Talk:USS Agamenticus/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 18:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe bold where the name Terror is mentioned in the lead, since it was a significant alternative name? Significant, since the name Terror plays into the Navy Department work around?
- "designed by John Lenthall (shipbuilder)|," - Looks like this is a botched piped link
- Yessiree!
- Prose says crew of 150, infobox says crew of 167
- "The monitor was relieved of her assignment at Key West, Florida, on 10 June 1872 and she was towed to the Philadelphia Navy Yard, Pennsylvania, by the tugboat USS Powhatan. Terror was again laid up on 17 May." - Put this into chronological order, although it seems odd that it was laid up before being towed back to the US. Maybe the laying up was in 1873?
- Nah, just reversed the dates.
- "Although Congress was informed by the Navy Department that the Civil War-era ship was being repaired, a new iron-hulled monitor of the same name was built with repair money and the proceeds of her sale because it refused to fund any new construction at this time" - The last clause (beginning with "it refused ...") is a misplaced modifier, as "it" could be read to be referring to the ironclad's hulk, not Congress
- DANFS needs the date, it looks like it's 29 September 2015
- The source link for the infobox image is dead, is there an archive?
- No, just a very annoying renaming of their files.
- I'm not convinced by the Navy employee work tag on the images, there'd need to be a source confirming this. The Navy didn't have many official photographers in 1865, but it's surely PD somehow
- That tag is part of the NHHC template although I agree with you that it's pretty unlikely it really was taken by an official photographer. The ordinary PD-1923 tag would require proof that it was published, which may or may not have been the case. Of course, PD-US-anonymous requires the exact opposite, mainly proof that it was not published before 2003, which is equally hard to do, disregarding the logical point about proving a negative. Lemme know how you'd like for me to resolve this decades-old quandry.
- Well, I honestly have no idea. I ought to be PD, I'm just not sure how. I'll still pass it, since there's no good answer and by all indications it should be PD. Hog Farm Bacon 20:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- That tag is part of the NHHC template although I agree with you that it's pretty unlikely it really was taken by an official photographer. The ordinary PD-1923 tag would require proof that it was published, which may or may not have been the case. Of course, PD-US-anonymous requires the exact opposite, mainly proof that it was not published before 2003, which is equally hard to do, disregarding the logical point about proving a negative. Lemme know how you'd like for me to resolve this decades-old quandry.
That's all, I think. Another typically well-written article. Hog Farm Bacon 01:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)