Talk:CSS General M. Jeff Thompson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCSS General M. Jeff Thompson 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
DateProcessResult
April 29, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 5, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that M. Jeff Thompson described the Confederate ship named after himself as being "the largest and best, but slowest boat of the fleet"?

GA Review[edit]

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:CSS General M. Jeff Thompson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

2. Verifiable with no original research:

  1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
  2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
  3. it contains no original research; and
  4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

  • 2a. Easy win; the article has a list of short citations and a list of references, both in appropriately titled sections.
  • 2b. All sources used meet the requirements of WP:RS.
  • 2c. The article is well referenced throughout; there are no obvious facts presented without citations. Spotchecks were carried out alongside 2d:
  • 2d. Spotchecks carried out on a selection of facts cited to the online references, 1 and 3, one concern below:
  • "The Confederacy decided to convert the ship into a ram. The process of converting the civilian vessel into a ram began on January 25, and took place at New Orleans, Louisiana." Appears in ref #1: "Conversion of the steamboat, the original name of which is unknown, into the ram General M. Jeff Thompson began in New Orleans, Louisiana, on January 25, 1862" – no concerns.
  • "General M. Jeff Thompson was sent to Fort Pillow, where she participated in the naval defense of Memphis, Tennessee." Appears in ref #3: "she steamed to Fort Pillow, Tenn., where she operated in defense of the river approaches to Memphis, Tenn." – no concerns.
  • "Her crew intentionally ran her aground and then fled;" Appears in ref #1: "Its crew ran it ashore and fled" – Minor concern that "ran her aground and then fled" is close para-phrasing to "ran it ashore and fled".
    • Ugh. Switched to "Her crew intentionally grounded the vessel and then abandoned it Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her wreck remained on the river bottom near President's Island, and caused another wreck in January 1867 when the steamboat named Platte Valley hit General M. Jeff Thompsons's remains. Deemed a hazard to river traffic, the wreck was removed by a snagboat in July 1867." Appears in ref #1: "remained at the head of President’s Island on the Mississippi after the war concluded. On January 18, 1867, the steamboat Platte Valley hit the submerged wreck, which “tore the bottom and sides out” of the Platte, causing “considerable” casualties, initially reported as sixty fatalities. The U.S. snag boat G. G. Totten blew up the wreck of the Thompson in July 1867, removing it as an impediment to river traffic." – no concerns.

Images[edit]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

  1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
  2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • 6a. Source link on Commons doesn't work, suggest replacing it with https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-42000/NH-42367.html The license says "This file is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person's official duties.", but it is listed as having an "Unknown author", and the source page I linked to doesn't give any further information: I don't see any evidence for use of this particular tag. If we have evidence of it being published before 1928, which is likely, we could use PD-US-expired, but again, we'd need evidence of that.
    • I've subbed in a lower-quality but easier to verify pre-1928 publishing image for now, and will restore the other one if I can turn up good evidence of pre-1928 publication in the future
      • Back to a better version of the original file with documented 1862 publication
  • 6b. The only image used is relevant and suitably captioned.

Prose[edit]

1. Well-written:

  1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
  2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

  • 1a. A couple of minor points below, but this meets the criteria.
  • "..attacked, brining on the.." Typo.
  • "..with his ship captains." Personal preference: "..with his ships' captains."
  • 1b. Again, some minor points below, but neither prevents the article meeting the criteria.
  • "..by captain J. E. Montgomery.." Why no capital letter for "captain" as a title?
  • "Thompson himself described General M. Jeff Thompson as "the largest and best, but slowest Boat of the fleet"." No need for the capitalised "boat" in the quote; per MOS:CONFORM, we usually adopt Wikipedia's style guide for typography of quotes.

3. Broad in its coverage:

  1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
  2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

  • 3a. Some points below. None are major, but I think they would help improve the article. Feel free to disagree.
  • "The ship was named for M. Jeff Thompson, an officer in the Missouri State Guard." Maybe specify that Thompson was a senior officer?
  • "General M. Jeff Thompson was sent to Fort Pillow, where she participated in the naval defense of Memphis, Tennessee." Could we add a bit more context here; where was Fort Pillow? (x miles north along the river from Memphis) or something similar.
  • "..the Battle of Plum Point Bend. General M. Jeff Thompson was involved in the battle, but only to the extent of cannon fire." Add clarity; was Jeff firing her cannons, or receiving cannon fire? Also, who won this battle?
  • "The Confederates abandoned Fort Pillow on June 1, falling back to Memphis." According to the sources, Jeff was involved in covering this withdrawal, which seems worth adding.
  • "..and caused another wreck in January 1867 when the steamboat named Platte Valley hit General M. Jeff Thompsons's remains." Would seem worth adding that this caused significant casualties.
  • 3b. No concerns.
  • 4. No concerns.
  • 5. No concerns.

Overall, an enjoyable read and a good article. A few queries above, most of which aren't covered by the GA criteria, but I think would improve the article nonetheless. I'll watch this page, but a ping would be helpful when you're done. I'll stick this on hold. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Hog Farm (talk) and Harrias (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 03:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/CSS General M. Jeff Thompson; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • recent GA which meets our criteria for inclusion. The hook is cited in the article and interesting. I do not find plagiarism. The article is neutral and uses the correct inline citations. The QPQ is done. Bruxton (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]