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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:58, 8 November 2008 [1].

USS Constitution[edit]

Nominator(s): Brad (talk)

Self nomination. Constitution has gone through a GAR and an ACR, passing both. There are a number of redlinks in the process of being filled as the article required that 12 Royal Navy ship articles be created. This was my first effort at a serious article and is also my first FAC. Brad (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support TomStar81 (Talk) 21:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images all be free an' 'ppropriately PD licensed, me maties. --MASEM 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy there ~~is the Ville de Paris here the French ship Ville de Paris (1851)?~~ Ta Ϣere Spiel Chequers 23:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say for sure; my reference does not get anymore specific than the name. The timeline does fit, however, as I could imagine that Ville de Paris was in port as a troopship by the late 1870s as the article states. --Brad (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've wikilinked to the article as I'm quite sure this is the same ship regardless.

Comments sorry for nit-picking. :)
- End of the Armament section: "The marine detachment onboard were the naval infantry that manned the fighting tops armed with rifles to fire down onto the decks of the enemy ship." needs a ref. (I'm assuming 28 covers it?)
  It was 28; fixed.
- Beginning of "Mediterranean and Pacific section": "Elliot had himself appointed Captain of Constitution and got underway in March 1835 to New York, ..." How exactly did he get himself appointed? (Do the sources say that?)
  Poor wording on my part; fixed
- "1925 Restoration and Tour" section...
  - 3rd para, last sentence. ~~Is "camboose" linked right? If so, why in heck was a caboose on a ship? =)~~ Well, if I had read past the first one or two paragraphs of camboose....
  - ~~Same place. "Mess" is jargon.~~
    Is why mess is wikilinked as to "Feed" or "cook food for the crew" were rather bulky sounding to me.
    The above seems confusing the way I wrote it. Using the word mess seemed less cumbersome than "Feeding the crew" or "For cooking food".
    Alright, I agree. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed this to read "prepare meals for the crew". Much better.
  - ~~4th para, first sentence. "no stranger to controversy" ... hmm this sounds odd? Before you change this, does this sound weird to anyone else?~~
    The point was to take into consideration all the controversy she had been involved in up to that point.
    Duh, that was obvious... =/ —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Same place. Is it possible to get a quote of what he said?~~
    A quote of what said by whom?
    "when Assistant Secretary of the Navy Ernest Jahncke made comments doubting the ability of the modern US Navy to still sail a vessel of her type." ...maybe a quote of what he said? (if possible?) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no quote that I can find. The Time Magazine reference is the only one I'm aware of.
  - ~~Last sentence of the section. "The same act directed that Constellation be donated to a non-profit group in Baltimore.[155]" Directed who?~~
    Directed that Constellation would be moved from her side-by-side berthing in Boston with Constitution to Baltimore. But there is nothing said about when Constellation actually left Boston. There is a gap between 1954 and when the ship arrived in Baltimore in the late 60s.
- "Bicentennial celebrations" section: (third sentence) "Funds were approved in 1972 for her restoration and she entered drydock from April 1973 to April 1974 where large quantities of red oak were replaced from a failed experiment using that material in the 1950s." ...what failed experiment...? At least a link!
  Some repairs had been done in the 1950s using red oak which was rotted away 20 years later. Nothing much is described about how the red oak got there or how it was installed or why it was weak.
  Hmmm. maybe "...1974. During this period, large quantities of red oak were removed and replaced from the ship. This red oak had been added in the 1950s as an experiment to see if it would be of better quality than the normal live oak, but it had mostly rotted away by 1970." .........better? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Clarified using some of your text above.
- Beginning of the "Museum ship" section: "In 1900 Congress authorized restoration of Constitution, but did not appropriate any funds for the project; funding was to be raised privately. The Massachusetts Society of the United Daughters of the War of 1812 spearheaded an effort to raise funds, but ultimately failed. In 1903 the Massachusetts Historical Society's[143] president Charles Francis Adams requested of Congress that she be rehabilitated and placed back into active service." (What exactly does 143 cite? The entire para?)
  Ahem.. that was embarrassing. Somehow I forgot that paragraph with references; now fixed.
- ~~"Sail 200" section has text sandwiched between images.~~
  I'm not seeing sandwiched text albeit there are only 4 or 5 sentences of text between the two pics.
  Ok then, no problem. For me, the first five lines of "Sail 200" is sandwiched, but.... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Support. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops one last thing: you've got a couple of disambiguated links in the article...while I realize that two are purposeful (with the ((otherships)) etc.) there are a few that have to be addressed: look here! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. When sources say "yellow pine" they aren't specific to what sort.

Comment - Recommend that you remove wikilinks from common words, per Overlinking and underlinking. There is too much of that "sea of blue" that FAC articles are supposed to avoid. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the entire article and removed the more mundane links and some that were overlinked. Some thoughts I had was over the length of the article and if perhaps some readers may go to one section and ignore others. --Brad (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - I've seen this article go through all it's development and I must say that I'm impressed at what Brad has been able to do with an article that I thought about working on when I first started on wikipedia over a year ago. This article meets all the criteria that a Featured Article is expected to and therefore should be one. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

In this sentence: Her most famous era of naval warfare took place during the War of 1812 against Great Britain - "took place" does not sound right to me, (I'm British BTW). Since an era is not an event "was" would be better than "took place".
Here: ... more lightly built frigates simply could not match. - To maintain neutrality I would delete "simply".
In this sentence; In response to an 1801 demand from Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha of Tripoli - although correct, the use of the year as an adjective sounds odd. Would "In response to a demand in 1801 from..." be better?
This sentence: Built in an era when a wooden ship had an expected service life of ten to fifteen years, Constitution was thirty-one years old. - needs a quick fix, how about "was by now thirty-one years old"?

Please reduce the linking wherever possible. Although this article is about a ship, the sea of blue is distracting. Thanks for an engaging, comprehensive and well-written FAC. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed your wording suggestions and also made another run through the blue links but this time used a heavy ax so it should look ok now? --Brad (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Brad it does. I was watching you at work. This article would look great on the Main Page, best of luck. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Per Strong national ties to a topic (which has been referenced in other FACs), should not the dates be in the American format? This portion of WP:MOSDATE does say that "articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field." Is this considered an article on the modern U.S. military? Not trying to nitpick, just curious. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article does relate to the modern U.S. military since the Constitution is still a commissioned warship in the U.S. Navy. Also, the military date format is used in most if not all of the sources to begin with, the U.S. military, as well as in every other military ship FA (of which I can point you to 5 battleships, two aircraft carriers, one destroyer, three transports, one destroyer tender, two ship-class articles, and a few others). -MBK₀₀₄ 02:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm not arguing with you and accept your answer. No problem. Thanks. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ACCESS, images within sections not above them, but WP:MOS#Images, no left-aligned images under third-level headings. Images need to be moved in to sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over these and had to get rid of two; someone had been mucking about with them recently. --Brad (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this article for GA and I have been impressed at the steady pace of improvement by Brad to this article. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not clear who "The Pasha" is in the "Battle of Tripoli Harbor" section. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. It was Yusuf Karamanli. Thanks for your edits as well. --Brad (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure about using bold for Old Constitution. Per MoS, bolding is only to be used in limited situations and I don't think this is one of them. I wonder if "Old Constitution" would be better? Or do you have a reason for the bolding? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it should be italicized, bolding or not. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it was italicized. I copied it incorrectly. So maybe it should be Old Constitution? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops, sorry...and okay then, agreed. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbolded. Normally for ship articles we bold the names that any ship might have had through its career but this particular name isn't very important. --Brad (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I agreed—how many people are really going to know the ship as Old Constitution? :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved support. I reviewed this for sources and copyedited it several times. Maralia (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have been through the article quite thoroughly several times (with some minor copyediting) and can give this article my unqualified support as an interesting, comprehensive, clearly written and clearly organized article. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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