Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS New Ironsides/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011.

USS New Ironsides

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because there hasn't been much love for ships of the ironclad era at FAC or anywhere else on Wiki. It's about time that the predecessors of the modern battleships got their due, IMHO. I plan to start improving more ironclad articles in time for the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War. This ship was the closest equivalent to the British ocean-going ironclads like HMS Warrior (1860) that the Union Navy built during the war. This article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and hopefully doesn't require much work to pass muster. I look forward to working with the reviewers to improve the article, but I'd ask that they be specific as possible so I can more readily fix whatever issues need to be fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Also see the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I copyedited this recently, and I'm looking over the new edits. The capitalization on "the First and Second Battles of Charleston Harbor" is problematic, because as a rule of thumb, plural things are never proper nouns (unless you're referring to something collectively, which you aren't here).  I don't have anything that feels definitive in my usual go-to guides, I'm going to nose around ... if anyone wants to make an argument one way or the other, please do.  I may recommend "the First Battle and Second Battle of Charleston Harbor", despite the repetition. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave it like it is since I've seen it capitalized that way in sources, although this won't suit Chicago purists. I'm finished for now, and it's looking very good. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per standard disclaimer. I checked the new edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * CrowzRSA comments
 * ISBN 1851776248 is invalid.
 * Fixed.
 * The "$" in the infobox and the "Design and description" section should link to United States Dollar, or it should look like "(USD) $1"
 * I don't think that there's any possibility of confusion considering that this is about a US warship.
 * The "Medals of Honor" section's introduction line should end with a period, not a colon.
 * I'm not so sure about that since the list follows the introductory sentence.
 * References should only go after punctuation.
 * I'm not seeing any refs anywhere else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all I saw that stood out. Crowz  RSA  23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support
 * Who's support is this please? I can't tell without stepping back through diffs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Kirk's, judging by his 15:27, 15 April 2011 comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Add citations in the infobox.
 * Everything in the infobox is cited in the main body.
 * Sponsor, type are not cited in the body. The day is missing from the decommmission date.
 * Good catch, added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The type broadside ironclad both looks and sounds weird; I would double check that - Armored frigate/sloop sounds more accurate to me; Roberts calls it a high-freeboard ironclad to contrast it with the monitor ironclad. Also, it was a unique ship, that doesn't help!
 * Broadside ironclad is a technical term relating to the layout of her armor and guns; it has nothing to do with her role. Armored frigate is questionable because she was so much smaller than most of the broadside ironclads of the time. She's closest in size to the armored corvettes like the French ironclad Belliqueuse and I don't want to get into trying to define an armored frigate here since the definition of a frigate is pretty nebulous. Especially the border between frigate/sloop/corvette.
 * Sondhaus, p. 85 calls New Ironsides an armored frigate or a broadside battery frigate.
 * Do you have a citation for that term? The wikilink uses the citation I posted above for the term and its not in the book (a problem!).  Sondhaus and Roberts use the term Armored Frigate more often than their other variations, so that's probably your best bet for simplicty - remove the wikilink and add a citation - its in Roberts on page ix, 8, 131, 172, 178 if you don't want to add Sondhaus.
 * Sure, Chesneau and Kolesnik, p. 118. It's widely used in books that cover non-American ironclads as it was the dominant form of the first generation of ocean-going European ironclads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be true but there's obviously a lack of consensus among historians for the type of this ship (I just found ironclad screw steamer in Sweetman's American Naval History) - maybe other editors have a suggestion what to put in the infobox when there's no clear authority for the type of a unique ship? Kirk (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing about nomenclatures in this period is cast in stone except ironclad or armored. Ironclad screw steamer isn't incorrect, but focuses on her propulsion and armor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The FA article HMS Ark Royal (91) has a type of Unique aircraft carrier so probably for this article I would have put Unique ironclad; I'm gathering from the lack of comments the type is fine as-is. Kirk (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the ram should be in the infobox.
 * I disagree, it's a passive weapon.
 * That's fair; note not all your sources even mention the ram and its not in DANFS - I guess Canney has his top secret sources.
 * $780,000 sounds expensive but is probably right (another missing citation). Some of the cost discussion in on Roberts,1999, p. 123, which is worth adding to the article.
 * The cost is cited with the rest of the stuff at the end of the paragraph. I don't see that comparing cost effectiveness on the basis of cost per gun with all the other Union ironclads is particularly interesting or useful since they were designed to do different things.
 * Speaking of cost and type; the Navy built a lot of coastal monitors and no ships based on New Ironsides (p. 125, plus chapter 10), probably worth a mention.
 * I don't really want to get into monitor fever and the like, all of which falls outside the scope of this article.
 * I would think the reason it was a unique ship is in the scope of the article. A lot of your sources look at the Galena, Monitor and New Ironsides together. Kirk (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the first few paragraphs of the Design and Description section compare the three ships well enough. And I don't know of anything that specifically states why no other ship of her type were built, other than the Navy leadership got all hot and bothered about monitors after Hampden Roads.
 * I disagree but we'll see what other editors think on this point after a week or so. Kirk (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I dislike the Medals of Honor section; its unclear why they got their medals and is kind of a minor fact and not really about the ship; I would have suggest merging that section's sentence into the service section (going to look at the citations...). Kirk (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the actual medal citations are not helpful. Kirk (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly indifferent if they're retained or not, but I'm not sure what other people feel.
 * The flag officer of the ironclad division and the Captain of New Ironclad in 1864-1865, Commodore William Radford, needs to be in there somewhere ...Kirk (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That I can probably squeeze in there somewhere. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you break out citation 25 for the individual sentences? I don't think all the information in that paragraph is on each one of those pages. Kirk (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted page 18 as it wasn't relevant.
 * Not much has changed here so I'll check back next week. Kirk (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Switched to support, although a couple points are still open for discussion; specifically if high cost compared with Monitor contributed to this being a unique vessel. Kirk (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Images Sources Sources are of good quality, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:NewIronsides.jpg - what is the author's date of death? Also, why does this image retain its preexisting caption and the other image had its caption removed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't find date of death in Library of Congress listing. Last publication on OCLC is dated 1919.
 * Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names or not
 * "United States, Naval War Records Office" - either remove the comma or reorder
 * Done and Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I supported this article's promotion to A class, and it has since been improved so I think that the FA criteria are met here. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - there's still some overlinking IMO, but it's not sufficient to prevent me from supporting. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Leaning support - Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Double-check wikilinking in the lead, as something odd is happening with the Fort Fisher links
 * Fixed.
 * What do you mean by "risk factors"?
 * Rephrased.
 * Is her beam 57 feet or 57.5?
 * Good catch.
 * What is "decoupled"? "on station"? Check for terms potentially unfamiliar to non-specialists
 * Dealt with.
 * Very common terms like nickname need not be linked
 * Agreed.
 * Charleston harbor or Harbor? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Support with one nitpick. Is the external link to the DANFS article in any way helpful? This article is much more comprehensive than the DANFS article is. Brad (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a second round of looking and the article is overlinked. Things like common measurements, gunpowder and Christmas Day aren't very helpful but these are only a few examples. Brad (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll grant you Christmas Day, but I suspect that there are plenty of people who don't know much more about gunpowder than the name. As for the measurements, you'll need to be more specific. About the only one that I noticed as linked at all was long ton, which will remain since there are more than one variety of ton, or tonne, if you're British.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

'Comments Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "pressure of 20 - 25 psi". The third (kgf) value looks unnecessary to me.
 * Actually in my limited reading of post-metricization(sp?) British naval books, kg/cm2 is used more often that kPa.
 * Interesting. I'll defer to your knowledge which, although limited, is greater than mine. Thanks for the update. Lightmouse (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "3,000 pounds (1,360.8 kg) of gunpowder". One significant figure is paired with five. Precision is part art and part science. In this case, I think five is excessive and two is probably enough.
 * Good catch, that should have been a -1 in the template. Thanks for looking the article over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * "In July 1861, after the United States received word of the construction of the Confederate casemate ironclad, CSS Virginia, Congress authorized $1.5 million to build one or more armored steamships on 3 August." I just don't understand that sentence at all. What does it mean? That the ships were to be built on 3 August?
 * (Scratches head). - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In July 1861 ... Congress authorized $1.5 million to build one or more armored steamships on 3 August". Does that really make sense to you? Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't know what it's saying. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better, but it's still not right; they didn't appropriate the money to have the ships built on August 3, or inded to have them built on any other day. On August 3 they appropriated the money to have the ships built. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved the date, but it still seems a bit awkward to me. Perhaps, I'm just too close to it to see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was indeed awkward; I've moved the date to where I think it should be. Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Merrick & Sons was awarded the contract for the ship on 15 October 1861 at a cost of $780,000 ...". That's not quite right; it didn't cost $780,000 to award the contract.
 * This "at a cost of" stuff does come from sources about ships, which is why it keeps showing up in Milhist articles. But I'm with you on this one, I'm used to the shorter "a  $780,000 contract".  Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "But the Navy was less than impressed by the performance of 9-inch Dahlgrens ...". "... but the navy did not invoke the penalty for late delivery". Need to be consistent with capitalisation.
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * "They evaluated 17 different designs, but recommended the selection of only three on 16 September." Just checking that the recommendation of three from 17 candidate designs was/is unusually small proportion. If not, can you make it "and recommended three, on 16 September."?
 * Done.
 * "The revolutionary USS Monitor was the riskiest design, selected by virtue of its low freeboard, iron hull, rotating gun turret and total dependence on steam power, but its designer, John Ericsson, guaranteed delivery in only 100 days." I don't quite understand the meaning, but a few queries: (1) the design was "revolutionary" and "risky"? Is it clear to the readers why a low freeboard, etc, were revolutionary, or risky? Or do we find that out later? Why the "but"? I'm unsure whether they regarded the revolutionary design as a plus or minus per se, so the obvious plus of quick delivery is fuzzy, to me. This needs recasting.
 * How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "he most conservative design of the three, as she copied many of the features of the French ship"—the ship isn't designing itself, so "... three, which copied ..."?
 * Rephrased.
 * Another problematic "but": "William Cramp claimed credit for the detailed design of the ship's hull, but the general design work was done by Merrick & Sons." Why are these counterposed? Detail versus general seems fine to me, but it's a "but"?
 * Usually detailed and general design are done by the same person/department.
 * Is there a link for "draft", which is a technical term I don't understand.
 * Linked.
 * I know it's pointless arguing against the female generic for ships, but you might consider going easy on the density of female refs, for example: "and her propeller could be disengaged to reduce drag while under sail alone.[6] She was barque-rigged with three masts. The ship's masts and rigging were used only for long-distance voyages; they were removed once she was on station. Her best" ... sometimes "the" could do. And why not "The ship was barque-rigged with three masts that, with rigging, were used only for long-distance voyages, and were removed once on station." (The "she was on" i removed at the end may be stubby now, so leave it in or come up with a better solution?).
 * I like your wording better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "11-inch guns"—converted in the next sentence; why not on first occurrence?
 * Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the usual standard we get from the nominator ... Tony  (talk)  09:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * after she was placed in reserve.

The lead links to wiktionary mothball, when an article reserve fleet exists and seems appropriate. Further, the article text never discussed whether she was "mothballed" or placed in the reserve fleet. There is nothing in the text indicating she was in mothballs; the text seems to indicate she was in reserve, and why are we linking to wiktionary in the lead? Please clear this up. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that reserve fleet is a better link and I've added links for decommissioned and laid up to clarify what was going on. But why shouldn't we use a wiktionary link in the lede as opposed to anywhere else?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.