Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Coal torpedo

Coal torpedo

Something I have a family connection to; I think an interesting piece of Civil War history. I have removed some of what might be considered original research and added inline references. This is probably too obscure to ever be a featured article but I'd like to get it to good article status. Thatcher131 03:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. There are going to be some issues with original research here, so I have to tread carefully in what I can say in the article. For example, the fact that it's size is similar to a 6lb case shot is from a standard ordnance reference work, but the information that it holds 3-4 oz of powder is from my father, who measured the internal cavity in a coal torpedo in a museum in Vermont. Also, I should disclose that one of the external web links is to a site I created, so it should be independently evaluated.

The original photo is one I took; I had second thoughts about releasing it under GFDL. Maybe I'll have third thoughts about it. I have a CW-era photo of the Greyhound (pre-fire, of course) that I can add once I source it properly. I can definitely expand the section on its use (or rather, fear of it) in England post-CW, and I just realized I forgot to discuss the fact that Jeff Davis liked the idea so much he kept one in his office. Let me know any other thoughts you have. Thatcher131 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

In my experience, nothing is too obscure to be a featured article. ;-)

As far as this article goes, it's in very good shape. A few suggestions:

Expand the lead out to two full paragraphs.
Eliminate any informal—particularly second-person—language (e.g. "or best case, depending on which side you were on").
The last section should be titled "Notes and references".
Some more images would be nice, if possible; if nothing else, a photo of Courtenay might be good.
More citations would be helpful, particularly for the exact numbers in the article, as well as for the point that "if the explosion didn't sink the ship, the resulting fire probably would".
The "External links" section should be moved to the very bottom.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 05:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD

I believe I was the one who foolishly left such a pejorative ("obscure") on the talk page. Shame on me. ;-(

I'm very fond of this article and wish the earlier photograph was still present (copyright vio?), and do think this article has an important topic and considerable research demonstrated. Tend to agree with most of that Kirill has already said.

Needs at least three to four images to breakup long blocks of text.
Needs some categories, watch the new technology group for possibles. I think under sabotage there should be some categories to add. Haven't looked myself but I will.
The article has a novel way citations are written, sort of obviates the need for references section, but I'd like to see such a short section pointing the reader to the bibliography. Look at today's FA Kochi (India). I always consider today's FA the model for current style. In addition to good line citation, there's a modest refs section to point the reader toward personal exploration.
The stack of single line paragraphs at the end of the article is awkward and loosely connected to article; I say keep all but expand slightly for context.

Great job on a very interesting subject. Want to know more! BusterD 13:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice improvements already. Glad I can be a small part of keeping this fine article growing. BusterD 19:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Jespersen

I agree that this is an excellent article and endorse the positive comments and constructive criticism listed above. My only substantive comment would be regarding the assertion about Stanley Karnow. Did his book really "hint" this information or did he provide speculation that could not be corroborated?

My remaining comments are all quite trivial. Normally, I would make changes like this myself, but since you are engaged in this review process, I will leave them to you.

To match the style of most Wikipedia articles, I would move your initial image to the top of the page.
In the formal writing of Wikipedia we avoid contractions, such as "didn't."
The style of the overwhelming majority of American Civil War articles is to use American English. "Amongst," used twice, is not typical American.
Your first paragraph under Deployment includes three instances of "although" and should be rewritten to reduce these.
You should apply some date formatting. I have an explanation in my little style guide: User:Hlj/CWediting#Dates.

Hal Jespersen 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hal. I'm all-American, so I don't know where "amongst" came from; my boss is Scottish, maybe that's it. Karnow says the CIA prepared explosives to hide in the coal supplies for NV trains, but doesn't specifically say it was made to look like coal (although I'm not sure how they could be "hidden" otherwise). I can provide the direct quote, or maybe leave it out if its not a direct enough reference. Thatcher131 16:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting information and I think your explanation here is worth including in the article, replacing "hint." Hal Jespersen 17:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]