all the time that he needs to feel that his ship is ready. There's no smoking gun here and anyone who says that there was is wrong unless they have documents to support their argument. Which Allen, in particular, does not. One of our main jobs here is to sort through all the info provided by various historians, many of whom disagree with each other, and use the info that seems best documented. You seem far too trusting of historians, IMO, who are just as flawed and biased as we are ourselves; just because something makes it into print doesn't mean that it's right, so we need to use a critical eye to evaluate the information that each historian provides. So historian A while may be correct about X and Y, that doesn't make him right about Z. And if historians C and D disagree about Z, and C provides supporting documents, but D doesn't, guess what, C is far more likely to be correct than D's unsupported assertion. And we can resolve the disagreement we put the dispute in a footnote of our own and let the reader decide/follow up on his own.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to make these points. I am well aware of what we can and can't do with sources, including primary sources. As original research goes, we can make obvious deductions so long as we do not synthesize and advance a new position or otherwise change the meaning of any given statement in a source. i.e.If one source says Apple trees grow on Smith Hill, and another source says Orange trees grow on Smith Hill, we are allowed to make an obvious deduction and say Fruit trees grow on Smith Hill as we are not "advancing a new position". As conflicting sources go, you seem to be suggesting that we need to have two or three citations where ever there is only one. Lot's of fun involved there. There are at least three examples where I mentioned in footnotes or text the varying accounts from sources: One concerning Mary Touvestre (footnote b), the other with repelling boarders with scalding water (mentioned in text) and another about the length of time the Battle of Hampton Roads lasted (footnote l). In any case your concerns are not taken lightly. -- Gwillhickers 19:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified a point, that it was urgent to get the Monitor to Hampton Roads. The Union was warned by Mary in late Feb. Monitor departed from New York March 6. Sounds like they wasted little time to get her moving. I read somewhere that they were still working on things when she departed from New York. Will try to locate that item again. Also, Stodder is quoted as saying she was hastily constructed when he expressed doubts that the vessel would float. -- Gwillhickers 23:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mary meets Welles on 2 Feb like I said above. Welles orders Monitor south on 20 Feb, even though she's not commissioned until 25 Feb. Presumably to happen after she's passed trials, etc. Hard to say that there was any real urgency with this timeline. Stodder wasn't the only one dubious that she'd float, lots of professionals thought so as well. So much so that I added that bit about the launching.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, these were events occurring in the midst of war, so there was urgency already. Now you're expressing doubts that even after it's learned that the Confederates have nearly completed their own ironclad there was 'still' no urgency, even while she was launched while work was still being performed?? Right. Btw, Stodder was mentioned just as a supporting reference to Monitor's hasty completion. That was all, and this should have been obvious. The issue here wasn't whether she would float or not so there's no need to make remarks about Stodder's "tantrum". -- Gwillhickers 03:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Read it again. Stodder didn't have a tantrum, Stanton did. No, I'm expressing doubts that there was any additional sense of urgency because of Virginia's imminent completion because I'm not seeing any additional communications from Welles demanding that she be finished any sooner or things like the hiring of extra workmen, etc. But I'm going to go through the ORN and see what documents it provides. Ships are almost always launched incomplete; with Monitor, her turret still needed to be assembled for one thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Urgency to build
According to Clancy, 2013, the Confederate effort to build the Merrimack into an ironclad was no secret:
 * It was no secret what they were up to. Northern newspapers covered the progress of the new naval menace like a daily soap opera and the union at last tuned in with a hurry-up program to put iron on the water. Clancy, Ironclad: The Epic Battle ... in the Dark monster chapter. (page numbers not viewable)

The concern for what the Virginia could do as an ironclad was not just based on what happened at Hampton Roads. The paragraph that was being disputed was not entirely out of place, though it did need clarification as to where the various concerns came from. Fears about ascending the Potomac were indeed based on the Battle of Hampton Roads, so the section covering this is where the passage in question has been added, with some rewording. -- Gwillhickers 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, I've added a statement about coverage of Virginia's progress in Northern newspapers in the Conception section and sourced it with Clancy, 2013, but the page numbers are not viewable, so all I could do is cite the chapter (Dark Monster) in which the information is found. As you have Clancey's book, would you supply the actual page number? -- Gwillhickers 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Garrison
I have Garrison's Civil War Curiosities, 1994, in hand, and the Bibliography is pretty impressive. Along with many standard references it is loaded with primary sources. i.e.Correspondence from Secretary Fox, several diaries, Memoirs of Dahlgren, Grant, McClellan, Sheridan, Gustave and others. Will see if these sources can give us any more insights as to any provisions used to repel boarders. Boarding ships is an age old tactic used in naval battle. I find it a little difficult to believe that this wasn't given any consideration when the Monitor was being built, esp with the crew confined in such a structure. Always relying on other ships to come to your aid is a (very) chancey prospect, esp if these ships (assuming they're always nearby) have their own problems to contend with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In order to put together those neat stories and trivia, you have to be pretty widely read just to find them. Kudos to him, but I'd have to wonder if he cross-checks them against other sources and historians. I think the idea of using steam against boarders was pretty popular, but more talked about than actually implemented. Provided you can lock your entrance hatches and use your port stoppers there's not much that boarders can do if your crew is armed, which, IIRC, Monitor and the other monitors were.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read just the other day that once aboard an enemy could do much. Wet rags down the smoke stack, grenades down into the vents and/or smoke stack (Monitor didn't have a long stack in place during battle: it'd be very easy to put 'objects' into it) or through the gun ports. Kerosene could be poured down the vents. (Got a match?) In any case, let me see what I can come up with so we can nail this topic down either way. If any thing we can always say that ideas for repelling boarders using scalding water were discussed but reports are conflicting as to whether there was any actual provisions to do so on the ship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A few comments
Here are some comments that may be useful for the GAN and future reviews you may plan on doing:
 * Please watch for duplicate links, quite a few of which are currently in the article.
 * Ship names should always be italicized - I caught a few examples of this, but there may be more.
 * Since this is an article about an American warship, American spellings should be used - I fixed a couple of these in the Legacy section.
 * The definite article is sometimes used before a ship's name, other times it is not. One should be standardized - I'd recommend dropping them (since one wouldn't refer to a person with the definite article), but that's my opinion.
 * It would be helpful to explain to the reader what exactly was happening with Merrimack/Virginia up front - the reader has to go through a whole paragraph before they're even told that Virginia started out as Merrimack. Few readers will already know this.
 * The line about Vikings needs to go - you're talking apples and oranges here. It'd be like connecting early bronze helmets with the need for modern infantry to have head protection from shell splinters. So many things changed between the two that the comparison is completely meaningless. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and effort here. Regarding the Virginia - Merrimack, it says right off in the lede that the Virginia was the former Merrimack. Links, I'll check on these. Sometimes I'll add a second link if it's an important topic and the links occur in different sections that are far apart. I believe MOS specifies this, but I'll look for others. Re: the Vikings analogy. It only makes a simple reference to the need for armor, whether it be a need for protection against arrows, spears or cannonballs, but okay, I was given a similar opinion before by another editor, so I'll look for a better analogy. Need one that goes back in time a little bit, however. Any suggestions off hand? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a "definite article" before a ships name. Isn't the ship's name the article itself? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean the definite article, grammatically speaking ;) Sometimes, for instance, it's "the Monitor", other times it's just "Monitor". As for links, the relevant section in the MOS is WP:OVERLINK - either way, gun turret is linked in successive paragraphs for example, and that is excessive by any yardstick. And on Merrimarck/Virginia, yes, but it doesn't explain how the ship came to be in Confederate hands (and more troubling, the paragraph in the body just jumps in, assuming that the reader knows what's going on).
 * The problem with the comparison to Vikings (or basically anything else) is that there's the very long period where ships were completely unarmored (beyond what the wood itself provided, of course) and there was no need to armor them. The need for armor arose completely from the Paixhans gun (and derivatives thereof), and any comparison between earlier attempts to armor ships (even with the allegedly iron-armored turtle ships) is inappropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have been making the changes.
 * Have removed the Viking shield analogy.
 * Removed some duplicate links. Still checking for others. Duplicate links will be used (no more than twice) and only for important items when the linked topic is in a separate section far away from the first link. This was once stipulated in MOS but I see it has since been removed. If this becomes a sore issue I'll go along, but it seems we would be doing the reader a service if an important topic was linked more than once in some cases where it's practical, imo.
 * Using The Monitor vs Monitor, by itself. I am not a fan of truncated phraseology -- it makes the narrative read like a police report, so I would prefer using The Monitor, using the same convention for other ship's names. Will wait for some feed back on that before any changes are made there.
 * The Merrimack to Virginia conversion: The lede is not the place to get into actual details, and the conversion is explained in the first section following the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: Merrimack/Virginia - I wasn't asking for more details in the lead, it's the first section I'm talking about. It starts:
 * "The Union Navy's attitude towards ironclads changed quickly when it was learned that the Confederates were building one of their own. The urgency of Monitor's completion and deployment to Hampton Roads was driven by fears of what the ironclad Virginia would be capable of doing..."
 * I don't think that suitably explains what was going on, since it sounds like the Confederates were building an ironclad from scratch. It would be better to state up front that the Confederates were rebuilding a salvaged Union frigate, Merrimack, into the casemate ironclad Virginia.
 * Also Merrimack isn't mentioned until:
 * "Word of her reconstruction was confirmed in the North in late February 1862 when Mary Louveste of Norfolk, Virginia, a freed slave who worked as a housekeeper for one of the Confederate engineers working on Merrimack"
 * This assumes the reader knows that Merrimack and Virginia are the same ship. I can guarantee you that very few will already know this, and they will be confused why we're talking about two different Confederate ships.
 * On links - there are still redundant links to draft and freeboard in successive paragraphs. And as for "the", it's not truncated, it's just a different style - the name of a ship is treated like the name of a person, and there's only one idiot I know of who uses the definite article with his name ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are the new statements (w/ changes in bold):


 * The Union Navy's attitude towards ironclads changed quickly when it was learned that the Confederates were converting the captured Merrimack to an ironclad at the naval shipyard in Norfolk
 * Word of her reconstruction and conversion was confirmed in the North in late February 1862 when Mary Louveste ...


 * Zapped some links. Looking for other dup's.
 * Okay, except for the first sentence in the lede, I'll use Idiot instead of The Idiot. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, it's normal to use "the" if you're saying something like "the casemate ironclad Virginia" or "the battleship Bismarck" and whatnot.
 * Your changes with Merrimack/Virginia looks good to me.
 * There's a handy tool that helps you find redundant links - it's at User:Ucucha/duplinks. If you want to use it, just follow the instructions there, and it adds a button in your tool box on the left. It's easiest if you open the page in two browser tabs, turn on the tool in one, and then edit the article in the other. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers in source listings
No problems with contaminated data, or anything else, would occur by placing the page number outside of the cite book template, which would display the number of pages at the end of a given source listing. Below is an example of the markup.

*, 191 pages

Which would display the publication like so:


 * , 191 pages

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. And then what happens?  If you implement your suggestion, does some industrious editor come along and clean up after you, neatly putting all those page numbers into pages inside the templates?  You could, I suppose, leave a hidden note:   or some such, but it's my experience that industrious editors ignore those kinds of notes.  Also, notice the extraneous punctuation between the end of the citation and the number of pages.


 * Seems best to me to just delete the stuff and have done.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The |page= (single page) and |pages= (page range) is used to cite the actual page number(s) when cite book is used as a citation in the text. As I've said, been listing page numbers for years with no issues, or "cleanup", from anyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Now what? Is there some policy that says we have to hide url's to books that are not viewable? Maybe the reader might want to check out any reviews, or even purchase the book. Please restore the url's, or I will. -- Gwillhickers (talk)


 * The citations are in the article to support the article. A link in a citation implies that readers can view supporting information by following the link.  If the linked Google books page turns out to be a non-preview page, then the reader is disappointed.


 * In part, this is why I asked about Baxter where the oclc identifier and the courtesy link pointed to different editions and why I said that I wouldn't have made the choice that you did. With the Naval Institute edition, Google books has a preview; not so with the Archon, though that matches the oclc identifier.  After you changed Baxter to Archon, when I clicked the citation's title I was disappointed to find that I couldn't go any further because there was nothing to see there.  If the Naval Institute edition supports the article, I would suggest that it should be the source, not the Archon.


 * While it doesn't directly address this particular issue, one might infer from the similar issue addressed at WP:CITE and the linked RfC that we ought not link to non-preview pages at Google books.


 * I'm sure that there may be a few readers who might wish to read reviews of, or purchase, a book but they would seem the rare case. And, Wikipedia ought not be in the business of facilitating book sales so I don't find these reasons to be particularly persuasive.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's also rare that anyone will be concerned with COinS, library software, etc. In any case, since these particular url's do not link to a book that's viewable, I have no problems with keeping them hid, if you're insisting. If anything, these url's tell the reader that they can't check on a statement using these particular sources. Without them, they're left wondering why a few of the url's are missing. Anyway, no biggie. Again, thanks for all the time and help you've extended. Hope we can get this review rolling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)