Talk:Canonicus-class monitor/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 12:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 04:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this over the coming week. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• I find it odd that the Battle of Mobile Bay isn't linked anywhere in the lead
  • Added and to the body.
• Roberts consistently refers to this class as the Tippecanoe-class; do you think this is worth mentioning in the article as an alternate name?
  • Added.
• The class was specifically designed for harbor and river defense - Fuller, Clad in Iron pp. 125 & 204. See also Roberts, pp. 45-47; per Gideon Welles these were "for harbor defense and to operate upon the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico"
  • Added explanatory paragraph.
• " Originally named Scylla, the vessel was launched on 1 August 1863, and commissioned on 16 April 1864" - the Scylla bit is not supported by the DANFS source, which notes that the renaming to Scylla occurred in 1869
  • Removed.
• The naming table for Wyandotte also contains errors - this table states she was originally known as Wyandotte, then Tippecanoe in 1869, and then Wyandotte again on 10 August 1869. This is not correct; per the cited DANFS source, she was originally known as Tippecanoe, and then renamed to Vesuvius on 15 June 1869 and then Wyandotte on 10 August 1869. See also Roberts pp. 168-169, where she is referred to as Tippecanoe at the time of her completion in 1866
  • Amended.
• "Meanwhile the Tecumseh, Manhattan and Mahopac had been ordered from yards in Jersey City, New Jersey, and laid down in the city by the primary subcontractor Joseph Colwell. " - cited source does not mention Tecumseh or Mahopac
  • Added source.
• There's additional content in Roberts regarding the bidding/contracting that I think ought to be included - these were originally suppose to be delivered within six months of September 1, 1862, with a $500/day bonus for early completion and a $500/day penalty for late completion (Roberts p. 56). See also Roberts pp.46-47; the contractors had to bid without actually having firm plans of what the vessels would look like.
  • Added a substantial paragraph, although avoiding to much detail on the contracts as this would be "too much detail".
• I'd move the information about the 1869 renamings to later in the article - the postwar service section is a better fit for that than the construction section
  • Done, although the information duplicated in the table is removed.
• "Similar problems were experienced with the Ohio river Ajax, originally named after Manayunk in Pennsylvania, was ordered from Snowden & Mason and built at their new shipyard at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania" - I think this is missing a word
  • Fixed.
• "Similar problems were experienced with the Ohio river Ajax, originally named after Manayunk in Pennsylvania,[12] was ordered from Snowden & Mason and built at their new shipyard at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[13] After her launch was delayed by the very low level of the Ohio River, while fitting out, Ajax was ripped loose from her moorings and had to be towed back to her berth" - it seems anachrostic to me to call this vessel Ajax when discussing wartime events, given that this vessel was not actually known as Ajax until 1869
  • Amended.

More to come later. Hog Farm _Talk 17:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Tecumseh then dueled with Howlett's Battery on 5 and 6 December, firing 46 shells without being hit in return" - the two reports being cited here for firing a total of 46 shells on December 5 and 6 are referring to Canoncius, not Tecumseh. Both are written by the commander of Canoncius about his vessel - it's noted that Mahopac accompanied on the 5 December mission, but there's no reference to Tecumseh in this report. Tecumseh was at the bottom of Mobile Bay by December 1864
• "As part of this deployment, Tecumseh sank four hulks and a schooner." - Can you provide the quote from the source where this is stated? I'm having trouble finding it.
  • Added.
• "Saugus fired thirty-six 15-inch shells, Canonicus fired forty and Tecumseh fired forty-six. " - your pagination is off. The Saugus and Tecumseh material is on p. 179, with only the Canonicus material in the provided page range
  • Amended.
• The material about the fight against Tennessee and the sinking of Tecumseh badly needs context. It's never directly stated that this is part of the larger Battle of Mobile Bay, or that the movements of these ships were only part of a larger operation involving many more ships
• "Manhattan fired a total of 11 shots, six at Tennessee and five at Fort Morgan" - I would recommend linking Fort Morgan (Alabama)
  • Linked.
• "Canonicus, Mahopac and Saugus engaged a Confederate artillery battery at Howlett's Farm on 5 and 6 December. Mahopac was hit five times and lightly damaged; she fired 41 shells in return, of which only six had any effect on the Confederate forces. Saugus was hit twice. One of the shots from a 8-inch (200 mm) Brooke rifle disabled her turret temporarily when it cracked an armor plate and broke a number of 2-inch (51 mm) bolts" - why is p. 45 part of the reference for this? It only includes information about ironclad movements in November
  • Removed.
• "Saugus was hit twice. One of the shots from a 8-inch (200 mm) Brooke rifle disabled her turret temporarily when it cracked an armor plate and broke a number of 2-inch (51 mm) bolts" - more pagination issues. This is cited to pp. 45, 148-149 but this information is on pp. 145-147
  • Amended.
• " In the First Battle of Fort Fisher on 24–25 December, Canonicus anchored at ranges from 900–1,200 yd (820–1,100 m) and fired 144 rounds and was hit four times, but suffered no casualties and no significant damage. Saugus fired 64 shells and Mahopac fired 41 shells. On 13–15 January 1865, during the second battle, Canonicus fired 279 shells at the fort, most on the first day, again claiming to have dismounted two guns. She was hit at least 38 times in return but was only lightly damaged, and three crewmen were wounded. Mahopac fired 204 shells at the fort and Saugus 212 shells, despite each bursting one gun. Saugus was hit 11 times, cracking armor plates on her pilothouse and turret in addition to breaking bolts." - none of this is in the following citation (Volume 12 of the ORNs, pp. 98-99, 102)
  • Amended.
• "Saugus remained on the James" - this does not make any sense; in the previous sentences it is stated that Saugus participated in the bombardment of Fort Fisher, which was hundreds of miles away from the James River
  • Amended.
• " Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies Vol. 3 1901, pp. 525, 535–536." - volume 3 was published in 1896, not 1901
  • Fixed.
• The trip to Havana was part of a search for CSS Stonewall; see the DANFS entry for Canonicus
  • Nice touch. Added.
• "fter a period as an exhibit during the Jamestown Exposition" - the cited source does not mention this
  • Added source.
• "Ajax was commissioned in 1 January, serving intermittently" - you need the year here for context; per DANFS it's 1871
  • Clarified
• "Briefly recommissioned for local defense duties in response to the Spanish–American War, Wyandotte and Ajax were decommissioned in September 1898 and sold to be broken up on 17 January and 10 October 1899 respectively" - cited source does not mention Wyandotte or its breaking-up date
  • Reworded and cited.
• "The ships were appraised at $375,000 each," - no, per Roberts p. 181 (which is the cited source) Catawba was appraised at $380,000
  • Good spot. Amended.
• "Peru had been involved in an undeclared war with Spain, the Chincha Islands War between 1864 and 1866, and the US was not willing to prejudice its claims against the United Kingdom by performing a similar action for a belligerent power." - the cited source does not explictly mention the Chincha Islands war or the dates that it lasted directly
  • True. Changed.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to be failing this one for now. The amount of work that is needed on the sourcing is substantial, even without me having Alten or Friend to check against. Additionally, there's some content errors and the Mobile Bay material needs rework and additional context. Hog Farm _Talk 23:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I too am sorry as this is my first nomination from this period and I would have appreciated the opportunity to address your concerns. The amendments requested are done and I have taken the opportunity to, hopefully, improve the article further, so hopefully all is not wasted. simongraham (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2024 (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.