The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [1].

CSS Baltic[edit]

Nominators: User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Hog Farm

A co-nom from me and Sturmvogel. An object lesson in what happens when you try to DIY an ironclad. I believe that this is the first FAC for a warship of the Confederate States. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support: A good article, but I think that long paragraphs in it may benefit from splitting. Long paragraphs are both very hard to keep track of and distasteful, and the issue would be further compounded by the new Vector skin. Other than that, I found the article is an interesting read about an obscure subject, will support if the aforementioned issue has been resolved. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: - I've split one that did seem kinda long. Did you have concerns about the other paragraph lengths? The paragraphs are generally arranged fairly topically. Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, partly because other paragraphs are long for a good reason. Changing my comment to support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

Reviewing this version. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little treat of an article. Glad to see it at FAC now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

I am sorry, but I disagree. While I would not expect the same level of background as I would for, say, the battle of Vicksburg, I would expect enough from scratch background and context for a new to the topic reader to be able to make sense of it. I fail to see how the short length of the article absolves it of this. I am regretfully opposing on the grounds that the second part of FA criterion 1b is not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - I've added several sentences from scratch introducing slavery, states' rights, Lincoln, secession, and the formation of the Confederacy and then tying that into the Confederates firing on Sumter. Then flowing into the Confederate naval advantage, the Anaconda Plan and the blockade, and then the early Union coastal victories at Hatteras, Clark, and Port Royal. Does this provide the needed background? It's not easy to summarize the causes of this war in a few sentences. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I was looking for. While I don't wish to tell you how to write the minutiae of the article, so far as I am concerned you could delete "Slavery became a significant part of southern culture, and the ideology of states' rights was used to support the institution." and perhaps add something on the blockade throttling the Confederate supply of arms and materiel after "in order to cut off trade". Rest of the review to follow.
Yeah, I understand that, but your average reader is likely to do a double take. Something like 'and so was relegated to mine laying duties ...' maybe? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've went with the "relegated" phrasing Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've added a bit of background (first battle, more specific date of start of war, clarified importance of holding the coasts). I could add some more, but I'm not sure how much there's really space for since this is a shorter article than normal. Any thoughts? Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this screen? It doesn't copy the text to which I wish to reply? WTF?
The source doesn't specify exactly where the crew slept. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: - are these all taken care of or should I dig out the sources in my spare time tonight? Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are all done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. It may be a day or two before I can get back to you on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second reading[edit]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See if my changes are acceptable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Comments by Pendright[edit]

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dugan Murphy[edit]

I'll add something here in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for comments, I think. Overall, I find this article easy to read and well-cited to what seems to be a reasonably comprehensive collection of reliable-looking sources. I think the lede does a good job of summarizing the article. It skips much of the background section (the part on general Civil War background that it seems was added during this nomination review), which I think is just fine. The infobox is a good summary of the stats listed in the body. Thank you for improving this article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

@Hog Farm: My circumstaces have changed yet agan - leaving me free to review the article. I'll begin when the above review is wrapped up. Pendright (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: it looks like everything above has been ironed out. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD:

Consider the above suggested changes
Done
What is the correlation between "state" and "nondescript"?
Went with "condition" instead
A few sentences below says, "upper hull and deck were rotten"?
Is "She deteriorated over the next two years and started to rot" an improvement?
<>How about sonething like this: Over the next two years, parts of the ship's wooden strucure had been affcted by wood rot? Pendright (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
to "be" put, or "and" put
"to put onto" works at least in Ozarks English, but have added a "be"
  • Drop the comma after decommissioned
  • See below
  • Add a comma after River - near the end of the war seems like supplemental informationon.
  • I've actually split the sentence after decommissioned - the decommissioning happened in August but she wasn't taken up the Tombigbee until later.
An inapection of what?
Added "of Baltic" to indicate that this was a general inspection of the ship

BACKGROUND:

As you know, many historians believe that it was "primarily" over slavery -> Add primarily
Done
  • Consider this -> and [due to his anti-salvery position] a number of southern states seceded...
  • Done
  • For readers not famililar with the Civil War, might add a new sentence with something like this-> The northern states were generally ant-salvery while the southern states were generally pro-salvery.
  • I've tacked something similar onto the sentence discussing the cultural divide
  • Could tell readers why the Fort was fired upon and that the small Union force surrendered.
  • I've noted that the fort was within Confederate territory and that its garrison surrendered the next day
Consider the above suggestions
Done
Chabge while to but
Done
  • completed or converted?
  • Changed to "Baltic was one of the few paddle steamer ironclads actually completed or converted within the Confederacy" as the ship clearly wasn't built the first time in the CSA, although the CSA did physically build a few ironclads besides the conversions
inside ad outside - odd use of terms in this setting? As an old US Navy man, I suspect that the sleeping quarters of the crew were below deck and when the heat became unbearable they came topside and slept on the ship's deck.
Source says "and the crews of several ships, such as the Albemarle and the Baltic, slept ashore or in the open air whenever possible". The context is referring to the general issues with CSA ironclads to have component parts heating up so bad they glowed red and the tendency of the machinery to emit toxic/unpleasant fumes. Give that the only information Baltic-specific notes that they slept on deck or on shore, I think the current phrasing is useful although I'd be open to rephrasing suggestions. Hog Farm Talk 03:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>I'd opt for a version of the sources description. Pendright (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have attempted this

SERVICE HISTORY:

  • Perhaps you could squeeze out a few things from the sources to beef it up a bit.
  • Unfortunately not, from the sources I've seen. As Bisbee notes, there's very little original documentation for her, so it honestly seems unlikely we'll ever get much more detail
  • Is it "in" or "on the Bay and River?
  • Probably on
Add "she" between and & was
Done
Did he indicate where she was rotten ?
No, and I've consulted both the quoted material in Bisbee, and the original source material Bisbee cites (a letter by Simms)
to "be' put on
Done
Tombigbee "River"
Done
  • Drop the comma after load line
  • Gone
  • Change hull to "her" hull
  • Done

@Hog Farm: Finished - I found the article a bit unusual; in that the subject of it had so few redemming values. Pendright (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - Sorry for the delay on this. I've actioned everything above as best possible. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - Supporting - Pendright (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More