Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/CSS General Earl Van Dorn

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

CSS General Earl Van Dorn

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

CSS General Earl Van Dorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After taking an ironclad (CSS Baltic) and a tinclad (USS Marmora) to A-Class and FAC, I'm hoping to get another one of the types of American Civil War warships to A-Class and FAC - a cottonclad. The cottonclads were converted civilian river steamers used by the Confederates. The lightly armored vessels were used as naval rams.General Earl Van Dorn sunk a Union ironclad in the Battle of Plum Point Bend, and was the only Confederate cottonclad to escape destruction or capture in the First Battle of Memphis. She was burned by her crew on the Yazoo River about three weeks after the battle at Memphis. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

[edit]
  • I think it would make sense to tell readers that the RDF was initially organized to defend New Orleans in the first paragraph of the Purchase and conversion section - then it would make more sense when you bring up later that the fleet had to be divided.
    • I've actually elaborated on this a bit - they were intended for the Mississippi River in general. The Confederate government actually intended for the vessels to be sent upriver, but local interests and a breach in a key river barrier are what caused part of the fleet to be retained at N.O. I remember reading, although I'm not sure where off the top of my head, that the Confederates for a time actually expected the worst threat to New Orleans to be Union forces coming down the river, rather than from the Gulf.
  • "The conversion into warships for the River Defense Fleet vessels involved adding 1 inch (2.5 cm) of..." - I'd lead off telling the reader that they added a reinforced bow for ramming. I was attempting to picture what they added to the ship, but had to wait until the 4th sentence to figure out what we're talking about.
    • I've rearranged some stuff
      • This is better - the only other thought I have is, would it be good to clarify that the modifications to the bow were to reinforce it for ramming attacks? Theoretically it should be obvious, but you never know. Parsecboy (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might add April 1862 (and a specific date if known, but I'm guessing not) to the box for the |ship completed= field
    • The ironwork was finished on April 10, I've added that date to the infobox
  • Don't know that you have room for them, but there are a few images on the NHHC that depict events where General Earl Van Dorn was involved here, here, and here. The first one gives a clearer image of the ship, which may be useful for the box.
    • I don't know that there's much room for image additions. My understanding of the caption on the first one is that the clearer ship in the foreground is actually CSS General Sterling Price. I may be wrong though - that image may be preferable to the current infobox one anyone, as the current infobox image incorrectly lists the CSS McRae (Marquis de Habana [sic]) as being present. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's hard to say - the caption on the image seems to suggest the one further back is General Earl Van Dorn, but the NHHC caption lists it first, left to right (which I would read to mean the one in the foreground). The caption on the image is more probably correct, I'd guess. Maybe others will have opinions on what image is preferable. Parsecboy (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to nitpick, nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: - Thanks for the review! I've replied above. I need to think some more about the infobox image; there's some pros and cons to both images. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hog Farm, some minor comments:

  • Consider expanding the lead by 1-2 paragraphs?
    • Given that the article is only 1200 words long, I am concerned that a multi-paragraph lead would be disproportionate to the length of the rest of the article. I also don't think that there's anything not in the lead that is really the level of detail to include in the lead
  • " burnt by her": did you mean just "burnt" or "burnt by her onboard personnel"?
    • Have changed to "burnt by the Confederates"
  • Do we know who the builder was? Anyone significant?
    • I don't think it would be wise to include any such information - either the original vessel is unknown or its Junius Beebe, which I think is too uncertain of an identification to include information for
  • Are the speeds, complement and range for this ship known?
    • Not in any source that I've seen.
  • "setbacks further inland": Any specific battles or campaigns which could be added in the body or a note?
    • I've made this a bit more detailed
  • Could we have some details on how the rest of the Confederate Fleet was captured or destroyed at Memphis, per NOFORCELINK?
    • I've added another sentence on this

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hog Farm, anything on the last two points? Matarisvan (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got busy over the weekend; I'll try to get to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: - Replies/changes are noted above, thanks for the review! Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • General Earl Van Dorn was purchased for Confederate service at New Orleans, Louisiana, in early 1862 for service with the River Defense Fleet.
Change for service with to serve with
Done Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her conversion into a cottonclad warship involved installing an iron-covered framework of timbers to her bow to serve as a ram, and protecting her machinery with timber bulkheads packed with cotton.
Her conversion -> She was converted
The general rule: A subject pronoun (she) is used in the subject of a sentence. A subject pronoun indicates who or what the sentence is about. An object pronoun (her) is used to indicate what receives the action in a sentence.
Suggest -> She was converted into a cottonclad warship by installing an iron-covered framework of timbers to her bow that would serve as a ram, and the ship's machinery was protected with timber bulkheads packed with cotton.
Done Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Earl Van Dorn left New Orleans in late March 1862 and arrived at Memphis, Tennessee, early the next month.
For what purpose?
Added Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding this or something like it -> The Van Dorn was a Side-wheeler powered by steam and was 182 feet (55 m) long. She carried a single cannon on her bow—a 32-pounder. (BTW, the dictionary spells it Side-wheeler as does the link.
<>Your addition is fine. Pendright (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase and conversion

  • The ships were intended to defend the Mississippi River.[2]
What part?
The Confederate-held part in general. There's some discussion of strategic deployment later in the article, but I think it's sufficient at this point just to note that they were to be used on the river, especially since they ended up being used on both ends of it. The source just says with a plan to seize and arm river boats for use in protecting the Mississippi River Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Can we compromise with this general addition: The ships were intended to defend the Confederate-held part of the Mississippi River. This would make the sentence a bit more reader friedly since, as you know, the Missippi River is over 2,000 miles long and flows from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico.Pendright (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vessels of the River Defense Fleet were intended to be used as rams,[8] and were known as cottonclads.[9]
and they were known
Done. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their conversion into warships involved adding 1 inch (2.5 cm) of iron plating backed by 4 inches (10 cm) of oak planking, on a framework of one-foot-square timbers to the bow.
Why the comma between oak planking & on?
Not sure, removed. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The engines and boilers were protected by an inner bulkhead of one-foot-square timbers, with an outer bulkhead of six-by-twelve timbers.
  • Why the comma after timbers?
  • General Earl Van Dorn was placed under the command of Captain Isaac Fulkerson,[11] and left New Orleans for Memphis, Tennessee, on March 25.[7] Defense Fleet.
and it left
Have gone with "she" to fit the pronoun use in the article. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Confederate States War Department desired for [that] the ships to serve in the Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri area to protect [this] that portion of the Mississippi River, while [but] local interests pushed for the ships to remain at New Orleans.
Suggest the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than sending all of the ships upriver, the Confederate commander at New Orleans, Major General Mansfield Lovell[,] held part of the fleet at New Orleans , after a river barrier defending New Orleans failed.[12]
Suggest the above changes
Fixed Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Earl Van Dorn was armed with a single cannon on her bow – a 32-pounder cannon,[14] which was a common naval gun that was smoothbore and muzzleloading.[15]
Suggest: General Earl Van Dorn was armed with a single 32-pounder cannon on her bow, which was a common naval gun that was smoothbore and muzzleloading.
Done Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conspicuously absent is anything on the machimery that powered and propelled the Side-wheeler.
    The sources just don't have much to say about this. I don't think it helps that it's not certain which prewar steamer she was. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>But the sources do say that the Van Dorm was a side-wheel steamer with boilers, engines, and used coal for fuel. These are sourced facts that could be cited and used to weave a brief sentence on the subject. While not ideal, it's preferable to Silence. Here is a starting point: -> The Van Dorm was a side-wheel steamer equipped with steam boilers and engines that generated the power to propel the ship's paddle wheel. She burned coal for fuel. Give this some thought! Pendright (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>@Hog Farm: How about a response. Pendright (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten quite busy but I hope to be able to dig into the literature to try to find a source talking specifically about this ship by the end of the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 01:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plum Point Bend and Memphis

  • On May 10, [add year] the Confederates attacked , bringing on the Battle of Plum Point Bend.[7]
Suggest the above changes
I've added the date, but I think it's useful to the readers to directly and clearly state the name of the ensuing battle Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seven of the Confederate vessels [envolved] were arranged in order of speed , with the fastest vessels at the front; General Earl Van Dorn was fourth in the column.[18]
Suggest the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mongomery's ships reached Memphis on June 5, but there was a shortage of coal for their fuel.
Mongomery's -> sp
Oops, fixed. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a council of war, Montgomery and his captains decided to fight the pursuing Union forces, rather than scuttle their ships and retreat overland with the army or scuttle a portion of the fleet and use the remaining coal to escape with the rest.[26]

Drop the comma after forces and add a comma after aarmy

Why the comma after vessels?
I don't know. The Missouri public education system never adequately explained comma usage to me. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>If you're interested in some basic information om comma usage, Google this— https.//east,iu.edu/student-success/coursework/commas.html. Pendright (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Earl Van Dorn was in the third row, along with General Bragg.[27]
Why the comma after row?
Removed. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heavy guns of the ironclads and the ramming tactics of the United States Ram Fleet had been decisive at Memphis.[29]
Replacae had been with was
Done. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cotton cladding on General Bragg caught fire and that vessel had to be abandoned.[30]
Replace that vessel had to be with it was
Went with "she was" to match the pronoun usage. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wreck was removed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1878 and 1879.[35]
The wreckage
Done. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: This is it for now - Pendright (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright - apologies for how long it took me to respond to this - replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: <>I've posted some responses to yours that require your feedback. Pendright (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I suspect that futher research would only confirm what is already known about Van Dorn's machinery. So, I'm withdrawing my suggestions and moving to support. But, I would urge you to add a footnote explaning the sourcing problem. Pendright (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Only two images.

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'm afraid while reviewing them for FP status, I found a problem: The first image says it's both from the Illustrated London News and Harper's Weekly. Those newspapers aren't even from the same continent. It's possible it appeared in both, but that would be at least somewhat unusual, and probably would have new woodblocks at the least. Pretty sure it's out of copyright either way, but the documentation needs fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 06:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Cuerden - this supports the ILN publishing, and the supposed link to the Harper's publication was not actually of this image, so I've removed the reference to Harper's Weekly. What does bug me about that image - and I want to hear the thoughts of the other commenters here (@Hawkeye7, Pendright, Matarisvan, and Parsecboy:) - is that this shows the CSS McRae (Marquis de Habana) who was not at this battle. The image is thus inaccurate, but it's the only thing I can find that clearly and unambigously shows General Earl Van Dorn. Should this image even be used at all? Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok to use, but it may be a good idea to add an explanatory footnote mentioning that it's an artist's impression and includes a ship that wasn't present for the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second @Parsecboy's idea of adding a footnote explaining the context of the image. Matarisvan (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a footnote explaining that Marquis de la Habana/McRae had left Fort Pillow before the battle, and was actually no longer afloat by the time of the battle. Hog Farm Talk 23:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

All sources appear to be reliable and suitable. No spot checks done given HF's recent track record. Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/CSS_General_Earl_Van_Dorn&oldid=1235843454"