• Image:NavyMOH 1862-1912.jpg What is the original source for this? I don't see a link.

Image is from commons and apparently transferred from en. I can remove if necessary as its not all that important to the article. --Brad (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that usually the original source for the image is linked to or typed in the description page. So if it is navy there should be a link to some Navy site hosting that image. You are right that the image isn't too necessary for the article. Removing it is fine too. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. I couldn't find a source where it might have come from.

• Images largely alternate right-left-right but in some cases do not. I don't consider this a big deal, but it may come up at FAC. Check MOS:IMAGES to see if you want to rearrange the images to alternate throughout.
• Image tags check out. A good deal of image description pages could use sprucing up but GA issues (license/source) are good.

• Traditionally, if the references are to be structured in the format you have here: Notes and a bibliography, the citations within the "notes" section (here titled references) are abbreviated. This is not at all required and all the MOS requires is internal consistency but I find that it helps clean up the references section.

Can you clarify this?

Sure thing. If you have a relatively complete bibliography, you can abridge citations in the "References" section. So, instead of having the full citation there you write something like "Author (Date), pp. Page". What way the reader can see where you got the information and at the same time it keeps the reference section clean and manageable. Some articles, like Adam Smith use a complex system of internal links between the "References" and the "Bibliography". This is not required.

Ok then it would seem that I have to request the books again to change to page numbers as I described below. I assume this isn't GA related but will be an A or FAC problem.

This exact issue is not too important. It is just something that might be done to improve the article on a rainy day. I have now idea if FAC people get uptight about this. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are page numbers eschewed for the main print references used? I see four footnotes repeated as named references over a dozen times each but each claim is likely cited to a different page in each reference. I would prefer that claims cited from duplicate portions of references be the only use of "named references". WP:V doesn't require that, but it is better that the exact page be noted for the reader and this will be an issue at FAC.

An oversight on my part in the beginning. Problem is that most of the books I've used for this article are circulating in and out of my library network. I would have to request the books again to correct this. The books I referenced from Project Gutenberg have no page numbers at all.

I won't hold up a GA just for this, but I promise you that this should and will stop a FAC in its tracks. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would wikilink DANFS only once in the references.

 Done

• What makes Fitz-Enz, David G. (2004) a reliable source?

Its a published book? Admittedly, out of all the books I've read on the subject, Fitz-Enz is like a "Readers Digest" version with some inaccuracies and plenty of straying off the subject. I've tried to limit his references only where they agree with other authors.

Well, the publisher's name and the fact that Amazon has no copies sets of alarm bells. Add in the mixed reviews and I think this is on the border. Published books are RS but not all books are created equal. Some are published in specialty presses or vanity presses. This might be one of those. Not sure. Protonk (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon link is here Though as noted in the reviews for the book its a crappy piece of work. Eventually I will replace his references with others as I'm still looking for more reading material.

Yeah, I found the reviews from there. It should also signal a "trade publication" if Amazon doesn't stock a 2004 book. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: for all citation references below, I refer to this revision. Also, when I don't link to the citation itself, I refer to the Numbering in the references section, not the internal link numbering (so the first footnote is 1, not zero). This helps me make more precise suggestions and avoids the back and forth of "what were you talking about?" but (as I discovered at another GA review), if the editor fixing the issues doesn't take the order I took, s/he may end up looking at a totally different set of numbers. :)
• fn30 to Revere copper. I know the history blurb is on their main page, but is there a better place for this to point to? Is it a necessary reference?

Main reason I used this was only to show that Revere Copper is still in business today. Its not important enough to include with the External Links.

Now linked to the "About Us page --Brad (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• fn40 this or this (pdf) might be better targets. Also this and the revere link should be cited per ((cite web)), including the company name as well as the page title, even if it is redundant.

 Done

• fn58 to Mass historical society. That should list the "publisher" as well.

 Done

• fn 61 to IMdb. Better sources exist for that film than both imdb and the current lone ref on the linked page.

I'm a bit stumped on this one. My intent was to allow a reader to access a link that describes in more detail what the movie was all about. I dislike google book links as they're selective in what parts of the book are shown and most are out of context to the subject. Martin (fn 25) gives a good explanation of the movie but obviously the reader cannot easily read it. If I were to add more detail of Martin's description I think this would border on copying verbatim. --Brad (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• fn's 64 and 65 are formatted differently than the rest.
• As a matter of fact, the formatting for newspaper sourcing in particular varies throughout.

Above 2  Done? I think Maralia got them.

• fn 67 to the SF maritime park association should be presented completely.

Changed to a US Navy link which contains the same document. --Brad (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are we citing Wachtel (2003) for certain details?

Wachtel supplied dimensions in a straightforward no nonsense format without burying the details in technobabble. Other works are vague or leave out certain details.

• There is a citation needed tag in the lead. If that is cited in the body, remove it. If not, then the claim should probably be removed.

Removed from lead. Will get it away from present day as well.

• explanatory note 2 can probably be remanded to the Humphreys article.

 Done

• Is there a source for explanatory note 6? I don't mean that we need an endless nest of notes inside notes, but does that claim get substantiated in references?

Yes, ref is here but I'm not sure how to apply it. I could move the mention into the 1995 restoration section.

• WP:EL states that external links should come last, after templates.

 Done I think

• The article overlinks slightly. Terms like stern and bow (and especially less clear or well known terms like hogging or length between perpendiculars) should be linked once and then not linked again. Specific incidents, ideas or people who recur throughout the text should be linked more than once if it seems needed, but take care to not link too many words repeatedly.

 Done

• Per WP:LEAD, the section detailing the mission of the constitution could be shortened a little bit and more summary included of salient points from 1812-1997.

 Done I hope.

• Is there a reason european dating is used? "1 November 1794" and so forth?

This is Military format.

Well. I'm...rather aware that european dating format is military dating format (trust me) :). Just curious about the decision to use that formatting throughout the article. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume explanatory note one is there to stop people from inserting changes into the lead, so I don't have a problem with it.

Yes, this has been an issue for a long time and I'm tired of reverting/explaining things. Hopefully this will cure the problem.

• "Traditionally, the duty of captain of the vessel is assigned to an active duty Navy commander." How about "Traditionally, command of the vessel is..."?

 Done

• "As a fully commissioned active duty Navy ship, her crew of 60 sailors..." This would have been written 60 officers and men back in the day, but we should either note that this is sailors and officers or sailors (and add officers). Like it or lump it, officers don't like to be called "sailors".

 Done

• "In August 1785, following the close of the Revolutionary War," "...after the Revolutionary War drew to a close"?

 Done

• "Humphreys designed a diagonal rib scheme, intended to reduce hogging, and covered this in extremely heavy planking." This section would be greatly improved by a 2-d or 3-d model showing what was meant by this. Just a comment.

Yes, I have planned at least two more spinoff articles, one for the armament and another for a more detailed look at what each deck contains. The diagonal riders are on the orlop deck.

• "a particularly dense wood, can weigh up to 75 pounds per 1 cubic foot (0.028 m3)" This metric conversion should show density, not volume.

 Done

• "Constitution's hull was built 21 in (530 mm) thick in an era when 18 in (460 mm) was normally used" Normally used isn't right. Perhaps "when 18 in hulls were common". I think this originally meant to describe the materials used in the hull and has been repurposed over time.

 Done

• Is the section on her construction meant to recapitulate detail in the infobox? I don't mean that isn't allowed, but I just want to know if that is the intent or if it is intended that the prose speak more generally of dimensions.

Speaking more generally of the dimensions was the intent but there might be readers who aren't really interested in something more specific. Those looking for specifics can read the info box.

• "...in accordance with section nine of the Naval Act of 1794" could probably remove the section part.

 Done

• Does the article settle on where it is appropriate to refer to the "commanding officer" and when it is appropriate to refer to the "captain"? I ask only because I see both terms used and I haven't checked exhaustively to see if all usages are appropriate. Just making sure you had that notion in mind.

This should be cleaned up to clarify, as we know that terminology deems anyone of any rank in charge of the ship to be the "Captain" of the vessel.

Correct. This is further made difficult by the fact that some captains of the Constitution took command of the vessel at the rank of captain, rather than commander. :) Protonk (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Captain Edward Preble, arrived at the Boston Navy Yard on 13 May 1803 to recommission Constitution..." This section should be more clear. I like the exchange between the two ships, but we get into and out of it awkwardly. I see it is being editing during this review. :)

Clarified

• "Constitution had been gone over four years." ... I would have mutinied after a 4 year deployment. Wow.
• "Only in ordinary for two months, Constitution was reactivated with Captain John Rodgers again taking command to oversee a major refitting." What does "only in ordinary" mean? hmm. I gather from later references to it that I should know it already. :)

Clarified

• "...the return voyage 16 May narrowly avoiding being wrecked off the Scilly Isles[44] due to the navigation from her Officer of the Deck." The OOD saved the day or hazarded the ship?

Clarified

• "...September Captain Gwinn died of Chronic Gastritis" Why is gastritis capitalized?

 Done

• "Despite her age, she was recorded running at 9 kn (17 km/h)..." While proper, we might as well just spell out knots. Also, the first mention (in the "paddle wheel" bit, should link to Knot (speed).

 Done

• Apprentice boys (United States Navy) should be an article. Just a comment. I'm usually baffled to see a complete description of something in about.com that wasn't basically cribbed from wikipedia.

I've found it difficult to find anything about ships "boys". Some refer to powder monkey while others use the word midshipman. In either case I seem to believe that powder monkeys were 8-12 years-old and midshipman anywhere from 13 to 16.

Evidently "Apprentice boys" were a Navy program that lasted for ~10-20 years in the late 19th century trying to expose talented boys to seamanship but not specifically looking for midshipmen. Also remember that there was a big change in who was on a ship after the civil war in the united states. While midshipmen in the old days tended to be boys age 13-16 who had rich parents and seamen tended to be impressed into service from drunks and criminals in harbor towns, this changed in the 1800's as navies became more professionalized. Actual "ratings" and ranks for enlisted men (aside from Boatswains) started in ~1860-1870 (I forget) and so the terminology kind of changes under our feet for this article. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Admiral Edward Walter Eberle, Chief of Naval Operations," CNO should be wikilinked.

 Done

• "Constitution entered drydock with a crowd of 10,000 observers on 16 June 1927 though as one might expect by now, she remained there longer than planned." The aside is kind of conversational.

 Done

• "Commander Martin was able to set the precedence where all construction work on Constitution would move in the direction of maintaining her to the 1812 configuration she is most famous for" this sentence should be much more clear. Expand with other sentences as needed, explaining a little about the changes made between 1812 and then.
• "The most difficult task as was during her 1920s restoration was the procurement of timber in the quantity and sizes needed." This sentence is awkward.

This is an exceptional article. It is detailed, clear and compelling. It doesn't get bogged down in detail but it covers the subject lovingly. I'm going to place the article on hold for now pending a discussion of the sourcing issues (vis pages) and some minor elements. I'm sure I will be able to happily pass this article in a few days. What a great job. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and the time spent on the review. This is my first serious effort on an article and admittedly my prose, composition and flow aren't the best but I've been asking around for a copyedit without much result. I will begin addressing your concerns soon. --Brad (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a copyedit now. Will address MOS and date formatting in references, too. Maralia (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pass this article. Many of the c/e issues were fixed by Maralia and Brad and a lot of the other issues are elements that will stop this from becoming a FA, not a GA. Thanks for the quick work and the helpful responses. good luck with FAC! Protonk (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]