Talk:USS De Soto (1859)

USS De Soto (1859) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 11, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / American Civil War

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Ships

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, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS De Soto (1859)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not completing this review sooner. Not that much to do though, the article is well-written and generally appears properly detailed/cited/structured/illustrated. Just a few points to address before I pass it:

...sometimes light airs of the Gulf... -- what's a 'light air'? I'm guessing 'shallow waters' or something but perhaps should be linked or reworded to something the less-nautical types understand; likewise Being in cold iron... is a bit esoteric.

Hmmm, that seems self-evident to me. "Light airs" refers to a lack of wind available to the sailing ships De Soto was chasing, hence the latter's advantage. Could it be you've misunderstood the paragraph? I'm responding to these queries one by one BTW, so please give me some time to finish them :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go -- I read it as something to do with the depth of the waters because you mentioned the shallow draft of the ship in the same sentence. I've just never heard "airs" used for "winds" -- why not just "light winds"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the norm to spell out ranks instead of using abbreviations like "Cmdr.", but I won't hold up passing on that account if you feel strongly about it. You certainly need to action the inconsistency of Rear Adm. Bailey and Rear Admiral David G. Farragut one way or the other, and "Cdr." later on ...

How about if I use the full title for the first iteration and a (consistent) abbreviation for the rest? DANFS commonly uses abbreviations for titles and I'd be reluctant to go against an existing default convention. But I do agree they should be spelled out in full at least once. Gatoclass (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, spelling out first instance and using abbreviation afterwards is fine with me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, doesn't look like this has been actioned -- the Rear Admiral sentence is still as it was, and the first appearance of Walker's rank seems to be "Captain" when I think you mean "Commander". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought I would get your feedback before making corrections. It might take me a while to get back to this now though, as I have some chores to do. Gatoclass (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Okay, I have edited these for consistency now - see my edits dated 11 June. Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a new para, Despite the poor start... should probably be Despite the poor start to its operations... or some such.

I changed it to "In spite of this initial mishap ... ". Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're using numbers for a figure less than 10 in 8 barrels of gunpowder and 198 cases because there's a clause in MOS about using similar format for all numbers in a sentence? Just checking...!

That was instinct rather than MOS compliance. Although it's reassuring to see that MOS agrees with me :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good instincts then! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reckon warship is a case of overlinking common or straightforward terms; likewise cotton.

Removed the word "warship" as it's repeated in the same sentence anyhow, and replaced it with a generic "she". Replaced the "cotton" link with a piped link to King Cotton, which is much more relevant to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. Walker was relieved of command in early November... -- do we know if this was simply normal rotation? If so, I'd tend to suggest "handed over command" (to the next guy) because "relieved of command" can have negative connotations for the layman.

I don't know why he was relieved, and since this was the phrase employed by the DANFS historican rather than myself, I'm thinking perhaps it would be appropriate to leave it as is. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, fair enough, leave as is then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De Soto conducted a cruise to New Orleans in May and June, putting in at the Philadelphia Navy Yard on the 21st... -- "21st" is ambiguous, should be "21 May" or "21 June".

Done Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No further account of the steamer's movements is available, indicating that she was written off after the accident. -- I understand why this is uncited but it still looks like OR as it is, I don't see a prob with dropping the statement if it can't be cited.

I did have a think about that before adding it. I'm inclined to the view that it's not OR because it says "indicating", which alerts the viewer to the fact that this isn't known for sure. I did consider leaving the phrase out, but it just looked unfinished, and arguably a bit misleading, without it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done On second thoughts, it occurs to me that it's possible to eliminate the ambiguity I was concerned about simply by adding the phrase "if any", so I've followed your advice and deleted the previous phrase. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better so happy with this for GA but an uncited sentence (even nondescript as it is now) may draw comment at A/FA level. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to put alt text in images even though probably not a strict requirement.

Okay, I will do that, it will take me a little while though. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think alt text is generally a lot shorter than this. I don't mind you leaving the detail in at this level but it too may draw attention at FAC if you're heading in that direction... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seems to me that if you're going to add alt text, you might as well do a decent job of it :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the length of the first alt, which I think was a bit overdone. Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, very impressed with this; I think you could easily go for A-Class Review in MilHist if you chose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I really can't take credit for most of it, as the military history section comes mostly from DANFS. I wrote the intro, the construction and commercial sections, and otherwise just did some cleaning up, but yes, I think it made a pretty decent history all told and not too bad an entry for my first GAN :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So.. is this review done then? If so then pass the article, this has basically sat here for a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian went overseas prior to finishing the review, although I had already replied to his remaining minor points. He hasn't said when he'll be back so I don't know how much longer the wait will be. I did ask at GAN Talk for someone else to finish the review, but no-one responded. Gatoclass (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure[edit]

As far as I can see all points raised have been addressed sufficiently, I have gone back through the article and can find nothing else to keep it from GA status. If you do go for FAC then remove the alt text, as it is not only not a requirement, it has essentially been dropped due to concerns over whether the types of alt text used are any good to non-seeing users. Also FAC will query the inconsistency of abbreviations of rank. Congratulations on a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At last! Thanks Jezhotwells :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]