Fort Towson

	USS Tecumseh (1863) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 19, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alabama This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can , or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles Shipwrecks Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: To Do Lady Elizabeth (1879) Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed! Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Still adding more information Discuss desired additions -None National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / American Civil War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Tecumseh (1863)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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]

Lead

• 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.

Description and construction

• 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.

Service

• 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.

Postwar

• 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.

Images

• Appropriate licences appear to be used.

Copyvio/Links/Citations

• 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]