Talk:USS John P. Jackson/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a gander at this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, edit conflict here! I was writing my review while @Zawed: started this. I'll leave my comments here as well. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was unfortunate timing, sorry. @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have left a message for you on your talk page regarding this. @Hog Farm: I propose to let the reviewer's comments stand rather than add anything further here. Zawed (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim

Article is stable
Not sure File:Bard, Steamer J.P. Jackson, 1860.jpg is correctly licesned
- I've tried to fix this
American Civil War is duplicated in the lede
- Fixed
Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

"she was part of a battle"?
- Done
"30 September 1862" repeated year
- Have adjusted this and also added a brief bit so that 1863 isn't entirely glossed over

Design and civilian use

"6 November 1861" repeated year
- Dropped

Civil War service

She was ordered to sail prior to being commissioned?
- Apparently so. My guess is that the US Navy didn't have fully updated status reports for the various vessels being fitted out and just wanted it to move when ready
Some swapping between DMY and MDY here
- Ugh; I had written it in mdy but then found that it had a dmy tag from 2019 applied and I had to switch it back because of MOS:DATEVAR. Although I think MOS:DATETIES would point strongly towards mdy but I don't want to have to have that argument. The relevant sourcing for most of these ACW ships largely uses mdy.
Give New London her ship type
"She then later towed a transport," clarify that this is John P. Jackson and not P. C. Wallis
- Done
"while escorted Union Army troop movements as well" doesn't make sense
- Tense error; fixed
The 7 May ships should be given their types as well
Link draft
- Done
"vicksburg batteries" capital missing
- Fixed
"project strike"?
- Should have been "projectile". Yes, I promise I'm a native English speaker
"to the Mississippi Sound"
- Fixed here, in the lead, and in another part of the article
"suspiscious" sp
- Fixed; I had to look up how to spell it
"Continuing on blockade duty"
- Fixed
"she captured the prizes Cuba and Belle of Mobile" strangely worded; they aren't prizes until after they're captured
- I've removed "prizes"
Give Vincennes, Calhoun, Hartford, and Genesee, and other vessels mentioned, their types
Link Master
- Done
"during the bombardment on 16 February" date unnecessary
- fixed

References

References look good, although ref. #23 seems to suggest that it is citing over 149 pages?
- This is how the individual page is in the book. For whatever reason, the book starts the page numbers over in each pseudo-chapter with Roman numerals for each year of the war. So III-149 is page 149 for section III (that discussing 1863 operations) and if I recall correctly it appears on the bottom of the page as III-149

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - as for the ship types - to support most of these I'm probably going to have to consult a general reference work to easily support the ship classes for this. Rather than littering the article with a large number of most irrelevant citations would you be okay with me adding a hidden comment to the article code so that where the ship type is coming from is still referenced, but without inserting all of the references visibly? Things like "On 7 May, John P. Jackson, along with USS Sachem, USS Harriet Lane, USS Westfield, USS Owasco, and USS Clifton, began an expedition to Mobile Bay" could end up very awkward with citation placement after citing the reference work for each vessel. Hog Farm _Talk 01:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - I've added the ship types now; everything from above should be addressed now. Hog Farm _Talk 04:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Passing this as satisfying the GA criteria. As a side note, I don't think pings work if you edit them into an existing message, you've got to add them afresh. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]