Talk:USS Indianola

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Indianola (1862)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 12:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this looks interesting! This will be my first review and as such please do say if you have any quibbles about it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at taking a ship article to GAN, so it's a new experience for both of us. Hog Farm _Talk 15:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• The lead is a little chunky as is, might it benefit from being split into two paragraphs?
  • Split about halfway through
• "...before being taken by Union authorities before being completed" - having "before being" twice here in quick succession makes the sentence clunky to read
  • Rephrased
• You repeat that Indianola was "taken" before completion; could you emphasise whether this was by force or by purchase, etc?
  • I've been able to clarify this via Milligan
• The name of the ship is not one I've come across before, perhaps a sentence explaining its provenance?
  • Named after Indianola, Iowa. Added
• If Indianola was taken from her builders before completion does this mean she was being constructed as something else or was this just the Union expediting the process?
  • expediting of construction - clarified
• "commission" probably needs to be linked
  • Linked
• "The propellers required machinery that took up space that would have otherwise been used for crew quarters" - does this mean her crew complement suffered?
  • Sources I've seen haven't said
• "knots" in the main text needs linking
  • Done
• "two 11 inches (28 cm) pieces and two 9 inches (23 cm)" - needs to be "inch" not "inches" here
  • Done
• "These guns were poorly positioned" - how so?
  • Clarified
• "Overall, the ship was similar to another Brown ship, USS Chillicothe" - not necessary but perhaps you could highlight the difference being in propulsion as Budd does
  • I've added that the main difference between the two ships was in the propulsion systems
• Once again a very minor quibble but could you explain why she had the two coal barges and was so obstinate in keeping them?
  • Added that it was thought Porter might send another boat and they'd need the coal
• "...occupying the captured packet steamer Era No. 5. Era No. 5 was pursued by..." - to avoid the double Era No. 5 perhaps the second could be replaced by "They were"
  • Done
• "blockade" probably needs linking
  • Linked
• "Brown turned the prow of his ship towards the Confederate vessels and prepared for combat" - did Brown do anything particular to prepare for combat or is this more about a general gritting of teeth?
  • Added a detail
• "and then suffered the shock of a head-on collision with William H. Webb" - is this a ram from Webb or an accidental collision as it currently reads as?
  • Clarified that it was a ramming
• For Queen of the West's second attack you note that it comes from starboard - is this a different location to the first attack and if not could the "starboard" designation be moved higher up in the text?
  • Queen of the West's first attack was from the port side, added
• "rudder", "wheelhouse", and "stern" need links
  • Linked all three
• When does Indianola actually surrender in the battle? Seems a little is missing between Brown running her aground and the Confederates pulling her over to the other side.
  • Added that Brown struck his colors when he ran it aground
• "salvage" probably needs a link
  • Linked to marine salvage
• "...the result could be disastrous for the Union fleet on the Mississippi." why?
  • Added
• "smokestack" needs a link or description
  • Linked
• "...pointed the 11-inch guns at each other muzzle-to-muzzle and then fired them, before burning..." - emphasise what damage the 11-inchers did to Indianola?
  • Sources don't indicate what exactly happened, just that the results weren't pretty
• "The next morning, the Confederates realized that Black Terror had only been a hoax" - is this February 27? I'm not sure
  • Yes, clarified
• Images two and three seem fine but File:USS Indianola.jpg has no author information and the source link is broken.
  • I have replaced this image with a very similar but slightly inferior version for which more information can be provided and PD can be proven.
• More a general comment than an issue with your work as the source agrees with your caption, but File:The photographic history of the Civil War - thousands of scenes photographed 1861-65, with text by many special authorities (1911) (14739707986).jpg looks more like the breaking up of a ship rather than its construction, does it not?
  • I've replaced the image. Part of the reason it looks like a wreck is that the image seems to be a scan of a damaged copy - see here for the full, undamaged picture (although it does note that the image has sometimes been understood as a salvage photo). However, not sure about licensing, so I don't feel like trying to get it uploaded. Replace with File:USS Indianola construction.jpg, which is also PD and more clearly of construction.
• The infobox states that she was scrapped but only her sale is mentioned in the text or lead.
  • Tweaked infobox
• Your references for Budd, Konstam, and Blair are only in the References and not the Sources section. I realise that they're linked to online locations but as they're cited as published texts it makes sense for the long citations to be in Sources.
  • Done
• You have her beam as 5 feet in the main text but 50 feet in the infobox. One must go!
  • The 5 is a typo. I can't image a ship with a 5-foot beam being possibly seaworthy, even in a river.
• The last line of the final paragraph is placed awkwardly because of the accompanying image - perhaps it could be moved slightly to change this?
  • I've moved the image further up in the article
• Infobox dates use different formats
  • Made consistent
• You have some more facts that can be added to the infobox, such as the commissioning date of 27 September
  • Added several
• Browsing an article such as this [1] suggests that there is some more information available on her construction and early service, such as the build cost of $182,662.56.
  • I've added quite a bit from the Milligan source.

That's all I've got, I'll await your comments and/or changes. If I haven't commented on something you may assume by its absence that I don't have an issue with it! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Are the changes made so far satisfactory? I've tried to address everything. The Milligan source you found was very helpful; I didn't think to look on ProQuest. Hog Farm _Talk 01:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  On the whole the changes look good. A few observations:

  • I don't believe the Milligan is a physically published source and is not freely available on proquest - unless you say differently (and I may be wrong here), the reference requires a subscription required tag

  Tagged

  • Is the date of sale also the date of decommissioning? If not then January 17 should be noted as the date of sale/fate rather than decommissioning, which might have been a completely different date.

  Sources don't exactly specify when it was officially decommissioned, so I've moved that stuff into the out of service date

  • "that disable cannons" > "that disabled cannons"

  Fixed

  • "While only one Union sailor was killed during the battle, only three escaped the ship's capture to bring word to Porter" > "While all but one Union sailor survived the battle, only three escaped the ship's capture to bring word to Porter"

  Done

  • Similar to previous examples, the Barnhart is seemingly an article from a published journal and thus the long citation should be in Sources. The link provided with it does not provide direct access to the text for those not au fait with the wikipedia library, too.

  Marked the url ref as limited and moved the Barnhart to a long ref. Does this work, Pickersgill-Cunliffe? Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me - I must thank you for being so prompt with your edits! It is currently very late for me and if you've no difficulty with it I'll leave finishing the review until tomorrow morning, so that I can have one more clear-headed read through. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, take as much time as you need. Hog Farm _Talk 03:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

One final point on officer ranks. Your rule seems to be that officers are introduced by their rank on first appearance, e.g. "Lieutenant Commander George Brown". There are some inconsistencies with this:

• E. Kirby Smith is not introduced with a rank at all...
• ...unlike his Union equal Lew Wallace who I assume you have attempted to name a Major General, but the link is incorrect.
• David Dixon Porter is only described as a "Union Navy officer" - is his precise rank known?

If you can iron out these few creases this should be ready to go. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I think these three should all be addressed now. Hog Farm _Talk 16:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Great, looks good. I'll pass it now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 21:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

---

USS Indianola (1862) → USS Indianola – Taking this to RM instead of boldly doing this myself as the current title has been in use since 2006 and I'm not an expert on ship naming conventions, but when I was working to get this article to GA, I found no evidence that there's another USS Indianola that this would need disambiguated against. Hog Farm _Talk 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support no need for disambiguator is there is nothing to disambiguate.  Mysterymanblue  05:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support if it's the only ship named USS Indianola to have an article. JIP | Talk 11:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I note this reverses

 21:39, 6 December 2007‎ Wwoods talk contribs block‎  34 bytes +34‎  moved USS Indianola to USS Indianola (1862)

which appears to be a bold move by Wwoods, a longstanding and still active sysop, but without rationale. Perhaps they would like to discuss? Andrewa (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.