Talk:USS Galena (1862)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" her armor was too thin to prevent Confederate shots from penetrating. " -- you should link "Confederate States of America" here.
- Indeed.
"his ship would float despite the weight of its armor" -- Is there any idea at this time how much the armor would weigh or if this would be problematic?
- No firm numbers, but nobody except the Brits and French were experienced with iron armor at this time
"Despite a preliminary rejection, the board accepted Ericsson's proposal on 16 September after he explained his design in person the previous day." -- Were any of their initial concerns about the design mentioned?
- Yes, but since they were about the Monitor, I didn't think that they were relevant here. I was trying to show here how closely twined Ericsson and Bushnell were at this time, but I can trim it down if it's a distraction.
"it was uncertain if the original design could support the proposed armor's weight." -- Again here, it might help if we note the estimated weight of the armor.
"she lead her squadron up to Drewry's Bluff, about eight miles from Richmond," -- Was the convert template omitted for a reason?
- No, just me being forgetful.
"Galena was broken up in 1872 at the Norfolk Navy Yard" -- and sold for scrap I assume?
- Probably, but not actually cited anywhere. And since she was broken up in a navy-owned shipyard, her material may have been recycled to some extent.
The characteristics in the infobox don't match the cited ones in the article. (Since this is a common issue in ship articles, maybe we should start noting the infobox stats as "class standard" and citing them separately?
- No, just me failing to specify length overall in the infobox
Spotted two duplicate links.
- Fixed
External links all appear to be working. Images appear to be properly lisenced. There are no disambiguation links. I see no problems with article stability or neutrality.

Placing the article on hold pending improvements. —Ed!^(talk) 02:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional as always. Passing for GA. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]