Talk:USS Monitor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / North Carolina (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Shipwrecks (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


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[edit]

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. Face-smile.svg -- 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)


Extraneous text in Citation Style 1 parameters should be avoided because it corrupts the citation's COinS metadata. This is most noticeable in parameters like |publisher=National Geographic Books, 191 pages where the number of pages is included as part of the publisher's name when clearly it is not.

There seem to be discrepancies between various parts of individual citations. For example, this one:

{{cite book |last=Baxter |first=James Phinney, 3rd |authorlink=James Phinney Baxter III |title=The Introduction of the Ironclad Warship |ref=Baxter |edition=reprint of the 1933 |year=1968 |publisher=Archon Books, 398 pages,| location=Hamden, Connecticut, |oclc=695838727|url=}}
Baxter, James Phinney, 3rd (1968). The Introduction of the Ironclad Warship (reprint of the 1933 ed.). Hamden, Connecticut,: Archon Books, 398 pages,. OCLC 695838727. 

The link to Google books returns the Naval Institute Press edition from the Classics of Naval Literature series, neither of which are mentioned in the citation; the OCLC link returns a page of WorldCat data about the Archon books version.

Wherever a CS1 citation links to a non-html file, editors should include |format= to identify the file format of the online resource. This also includes those links that get automatic pdf icons:

{{cite book |last=Holloway |first=Anna |title=The Last Voyage of the USS Monitor |ref=Holloway |year=2013 |publisher=The Mariner's Museum |location=Newport News, VA |url=|format=pdf}}
Holloway, Anna (2013). The Last Voyage of the USS Monitor (pdf). Newport News, VA: The Mariner's Museum. 

The reason for this is so that readers who use screen readers can know the file format – the icons do not have alt text (though they should).

With Chrome, the list of crew members looks strange. The commanding officer text is offset right but his bullet point is at the far left margin. Perhaps a table instead?

Trappist the monk (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Trappist'. Would be interested in your thoughts about what to do with the number of pages for books. The number gives one an idea of how extensive the coverage a given work is. For example Konstam's Union Monitor 1861–65, is only 48 pages long, so right off one can tell this is just a summary, whereas Quarstein's The CSS Virginia: Sink Before Surrender is 591 pages, which tells one that the work is indepth. Comes in handy when you're going over the bibliography trying to decide where to look for things. Re:Chrome. Various browsers don't recognize certain markup. For example, Netscape doesn't recognize reflist (i.e. column settings for references) along with other markup that controls graphics. Many library computers have the resolution set low, yielding bigger letters, etc, which sometimes crowds the text and images in a given article. Then we have all the new mobile devices which present their own problems, so I'm afraid Wikipedia can't please all the people all of the time, and I've stopped trying to do so a long time ago. If there is a serious problem that effects everyone I'll do what I can to accommodate matters. In any case, I've added the format= to the given cite book templates and fixed some url problems you've brought to our attention. Will look for any others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the length of a cited source should matter. The validity of a source isn't measured by mass; as we don't judge a book by its cover ... Konstam's Union Monitor 1861–65 is cited as the source for information presented in the article. The editor who added that particular citation presumably determined that the source was sufficiently authoritative that its mass was of no consequence.
The purpose of a citation is to refer readers to the source of the information contained in the article. In this, a list of citations is different from a bibliographic list of related materials. The former is the source material, while the latter might be useful as source material but hasn't been so used. Perhaps this:
  1. §Bibliography gets renamed §Cited sources
  2. move §§Further reading out of §Bibliography to become §Further reading because those items aren't cited sources
  3. §Bibliography and §§Primary sources: remove the number of pages entirely from all listed items (or move then outside the templates and then hide them inside <!-- -->
  4. §Further reading: move the number of pages from |publisher= to after the citation template's closing }}
Yep, understand about browser differences ... But, Wikipedia has a lot of those worked out so there should be some way to get what you want. Perhaps this:
Officers of USS Monitor at commissioning
Lieutenant John Lorimer Worden, Commanding Officer
Lieutenant Samuel Dana Greene, Executive Officer    Third Assistant Engineer, Robinson W. Hands
Acting Master, Louis N. Stodder    Fourth Assistant Engineer, Mark T. Sunstrom
Acting Master, J.N. Webber    Acting Assistant Paymaster, William F. Keeler
First Assistant Engineer, Isaac Newton Jr.    Acting Assistant Surgeon, Daniel C. Logue[1]
Second Assistant Engineer, Albert B. Campbell
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of page numbers is as stated, not as a means to 'judge a book by it's cover'. Are you suggesting that we eliminate page numbers entirely? In any case, I'll try the table layout you've provided. If you're using Chrome, let us know how it works in the article. (Btw, thanks!) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm using Chrome right now and the table Trappist added here works fine for me.
Out of curiosity, what style guide are you using for the citations? It's not one I'm familiar with. Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You wrote: The number gives one an idea of how extensive the coverage a given work is. I think that for the purposes of supporting information in the article, the number of pages in the source is irrelevant. What matters is the quality of the source. So, making a judgement about a source based on its length is the same a making a judgement about that source based on its cover.
Yes, I am suggesting that the source's length (number of pages) should be moved out of the CS1 citation templates because: (1) there is no native support for that information in CS1 templates and (2) because, where it has been included as part of |publisher=, it corrupts the citation's COinS metadata.
I guess I'd have gone the other way with Baxter. It seems that at courtesy link to Google books that doesn't give a reader a preview of the content isn't much of a courtesy. Does the Naval Institute Press edition not support the article text?
I haven't checked them all but I notice that Holzer 2013, while listed in §Biblography, has no matching reference in §References.
Here is a peculiar one:
{{cite book |title=The Monitor and the Navy under steam |last=Bennett, Lieutenant, U.S. Navy |first=Frank M. |ref=Bennett |location=Boston and New York |publisher=Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 369 pages, |year=1900 |isbn=}}, [ E'book]
Bennett, Lieutenant, U.S. Navy, Frank M. (1900). The Monitor and the Navy under steam. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 369 pages,. , E'book
  • personal titles or rank, if they are necessary (I would argue that they are generally not necessary) follow the author's first name when listed in the last/first order as they are in this article. This keeps the ordering of other similarly named authors standardized – especially when computers are doing the ordering (from the metadata).
  • url to Google books outside of the CS1 template: that's why |url= exists.
  • punctuation: trailing comma in |publisher= is followed by the citation's terminal punctuation followed by the comma that introduces the Google books link. If you need special punctuation ate the end of a CS1 citation, use |postscript=:
For demonstrations purposes assume: that Bennett's rank is necessary; that it's important to show the number of pages in the source; that the desired terminal punctuation is a semicolon (;): then, we might write Bennett this way:
{{cite book |last=Bennett |first=Frank M., LT USN |title=The Monitor and the Navy under steam |url= |type=Ebook |ref=Bennett |location=Boston and New York |publisher=Houghton Mifflin |year=1900 |isbn= |via=Google books |postscript=;}} 369 pages.
Bennett, Frank M., LT USN (1900). The Monitor and the Navy under steam (Ebook). Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin – via Google books;  369 pages.
I'll shut up now.
Yeah, what Editor Parsecboy said. The table works for me on Chrome, and old copies of Opera and Windows Exploder.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (Somehow this got zapped by Trappist's last edit.) I've already added the table Trappist provided to the article and it works good on my end too. I'm using Firefox, which is said to have the least amount of hang-ups as websites, mark up etc, is concerned. Re: Citations: This is the format I've been using: <ref>[[#xyz|Author, 1900]], p.123</ref> where xyz is is the label used in the ref field ( |ref=xyz ) in the 'Cite book' template. When you click on the cite, it of course links you to the respective reference, but when you click on the reference it will now link you to the respective source listing in the bibliography. If you simply hover over the cite without clicking, the citation information will automatically be displayed in a small pop up window next to the cite. At least it does with Firefox. Been using this style for years with no problems. Have also been using page numbers, including articles that achieved GA, all along with no issues from anyone either. Btw, wouldn't it have been better if someone started the GA review and held all these discussions there? As the GA nominator I can't start the review. In any case, greatly appreciate the feed back, criticism, advice, et al. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
What I wanted to convey, and I guess I didn't, is that there is no <ref>[[#Holzer13|Holzer, 2013]], p.???</ref> nor, it turns out, a <ref>[[#Holzer06|Holzer, 2006]], p.???</ref> in the article text, so no links in §References to the Holzer citations in §Bibliography. This suggests that both Holzer citation should be moved from §Bibliography to §Further reading (where there is already a duplicate of Holzer 2006).
But, there is a Holtzer (with a t) 2006 ... Are Holzer and Holtzer the same? If so, still no Hol(t)zer 2013.
Am I making sense?
Trappist the monk (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for Trappist, but the reason I posted my comments on the talk page rather than the GA review page is because I don't really have the time to devote to a full review of an article this size, but I thought my comments would still be helpful for improving the article for GA, and A-class or FAC if you decide to take it further. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Trappist, any errors or oversights I will be happy to fix. As Parseboy points out, it's a big article, so anytime you see something sound the bell. -- Opps, wrong century. Give me a ping. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Parseboy, yes, it would take a lot of time for one individual to tackle a review of the USS Monitor article, with its varied and detailed history, numerous cites and sources, etc. But any time you can give to this effort would be, and continues to be, much appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers in source listings[edit]

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.

*{{cite book |title=Harriet Tubman, Secret Agent: How Daring Slaves and Free Blacks Spied for the Union During the Civil War |last=Allen |first=Thomas B. |ref=Allen |publisher=National Geographic Books|year=2008 |isbn=978-1-4263-0401-9}}, 191 pages

Which would display the publication like so:
  • Allen, Thomas B. (2008). Harriet Tubman, Secret Agent: How Daring Slaves and Free Blacks Spied for the Union During the Civil War. National Geographic Books. ISBN 978-1-4263-0401-9. , 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: <!-- not the same as |pages= --> 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)

Nominated for GA[edit]

The USS Monitor article has been nominated for GA. A preliminary review was conducted above. To start the review and/or leave comment go to the GA nominations page or the USS Monitor GA review page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary style[edit]

The article is currently at 63 kB of prose. That's a very big article. Yes, the Monitor was highly influential, but the ship itself doesn't seem notable enough for such a massive treatment. This is a very informative, well-researched article, but it could use a lot of trimming (per WP:SUMMARY).

For example, the treatment of the two battles is almost as long as the actual battle articles themselves. There's an almost excruciating amount of detail in some cases. If you look at "Final voyage", there's a very long paragraph on waves crashing, pumps failing and orders being handed out. Even a dramatic sinking can become fairly dreary with a blow-by-blow recount. All those minor details make for even less encyclopedic reading when it comes to presidential hand shaking, the receiving of one-dollar dinners and rudder realignments.

Peter Isotalo 13:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Most naval historians agree that the USS Monitor is among the most notable ships in U.S. naval history and marked a turning point in naval history altogether. You can ask for other opinions at WikiProject ships and elsewhere if you feel strongly about this. There are plenty of GA and FA articles that exceed 63 kb becasue the subject involves itself with many things. You are the first person to come along and regard some of the coverage as "dreary". The USS Monitor involved many people and events (not just battles) during the Civil War, and as lengthy as you may feel it is, it is still a summary as there are entire books written about this vessel and its history. After it passes GA review it will be nominated for FA, the requirements of which demand a well written and well covered account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, even 100 printed pages (this would be around 30-35) would of course be a "summary" of all the available literature. But also completely unreadable. Monitor is primarily well-known because of it's influence, not it's extended career or anything like that. And the only person who is genuinely notable due to Monitor is Ericsson. Compare this article with ship-related FAs about far broader topics: it's as long as dreadnought, longer than ironclad warship or battleship and twice the size of pre-dreadnought battleship.
At the very least, the finer details of the two battles should be moved to separate articles, because the amount of information here can't really be considered a summary.
Peter Isotalo 22:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree entirely with everything you say here. The Monitor was and is known because of the epic battle she fought 'and' because her role in it changed the course of naval history. The two ideas are inseparable. Ericcson and the ship's commander, Worden, and even some others, are also fairly well known, albeit not as much as Lincoln. And like the dreadnought, Monitor became its own class of ship. The article is a well written summary with excellent scope. The dedicated articles covering the battles Monitor was involved in need to be longer and better written, which is why the battle sections in this article rival them in size and coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Add :The Battle of Hampton Roads article is more than ten pages long while the section covering that battle in this article is less than a page, so comparing the section here to that article in terms of length was not very appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Monitor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
  • There is inconsistent use of United States Navy and Union Navy. Which is it? In the lead, the "United States Navy" is still used, Union Navy is sometimes rendered as Union navy, and is not linked in the text, but it is in see also, where it should not be (given it will be linked in the text) I've used Union Navy throughout and linked it in the lead and body.YesY.
  • The reason for Virginias destruction should be in the lead YesY
  • The prose should be consistent regarding the definite article used in conjunction with ship names ie "the Monitor or merely Monitor etc, at present both are used with no clear pattern or rationale, I suggest dropping them is the most appropriate consistent response YesY
  • Same with the personal pronoun "she" used for ships, the same ship also being described as "it" at one point or another. Fixed remaining example in lead.YesY
  • suggest Worden's rank be given in the leadYesY
  • Army in the lead should probably be "Union Army"YesY (and linked)YesY
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • there are quite a few examples of overlinking, commencing from the "Duel of the ironclads" subsection (suggest you use User:Ucucha/duplinks Cape Hatteras is still overlinked, as are the hydroblaster pressures YesY
  • The statement in the lead "marked a turning point in naval warfare" does not appear to be supported in the body (per WP:LEAD)YesY
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • One dead link and several that need stabilising per Checklinks link at bottomYesY
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • I'm going to flag up-front that it is very difficult to justify a readable prose size of 64K (10.3K words) given the scope of the article, which is essentially about one ship that was in active service for less than a year, regardless of how seminal its creation was in naval warfare. For example, the GA-Class HMS Dreadnought (1906) is less than half the size, and even the general FA-Class article on Dreadnoughts as a class of battleship only just closes on this size.
    • I consider that the size of this article is right on the edge of readable prose. I would expect this aspect to get a very hard look if it was taken to MILHIST ACR and/or as a FAC. I recommend that the major contributors endeavour to develop quality WP:SPINOFFS from this article to reduce its size.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • However, none of the image have alt text accessibility - not a GA requirement YesY
7. Overall assessment. Listed, with a caution about its size

Checklinks some links need fixing, one deadYesY

Comments / questions[edit]

  • Peacemaker67 -- The CSS Virginia was destroyed by confederates as they were retreating and had nothing to do with the Monitor. Are you sure we need to mention this in the lede? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that Virginias existence (or not) is highly relevant to Monitors activities, as they effectively cancelled each other out. Monitor could only travel up the James River if Virginia was out of the way, which is why I assume she is mentioned in that paragraph of the lead. All that is needed is the insertion of the phrase "as they withdrew" into that sentence.
  • Article size: There are several FA articles whose size far exceeds guide lines, such as Ronald Reagan, Barak Obama, etc. Evidently allowances are made for articles whose subject is broad in its scope. Will there be 'any' allowances made here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That may be true, there may also be FA ship articles (which would be a more relevant comparison than two-term Presidents) that I am not aware of that exceed the guidelines, but were they were only operational for less than a year? I challenge the idea that this article is "broad in its scope". In what respect? It is essentially about a single ship. What exactly is broad about its scope? The issue here is that articles need to be of a readable length, so people will read them. The obvious solution here is to spin off the detail of the battles. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not aware of any such ship's articles off hand, but the concern here is simply about size regarding GA and FA articles. In cases where there is much history involved some articles naturally are longer than average size. There are other such articles besides those of presidents. I've encountered them before and can cite them if you insist and think its necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • re: Broad scope. While Monitor was in service less than a year, the subject's scope includes important events that led to its conception, design, building, battles fought and involve notable people like Ericsson, Commander Worden, Green, Sec of War Stanton, President Lincoln, and its loss at sea, rediscovery-recovery, turning point in naval history, etc. This is not some ordinary vessel of the time that was only involved in a couple of battles. I'm hoping we can keep most of the content/context in the article about this unique vessel and advent in history. Just as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc, involve much more important history than other presidents, so does Monitor compared to most other naval vessels. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll say one thing, a comparison with a non-ship article is a "red herring" as far as I am concerned, there are plenty of important ships that have high quality articles of readable size. Comparing like with like is appropriate, comparing this article with an article on Lincoln or an ancient civilisation just doesn't ring true. The whole point of having a wiki is that people can click on links to find out more details about other things outside the article's main focus. The battles are an example of material that should probably be put into one or more WP:SPINOFFs to improve readability and navigation of this article. I haven't decided yet, I'm just flagging it as an issue that concerns me, as the article is right up at the edge of readable prose size. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for you consideration. Yes, I included examples of FA articles of other ships and ship related subjects for you, as well as the others. In any case, the coverage of battles, e.g. the Battle of Hampton Roads goes hand in hand with the Monitor -- just as Lincoln and the American Civil War do. i.e.The Civil War is well covered in Lincoln's biography where it involves him. The main article (for Battle of Hampton Roads) is about 8 to 10 pages long, while the section for that battle in the Monitor article is about a page and a half and covers just the basic battle and Monitor '​s involvement. In any case, it's good to see that you're thinking about these things rather than coming down with an iron hammer on issues. I'm willing to go along with almost anything you advise -- just hope we can keep the content in tact as is practiced in other GA/FA articles whose subject is involved. It's very important to the quality of the narrative and history, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'd suggest that you point out specific examples of excessive detail/coverage so that y'all can discuss what's worthy of being retained, Peacemaker67. Gwhillickers has already shown that he thinks the current level of detail is appropriate and will need at least some sort of guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, specific examples rather than personal innuendo would have been a smarter approach. Are you referring to all details you added regarding armor thickness, diameter of guns, engine bore and stroke, butt joints, pump pressures and all the details in the Rediscovery and Recovery sections? These are all okay by me, as ships of this sort are highly technological entities and such broad coverage and attention to detail is welcomed by most naval buffs, historians and students of naval history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Not referencing anything in particular, just saying that specifics are generally more useful than generalities. That said, your comment about "general innuendo" isn't clear. Who or what are you referring to, exactly?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Generalities are needed and serve as a way of introducing specifics, details. We can't just dive into details without general context. After weeks of reading, writing, sourcing, trips to the library, buying books, I believe we did a good job providing a balance of both these ideas. Monitor was a unique vessel, in many respects, and to begin gutting the article of details would take away from the sort of things naval ship enthusiasts would love to read about, imo. e.g. Details about armor thickness gives us more insight into the battle where the two ships were hammering each other at close range. Ditto with cannon bore, ship's speed, ventilation for a crew that was doing battle locked under what could have been their steel tomb. All the details about the ship sort of materialize when we come to read about the battles. Enough said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Peacemaker67, regarding the use of 'she' vs 'it' in reference to Monitor, I think I've fixed what you were referring to, but not quite sure here. What say you? -- Also, the 'Alt' in the captions as you say are not GA requirements, but since you noticed these I'll go ahead and include those directly. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Peacemaker, when you say the hydroblaster pressures are over linked do you mean the PSI is converted to other units of measure more than it should be? Since 'hydroblaster' only occurs once in the article it would seem this is what you meant, so I'll go ahead and remove the conversions from psi. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    • No, he meant that there was an earlier link to psi referring to engine pressure. I reverted your change and removed the link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Just leave me to do the ticking in the table, that way I can keep track of what I am happy with. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. In any case I can't seem to find that dead link. I checked 'External links', even removed a couple that were not going to the intended page. If it can be removed without effecting anything else you are welcomed to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe it is being used to reference something about a museum? I've tagged the link as dead. If you search the page for dead link you'll find it. If it isn't working and you can't find any alternate source for the info, the dead link and the information that was sourced from it will need to be removed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Listed. I strongly recommend that you use Template:refbegin and Template:refend on the subsections of the Bibliography section to compress them a bit. So far as I am concerned, the size remains an issue, but as it is lineball, I'm giving this article the benefit of the doubt for GA. I would expect greater resistance at MILHIST ACR or FA. I recommend that serious consideration be given to developing one or more spinoffs to reduce its size. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Peacemaker67, first let me say Thank You  for your time and effort. I will consider your advice about article size strongly. It would seem that the Rediscovery and Recovery sections might do well with their own article, esp since there are none. I will consult with Sturmvogel, as he was the major author there. I still feel strongly about including the many details (perhaps not every solitary one of them, but indeed most) as they give depth of understanding to the sections covering the battles and the sinking. As you might have gathered, I am an inclusionist, esp when it concerns history. This is not to say I welcome unnecessary information. If a given detail can fit into the narrative beyond just citing the detail, it should be included, imo. At any rate, thanks for your considerations and flexibility on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Quarstein40 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).