Talk:Squib-class torpedo boat/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 16:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm the last person to have taken a ship class to GA, so I should probably have a look at this one. Reviewing shortly (promise it won't take six days!) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Prelim

• No edit wars
• Duplicated links: ironclad, beam (nautical), James River Squadron
  • Fixed
• Image licensed
• Earwig reports no copyvio

Lede and infobox

• I'm not sure I personally would begin with "The Squib class..." rather than "The Squib-class torpedo boat was a class of..." or something of the like, but that's more stylistic than anything else.
  • Done
• Suggest a little more in the lede about the reasoning behind the construction of the class and the intentions for it; a little too focused on the individual careers of the ships as of now
  • Added a bit about why the CSA was building torpedo boats
• If you keep the first lede sentence as is, then you've said twice that there were four completed vessels in two sentences. Suggest rewording the second of these, and mentioning the planned construction of the other boats of the class
  • I've re-worked the first sentence of the lead
• Link scuttled
  • Done
• "participated in the Battle of Trent's Reach" state the date of the battle so that the dates later on are more relatable
  • Done
• Infobox should include the "planned" and "cancelled" parameters to illustrate the existence of the six England boats and the two other Richmond boats, which I believe would make totals of 12 planned, 4 completed, 4 lost, 8 cancelled?
  • Done
• Infobox suggests that all three non-Squib boats were equipped with two oscillating condensed engines, but text only says that one of the three was described as such
  • I think this is okay based on The other three vessels of the class were longer than Squib and were very similar amongst themselves.
• Add builders to infobox
  • Done
• Would it be correct in saying Class before= CSS David?
  • I'm not sure - it wasn't a super linear relationship, and the Davids were still being built all through the end of the war
• Are there any kind of construction costs recorded?
  • Not from what I've seen.

Description and construction

• "Afterwards, the Confederates continued to build" I can't quite tell if this is saying that the attack of David incited the Confederates to build more torpedo boats, or if this if this is just the follow up to an explanation of what one of the previous boats had managed in combat. Could you clarify?
  • Clarified - it is the former
• "based on a different pattern" to what?
  • David. Clarified
• Suggest naming Squib first in the list of the four boats
  • Done
• The beam conversion converts to inches instead of metres
  • Corrected
• "One of the three non-Squib vessels" Suppose it isn't known which one?
  • Source doesn't say. I'd bet it was Scorpion, though, as she was the only one the Union would have really had the ability to examine
• "was described as" suggest just using "had" or "was equipped with", unless the truth of the description is up for debate, in which case that should be noted
  • Went with "had" in the sentence referring to the engines (Campbell states that the Union description was accurate
• "The vessels of the class" To clarify, could you stipulate here that this is all the ships rather than just the latter three?
  • Done
• Would be an interesting section if there's any information on why the ships were different to each other, but I assume that's not something the Confederates chose to record!
  • Not from what I've seen. Campbell is the most detailed on the differences between the vessels and doesn't seem to say
• As with some of your previous articles, I think it would be useful to stipulate why there are differing measurements for some parts of the boats; e.g. is this historians differing from one another?
  • Done with the spar torpedo, which is the one that sticks out to me
• Link tackle
  • Done
• "ordered six Squib-class boats" when?
  • Added
• "but they were never delivered" why?
  • Source doesn't say
• "the Confederates abandoned Richmond early in that month" perhaps write a little more clearly that this meant the final two boats were abandoned/destroyed/cancelled
  • I've added that the Confederates burned incomplete ships when they abandoned (Coski mentions two incomplete torpedo boats being burned when he discusses the destruction at the naval yard, but doesn't specify that they were the two Squib-types he stated were being built earlier.
• The NHHC pages for Hornet and Scorpion seem by their wording to suggest that they were not necessarily military vessels to start with; Hornet was "a steam launch fitted out as a torpedo boat", and Scorpion "procured late in 1864". Am I just reading too much into the wording here?
  • I think it's just poor wording on DANFS's part. Coski/Campbell/etc refer to the ships being built for torpedo boat service

Service history

• The norm for ship class articles seems to be that a table of ships and important dates is included at the start of the service history/ships section. See for an ACW example Kalamazoo-class monitor. I don't think it's a GA-breaker if one is not present, but if there's enough information available it might be worthwhile. Will leave it up to you to decide.
  • I've added the table, although it's frankly pretty unimpressive
• "She was also used to carry flags of truce." any further context for this?
  • Unfortunately not. The quote from the source is the Squib was often utilized as a flag of truce boat without giving further detail about this aspect. My guess would be that they used it as they would a steam launch, as it was basically a launch with a bomb on a stick on the end
• "The explosion killed two crew members" of Scorpion or Drewry?
  • Added (Scorpion). The crew of Drewry had been taken off not long before she blew up
• Link picket boat
  • Done. I hadn't been aware of this link, because picket ship and picket vessel both point to an article specifically about radar pickets
• "who had proceeding" who was proceeding or who had proceeded?
  • "Who had been proceeding". Corrected.
• Assume the Richmond should link to CSS Richmond? Or are the italics mistaken?
  • It is the ironclad. I thought I'd already linked it
• Suggest an image of the Battle of Trent's Reach or similar is added
  • Added the Trent's Reach image used at Fredericksburg

References

• Look good.

@Hog Farm: That's my initial read through completed. Will await your responses to the last bits. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - Thanks! First round replied to. This one would up being a pain in the butt to try to write/source. Hog Farm _Talk 03:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Changes look good. Happy to pass this as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)