Jump to content

Talk:USS R. B. Forbes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming of article

[edit]

Do we want the parenthetical 1845 on the end of the name of this article? Any reason to not just call it USS R. B. Forbes? KConWiki (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any rationale for the parenthetical 1845, I am moving this article to the name USS R. B. Forbes. Please let me know if this is a problem. KConWiki (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:USS R. B. Forbes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 06:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

  • Same points as below re: year of construction, and inflation.
    • Inflation done, see below for year of construction

Infobox

  • "screws" or "screw propellers"?
    • Standardized with the less jargony "screw propellers"

Construction and characteristics

  • Is there no contemporaneous source which can pin down the date?
    • Not that I've seen well enough to pin it down. I found an announcement published in August 1845 stating that Tufts in Boston intended to launch a iron steamer later that week, but it didn't give the name and I couldn't find confirmation that actually occurred. I did find a passing statement to R. B. Forbes being in service in a January 1846 news article, though
  • Inconsistent abbreviation (e.g., feet but m)
  • "as well as two boilers" — unclear what this is referring to. Power came from screw propellers and boilers, or power came from screw propellers, which were in turn driven by both engines and boilers?
    • Powered by propellers, which were driven by engines, which were fed by boilers. I've tried to clarify.
  • Who were Tufts and Forbes? Is it known why it was named after him?

Service career

  • "She was present" — Did the ship participate in any way?
    • Dignitaries watched it - clarified
  • "its journey to Ireland" — This makes it sound as if the journey was particularly noteworthy. Was it?
    • Added that it was for famine relief
  • $100/$52,500 — {{inflation}} should be used.
    • Added
  • Perhaps put the first paragraph in chronological order.
    • Done
  • Any word on what happened between 1853 and 1861?
    • Working on trying to expand this a bit
      • I've added a few things that seem to be somewhat noteworthy (both in 1860). Most of the coverage of stuff in this specific time frame seems to be routine reporting of it doing standard tugboat or wrecking ship duty
  • "R. B. Forbes was not financially successful, and went through several owners." — Anything known about in which years it changed hands? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is William G. Gregory worth a red link?
    • Probably not, there were a lot of Acting Masters, and I haven't seen anything in my research for this that would suggest particular significance
  • its/it occasionally used when I think you want to say her/she
    • Done
  • The Civil War is mentioned in the lead, but not here.
    • Added
  • "reporting that some" — Who reported?
    • Newcomb. Clarified
  • "she had suffered damage" — During the battle?
  • Perhaps a gloss on what the Mortar Flotilla was?
    • Done
  • Any more word on why the options were burn vs. capture (i.e., why there was no prospect of rescue/salvage)?
    • The official report states that it was deemed impossible to get it unstuck; I've added that
  • Is there a wreck site of any sort?
    • Not that I've seen mentioned

References

  • #1 — Add archived URL.
    • Added
  • #8 — Add archived URL. Page/volume/issue numbers missing.
    • All added, although I suspect the paper was using no. in the way different that intended by the template (No. 6203!)
  • #9 — Page number?
    • Version I used on Gbooks didn't contain page numbers, will try to find one that does
      • Internet Archive version isn't page numbered either - from what I tell, this source was just never printed with page numbers

Sources

  • Publishers can take links.
    • All done except for Flint, for which I cannot find an appropriate link for the publisher
  • Flint 1989 — This is in the public domain as a government work, no? It appears to be freely available on Google Books, at any rate. If so, it should be given a link.
    • Added
  • Morrison 1905 — Public domain, so a link should be found. Scientific American can be linked.
    • Added and linked
  • Official Records — Series & volume numbers missing.
    • Added
  • Puleo 2020 — ISBN should be hyphenated.
    • Done

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: - All of the above points have been replied to. Hog Farm Talk 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, looks good. A couple more comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: - These should all be dealt with, except for the dates of sale. Source doesn't give any details, and searching in period newspapers hasn't brought anything up. It's very hard to search for the pre-war career of this vessel because of how ubiquitous the ship's namesake was in Boston society at the time and the dozens of routine notices of the ship calling at ports. Hog Farm Talk 06:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Hog Farm, passing now. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Hog Farm (talk). Self-nominated at 08:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hog Farm, I confirmed this article was promoted to Good Article status on January 23, 2022; and that it is appropriate in length at 4560 characters (819 words) "readable prose size." This article is well-sourced, with inline citations to verifiable references, including for the content of the hook. The article is neutral and plagiarism-free as far as I can tell. The hook content is cited, and the hook itself is interesting. There are no images in the hook or article. Thank you for this thorough and comprehensive addition to DYK. West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion date review: I cannot access the source, so AGF on the date. Except that, I see no other issue with the special occasion date request. So, per nominator's request, I have moved it to the holding area for February 25. Thanks for your work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_R._B._Forbes&oldid=1213187439"