Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC) [1].

---

Ironclad warship

Notified: [2], 7 July 2022

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of uncited text, accuracy and coverage issues as raised by Hog Farm about 2 months ago. There has not been an effort to resolve the concerns. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging Parsecboy and Sturmvogel_66, who have produced good/featured topics on groups of ironclads. I can help with the ACW stuff, but as the work here is going to overlap with that of Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1, this probably should have waited until after then. Hog Farm _Talk 12:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hello all. A few comments from me.

  Yes, it clearly needs to be reviewed - the level of referencing in the original FA version (getting on for 15 years ago!) probably is not quite up to today's standards, and material that's been added since is rather less referenced. I would also like to take another look Hill's "War at Sea in the Ironclad Age" as from memory I'm not really sure it's a strong enough source, if I'm right about that we should replace it as far as we can.

  Regarding the American Civil War, I am sure there is some material that can be added, but I am also a bit cautious about adding too much material. For instance, doubtless many engagements involving monitors could be listed, but should they? How much content tells the story of the ironclad, rather than telling the story of the war?

• I'm happy to get involved in bringing the article up to scratch, though not able to commit myself as much to it as I did to the creation of the original FA. (Also, I'm away for a bit over a week from now). The Land (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @The Land: - Will post more tomorrow (had a very long and hectic day at work and need to get my brain unfrazzled before trying to write intelligently) but I do generally agree that we don't need to add really a whole lot more of information for the Civil War, but just sorta refocus what we have. Some quick-hitter thoughts on this section:
    • Article talks later about ramming as an effective assault against ironclads being believed because of the war, but this is never established
    • I think we get into excessive details in a couple places: do we need to be naming the ships at Charleston, and we certainly don't need to be naming the Confederate non-ironclad gunboats at Mobile Bay
    • "The Confederacy built ships designed as smaller versions of Virginia" - Need to consult Saxon Bisbee's recent work on Confederate ironclads again, but I think this is a bit of an over-simplification, since the later Confederate ironclads were generally purpose-built unlike Virginia and there were a variety of hull types, including several with a sorta diamond-shaped hull that didn't really work.
    • " the two ironclads repeatedly tried to ram one another" - unsure of accuracy of this statement, but will go consult a couple relevant sources tonight.
      • Per a skim of the relevant chapter of William C. Davis (historian)'s book on Hampton Roads, Virginia/Merrimack made one ramming attempt but that was it for intentional ramming tries although they did bump into each other several times (although this is implied to be from close-quarters firing). I'm extremely dubious given the construction of Monitor that it ever would have considered ramming anything. Hog Farm _Talk 22:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• • Will re-engage here soon. Hog Farm _Talk 21:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I've added some material about ramming onto the talk page - hopefully that takes us forwards. The Land (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• There's a significant bias toward the British, French, and US navies (with some coverage given to Italy at Austria, mainly focused on Lissa) that needs to be balanced out. There were significant ironclad fleets in a number of other countries that should be mentioned (I find it quite strange the First Sino-Japanese War isn't even mentioned, for instance). I can do some work to bring some broader coverage, but it may take some time for me to get there.
• There are some flagrantly incorrect statements that need to be sorted out - a good example is "by the early 1880s widespread concern about the threat from France and Germany culminated in the Naval Defence Act". No, the NDA was directed against France and Russia. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC Work seems to have stalled, with few significant edits in the past few months and lots of uncited statements. This does not stop further edits from changing my declaration later. Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Move to FARC I do not see momentum building for significant improvement to the article. (t · c) buidhe 08:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Delist. Tagged for disputed statements. DrKay (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hold your horses, I've finally finished with the Missouri FAR and intend to focus on this one next. I've already started with cleaning up the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Hold for now, @Sturmvogel 66: is this ready for review or are more edits needed first? I see that last edit to the article was Nov. 30. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • It needs a lot more work; go ahead and delist it and I'll work on it when I have more time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• I hate to say it, but delist I guess then. Hog Farm _Talk 18:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
• Striking my hold above, delist due to a stall in edits. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delist per above. (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.