Talk:USS Tecumseh (1863)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this one, review to follow shortly. Zawed (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something missing here: "Although intended for forthcoming operations against Confederate fortifications guarding Mobile Bay Rear Admiral David Farragut's West Gulf Blockading Squadron, Tecumseh..."
IMO, I think the reference to the torpedo being a mine is not necessary for the lead; just refer to it as a mine - but add the fact to the body of the article.

This leaps into dimensions etc... but what kind of role was the Tecumseh designed for?
- They were designed for anything that needed to be done in shallow waters, but proved best in ship-to-ship combat.
"to prevent shells and fragments from jamming the turret as had happened during the First Battle of Charleston Harbor in April 1863." Happened to what? A sistership presumably?
- The previous class of monitors.
3rd paragraph - no conversion for the 10 inches (unless I missed it earlier in the article, apologies if I have).
- It's 10 layers of 1-inch plate and the 1 inch was converted earlier.
No antecedence for Craven in 3rd paragraph; he is not introduced until 4th paragraph.
- Good catch.
For sake of flow, I suggest moving first sentence of 4th para to start of this section.
- Why? That would disperse the construction information between two different areas.

Despite the mention in the lead, the West Gulf Blockading Squadron is not explicitly referred to here.
- Added.
"Farragut briefed Craven on his ship's role in the battle"; perhaps amend to "Farragut briefed Craven on his ship's intended role in the battle...? It is also the first mention of Farragut
- Changed; Farragut is mentioned in the lede.
"while they were passing the fort and then sink her..." What fort? Presumably Morgan, but it seems some context/discussion on the locale is called for here which would probably take care of my previous two points.
- Moved ref to Ft. Morgan to first, but otherwise I'm not understanding what you mean.
"Commander Craven spotted a line of s that the enemy" Line of s? S wikilinks to Breastwork (fortification).
- Fixed
"Craven claimed the destruction on one gun emplacement"..."on" should be "of".
- Indeed
"At 06:47 Tecumseh opened fire Ft. Morgan'..." opened fire on?
- Yes.
"but "torpedoes" were known to be present... The explanation of what a torpedo is should be added here.
- Done
The Tecumseh seems to be carrying more than its normal complement of 100 crew? I make it 111?
- Crew #s fluctuate enormously in wartime. There are no accounts that describe the reason why she had extra crew aboard.

The 2nd sentence of the 1st para feels out place here as it is followed by the paragraph dealing with salvage rights and seems a little incongruous. Perhaps bring it to the end of this section.
- Good idea
3rd paragraph is entirely a quote from a website; no chance of a quick rewrite? I realise you don't have a lot to work with though...
- Done, mostly.
Shouldn't the dollar symbol be used?
- OK.

No dab links
two of the three links look good; but not sure of the weblink for note 1? Is that the intended webpage or should it go to the record page for #75000306?
- Can't get the link to work properly, even using the record page. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. I await your feedback. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes/responses satisfactory, marking up as a GA. Zawed (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]