Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 15:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look at this. A nice little series you have going here!

I've got a third one in mind for later; I'm hoping that one (Pontchartrain) is a little better documented than this one and Pickens. Hog Farm _Talk 05:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim

• No copyvio detected
• No dup links
• Image needs US PD or variation of
  • I think the PD-US-expired I have on there works

Lede and infobox

• "CSS Tuscarora was a warship" - why not describe her as a sidewheel steamer/gunboat here?
  • Good idea. Done
• Note that she was purchased in 1861 as well to highlight the brevity of service
  • Done
• State that she was accidentally burned
  • Done
• Did the SSC build her? If so could be in infobox.
  • Haven't been able to find anything
• The ship class infobox section can be added with her status as a sidewheel steamer (it also counts as ship 'type')
  • Added
• Link 32-pounder gun in infobox and main text
  • I'm not comfortable doing this, unless I can find a more specific source. The piece could just have plausibly been a 32-pounder Dahlgren gun, which was fairly common in the American Civil War. Hog Farm _Talk 04:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Service history

• "Built at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1861, Tuscarora was originally a sidewheel steamer purchased by the Confederate States Navy from the Southern Steamship Company, which was based in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1861." - you jump into the naval purchase so quickly here that I'm a little confused as to what her previous role was, if she had one. She was constructed and owned by the SSC, but was she ever actually used by them? Was she based in New Orleans as a civilian and naval ship? Better to provide a sentence or two explaining her original construction, owners, and dimensions, and after that go into how she was purchased, instead of lumping it all together imo.
  • I can find almost no detail about this
• Is there a more accurate date as to her construction and purchasing or is 1861 the best to be had?
  • @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I turned up a single passing reference to the SSC having a ship named Tuscarora in May 1861, but that vessel was a screw steamer instead of a sidewheel steamer. Hog Farm _Talk 04:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Confederate officials at New Orleans had been purchasing a number of vessels for navy service, even if they were not necessarily fit for it." - is this relevant to Tuscarora? Was she was of the unfit ships purchased or is this more of a general note about their purchasing habits? Should be clarified
  • Source isn't clear on this; I've tried rephrasing. Is the new rephrasing an improvement?
• "soon enough after the outfitting that a naval historian referred to her as "recently converted"" - is this necessary? I don't think this quote is lifechanging to the article. Surely you can just state that she joined Hollins' force on 11 October, having only recently completed her fitting out
  • I've removed this
• "Tuscarora was part of a naval force" - was she already part of the force by 11 October or is this the date on which she joins it?
  • Unclear. I've changed this to "By October 11 ..." to make it clear I don't have an exact date for this. Hog Farm _Talk 04:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of interest, with her seemingly immediately being put into Hollins' force, was she purchased particularly for this?
  • No. I've added a bit near the purchase to indicate that the Confederates were essentially purchasing ships for the sake of having ships.
• " and drive Union Navy forces from the place" - "the place" sounds a bit vague, would be improved if you describe its strategic importance, etc, instead of it just being "the place"!
  • Added
• "Tuscarora ran aground during the battle" - any context for what she was trying to do at the time?
  • Unfortunately, not that I've seen so far
• "Along with CSS McRae and CSS Ivy" - add what type of warships these were
  • Done
• "Later in her career, Tuscarora was commanded by First Lieutenant John Dunnington, who would later command CSS Pontchartrain." - how much later in her career? She only existed for another month! Is Dunnington the captain during her movement up the Mississippi? The mention of his later command should probably be in a note rather than the main text, it means nothing to Tuscarora.
  • I've been able to find a source stating that Dunnington took command in August, and Chatelain states he was in command when the ship burned, so I've been able to clarify the chronology somewhat. This then raises the question of why Kennon was in command at Head of Passes instead of Dunnington, which I will look for an answer to.
  • I've removed the reference to Pontchartrain as mainly irrelevant (Dunnington actually commanded land forces at the Battle of Arkansas Post, among other things, as well).
• "CSS Pontchartrain" - state what type of ship this was
  • I've removed mention of this vessel
• Might be worth stating that Dunnington had come from McRae, per this
  • Added
• "while the rest went to Memphis, Tennessee." - bit of a cliff hanger, can you say why they went there? Recuperation, joining a new ship, etc?
  • According to that old newspaper piece in the Official Records, they were expected to go up to Columbus, Kentucky, afterwards, but that had not happened by the time the piece was written and purpose was not stated. I have not found good material as to this.
• "Seven men were left to conduct salvage operations" - assume what was left was scrapped/left there? (addendum: the Official Records source suggests the wreck was going to be raised without difficulty)
  • I'm a little reluctant to add the without difficulty bit to the article - the Official Records source is a newspaper excerpt, and newspaper accounts of military maneuvers frequently were very wrong, especially given that I haven't seen a source suggesting it actually was raised.
    • this suggests she wasn't raised, if it's helpful. She was still visible at low tide in 1870. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I've added that. I was also able to find an old classified add dated March 22, 1862, stating that the Confederate were taking sealed bids to raise the wreck. My guess is that because New Orleans was captured in late April, the Confederates had bigger things to worry about than that wreck and never got around to it, although I haven't found anythign that would confirm that guess. Hog Farm _Talk 04:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The Campbell source seems to note Beverly Kennon as a lieutenant (I don't have access to an actual copy to say for sure I'm not reading it wrong!). If so, this disagrees with the his stated rank in text
  • I've got sources referring to him by two different ranks, so I've moved his rank to a footnote and stated that sources disagree as to his rank (also, I apparently misread the abbreviation in the DANFS source)
• this seems to give a date of service/purchase of August 1861
  • Unfortunately, I cannot get this specific page on Gbooks preview

References

• References look good.

Feel free to ping me with any questions or when you're done reading over this. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I'm gonna be totally honest, I cannot find any good sources for dimensions or pre-Confederate service. I'll let you decide if this can be a GA without that information or not. Hog Farm _Talk 05:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm is it possible to perhaps find something on the SSC to at least describe what kind of role they used ships in? I don't think much would be required at all considering her service for that company could be measured at the most in months. In regards to dimensions I do think that's an issue but not an overwhelming one. I'm happy to put this on hold for a week or whatever you require if you'd like to try and dig deeper, but if no records have been made as to her dimensions then that should be noted as part of the article. (interesting, one supposes, how inconsequential these ships may have been to people of that time, that such was not saved?) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did find an old report presenting "Statistical Data of Confederate Ships" based on Confederate documents, which for Tuscarora just gives the armament, a disposition of "accidentally burned", and a description of "side-wheel river steamer". Doesn't look like the Confederate bothered to record the dimensions of their own ship. Hog Farm _Talk 16:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The SSC ran six routes in the Gulf of Mexico in 1860 and delivered US mail. I've added this briefly. Hog Farm _Talk 04:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, changes look good so far. I assume you're still working through some of the more minor details you haven't replied to above yet, I'll wait for you to finish up before completing a more thorough second look. (not really relevant to the article, but it amazes me that in purchasing the ships of the SSC, the Confederates seemingly forced the company out of business! Doesn't seem purchase was optional...) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm still working on a few. Hog Farm _Talk 16:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i I found something! An 1861 newspaper article stating that she was a converted towboat and was ~100 foot long. Added. Interestingly, I have found a couple references to a steam tug named Tuscarora operating in the Gulf in late 1860, but I have no confirmation that this is the same one. It's quite difficult trying to parse these newspaper references, especially since the Union had a Tuscarora in service in 1861, too, so I'm using quite a bit of caution to make sure I'm referring to the right one. Hog Farm _Talk 04:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I think this is ready for the second pass-through now. Hog Farm _Talk 05:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm I've made a few minor changes to the wording that are hopefully unobjectionable. These are my remaining comments:

  • "In November, Hollins began sending some of his ships up the Mississippi River to support Confederate defenses at Columbus, Kentucky. Under the command of Dunnington, Tuscarora caught fire near Helena, Arkansas, on November 23." - this sentence does not necessarily tell us that Tuscarora was one of the ships moving up the Mississippi and needs to be clarified to connect the movement with Tuscarora's fire.
    • Clarified that this was the case
  • "In late March 1862, Confederate authorities were taking sealed bids before raising the wreck and bringing it to New Orleans." - to me this sentence suggests that they did raise her and brought her to New Orleans, which I don't think is your intention.
    • I've corrected my phrasing here
  • The first paragraph seems strangely structured. You go from her construction, to her purchase, to her SSC service, to her size, to her purchase again, to her rearmament, to her size again, to her wartime complement, to her rearmament again, and finally to her first commander. This needs to be cleaned up, as in its current state it's quite difficult to read coherently. I suggest starting with her construction and her size, then her SSC service, then her purchase and rearmament, then to her wartime complement and first commander.
    • I've made an attempt at reorganizing this; I've also split it into two paragraphs for increased readability.
  • Now that you've got a little more on her proportions, this could be added to the lede as it's not very long as is.
    • Added
  • Infobox: add rifled designation to 32-pounder, capitalise steam. I think you can also do more here to demonstrate that Tuscarora was not a purpose-built warship, despite her civilian service only being short. What do you think about structuring it in the same style as HMS Bounty?
    • I've added a couple items to make it clearer that this was not purpose-built for the military. Added rifled and capitalized steam as well.

  That's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - How does the article look now? Hog Farm _Talk 20:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm I'm happy with all those changes. Two final points and I think this is good to go:

  • "As the Union ships retreated down Southwest Pass at around 08:00" - is this 08:00 on October 12 or October 13? It's the only time you use a time in the battle narrative.

  • I've clarified at the beginning of the battle narrative that this began early in the morning of the 12th

  • References:

  • Reference 2 needs to include NHHC info.

  • Added

  • References 12 and 24 are long form references of published sources, which differ from your use of short form references and bibliographical information in the Sources section for the other published sources.

  • This is corrected

  - Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - These have all been addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm Passing this article as achieving all the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]