Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Congress (1799)/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 not promoted by Dabomb87 05:14, 1 December 2009 [1].

USS Congress (1799)

Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Self nomination. Article has passed GA and A reviews within the last two months. Information on this ship has been very difficult to find. Apparently the ship was not deemed worthy enough by historians resulting in the small size of the article. Nevertheless, throughout the GA and A reviews I was able to find further information to add which has expanded the article to some extent but there are still gaps. This article is part of my larger plan for a featured topic on the Original six frigates of the United States Navy. Brad (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images, alt-text, dabs and sources clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1c, 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Decline: 2c.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this page is so long, resolved comments moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Kirk on 3, 1(a,b,c)

  • Regarding the image in the lead, I'm not sure the USS Chesapeake is a 'sister ship' since it was built differently (the whole 44 to 36 to 38, plus it had slightly different dimensions) so I think the better choice here is a picture of the USS Constellation.
Just prior to this nomination for FA I removed File:USS Constellation.jpg from this article because it is of questionable origins. The original link it was downloaded from is no longer resolving therefore not allowing a verification. If you compare that file with File:USSChesapeake.jpg there is an eerie similarity between the both of them. The only file in this case that I can verify as being true and valid is the Chesapeake one. The use of "sister ship" is in regard to Congress being one of the original six. None of these ships were exactly the same as any other. --Brad (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm almost positive I've seen a painting of the USS Congress (1799), but its so historically less significant than the other original frigates they probably haven't digitized it yet; have you attempted to call the Historical center to find out? I think with a little leg work you can get the actual photo of the painting.
There are plenty of photos of USS Congress (1841) because of her notoriety as being sunk at Hampton Roads by CSS Virginia. I have thoroughly searched several times for pics of the 1799 Congress and have turned up nothing. Calling the NHHC asking for pics of this ship is more than I'm willing to do. It smells of original research and I am not willing to expend any funds to cover the costs of obtaining a photo. --Brad (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this one before and neither source specifically states that the photo is of Congress I could certainly use the photo as it's public domain but the best caption I could use for the photo would be something like A representative illustration of an 19th century frigate.--Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not allowing me to see page 35. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing that I mention the original armament in addition to the 1812 setup? What a ship was rated at is different from what amount of guns it actually carried. The author is not claiming that Congress and Constellation's ratings were changed to 44 gun ships but that they "carried" 44 or more guns. The article here on Congress clearly states in the lead and in the infobox that she was rated at 38; and mention is made that she was originally designated a 36 by the Naval Act but was re-rated to a 38. I don't see what the trouble is with that. --Brad (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.. I just realized that I have the armament referenced to DANFS and the DANFS article doesn't agree. I've no idea where I got those figures from but I will work on fixing this. This might have caused some misunderstandings here. My apologies. --Brad (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The armament discrepancies have been straightened out using Canney as a reference. --Brad (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, thanks! I have one question regarding the 38 gun rating (footnote #4) - does that source actually have a footnote which explains why it was re-rated? (The sentence "...re-rated as 38s while under construction" on page 128?). Never mind, Chapelle didn't cite his sources...how annoying. Kirk (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Construction section is missing some important details. For example, I want more information about the transition from 36 to 38 guns - we have a sentence and as source, but I think this should be expanded to explain what ship rating meant in the US Navy at the time. I looked in some other sources and they usually discuss why carronades were used and the difference betweeen 18 and 24 pound guns. I'm curious why they didn't use 24 pound guns during the War of 1812 like the other frigates. Also, USS Constitution has a slightly different take on the construction methods you might consider researching, because a historically interesting thing about the Congress was it fell apart quickly. Kirk (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know more about the change from 36 to 38 guns but have not been able to find anything further. It would be apparent and necessary to explain why the Naval Act called for 36 gun ships and later on they've all been referred to as 38s. Chapelle and Beach are the only sources to mention the rating was even changed but the only reason given is because of their size.
"Rating" may be the wrong term to use in describing the ships. Unlike the rating system of the Royal Navy the US never had one to my knowledge. "Classed" might be more of an appropriate term to use but I am not sure.
I really believe the hows and whys of what armament was used and when belongs in another article. I don't see the value in introducing the explanation to an article on a particular ship when the issue would involve all ships of the Navy during that period.
Since I brought Constitution to FA last year I can most definitely tell you that all of the extra information given in the construction section is only citable to Constitution. As a blanket statement to any sparse descriptions in this article I can answer that there just aren't any. This article was very difficult to find information for. Two years prior to Congress being scrapped, Constitution was in the same condition but funds were approved to make the repairs. Apparently there was no funds or public outcry to save Congress. --Brad (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked in a couple of other sources & all the original frigates were ordered to be built the same way, so you should be able to add that to the article. Toll should have something you can use. Kirk (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment about another article, maybe there should be a Rating System of the US Navy article, but the problem for this FAC is that this rating system stuff is not common knowledge, so a reader who finds out its rated as a 38 gun frigate in the infobox but was authorized as a 36 gun frigate is going to be confused. I can't actually check the source you cited for 38 guns, but DANFS lists 24 18-pdr., 12 12-pdr long guns (which you can see in the woodcut) & as opposed to Constellation, with 38 24-pdr long guns; Chesapeake, 30 18-pdr with 12 carronades. 12-pdr long guns would have been almost useless in the war of 1812; must have been replaced by carronades which would probably have resulted in the re-rating to 38 guns. I'll see if I can help.
  • Summary
  • Re: 1c, I have requested a copy edit.
  • Since there are no further comments regarding the infobox pic I'm going to leave it as is. I have changed the caption and believe that while the current pic isn't exactly accurate, it is more visually appealing than any alternative. --Brad (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the woodcut in the infobox & the sail plan in the construction section would be my preference; both are in the public domain but you'll just have to upload them. Also, the book Constellation has the design diagram for the Congress (which shared it with the Constellation) toward the beginning (i'll send you the page tomorrow), also PD, which really supports my original objection (that one you may need to scan in). I'll also ping one of the MilHist ship admins to look at this issue, kind of 1b&3 but maybe I'm being too picky! Kirk (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making assumptions that I need to clarify. I am a total dolt when it comes to working with photo programs and I've been that way for years. I do not own a scanner and my computer is an aging 7 year old relic. It cannot even handle photos through MS Paint or gimp. With that said, I believe the article meets the C3 criteria. The pics are not perfect but neither are the alternatives you've suggested. The current pics do not misrepresent the subject or make claims of any similarity to Congress at all. Both photos have solid public domain status with applicable licenses. --Brad (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will help with the technical doltness - Ed agreed the sailplan should be in the article, so I'll see what I can do today. I'll also start scanning some Constellation images since you'll need those eventually. However, I'm not sure I can get that done in the timeframe of a FA review. Clarifying my objection: the article barely meets the MilHist B5 standard for appropriate supporting materials...the closest I could see in the FA was 3, but maybe its 1b & if I was your GA reviwer I wouldn't have promoted it until we had more supporting materials in the article. I'll do what I can to help - I've enjoyed learning about this part of US Naval History. Kirk (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked some congressional documents via Lexis-nexus congressional, and they always refer to the three smaller frigates in text and tables rated at 36-guns. I think what happened here is either the builders (or Chapelle!) equated them to the 38-gun frigates of the Royal Navy, but officially, the US Navy had three ratings of frigates during this time period: 44 (United States), 36 (Constellation), 32 (Essex). I'll add a note and write up this with some of the sources that describes some of this in detail. I think as long as the rating is consistent for Constellation, Congress and Chesapeake in the info boxes/prose and has a footnote to Chapelle that's fine with me. Kirk (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not read beyond the introduction. I want to congratulate the writers in putting all the significant information- what was it/where was it/what date was it... into the first three sentences. It is amazing how many articles are put up for promotion without this basic content in the first paragraph. Amandajm (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I went through the article and performed some copy edits. Some items I noted:
    • In "Construction" section was there a single event that began attacks on American ships? Or was there just an uptick in attacks that prompted the ship construction? The way it's worded now suggests that no American ships were attacked prior to the 1790s, which may or may not be the case.
I've hopefully clarified this section. The real gritty details in the main article. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of compound adjectives that incorrectly have en dashes. It should be "36-gun frigate" rather than "36–gun frigate", for example. (I've attempted to change ones that I've seen, but it wouldn't hurt to check that all have been corrected.)
Found one more and removed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Armament" section: In order to reduce the strings of numbers and ×s, I've violated the MOS guidelines regarding numerals/numbers so that each enumeration of guns is listed as twenty-eight 18 pounders (8 kg), for example
Agree. The 28 x 18 starts to look like a circus of numbers when closely used together. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same section: why the comparison to British ships-of-the-line rather than to comparably sized ships? One wouldn't (or shouldn't, at least) discuss the armament of a destroyer, for example, and say that it has fewer guns than a cruiser.
Removed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "War of 1812" section: Did the Commodore Rodgers-led squadron consist of the list of ships that follows? Right now it reads as if the squadron as a unit sailed alongside these other ships.
Should be clarified now. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same section: Diversion of men and materials created a shortage of only materials? Maybe, depending on what the source says, it should read something like By this time of the war, materials and personnel were being diverted to the Great Lakes, which creating a shortage of resources necessary to repair Congress
I added your suggestion. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In section "Second Barbary War": The sentence beginning Peace having already been secured by Decatur with Algiers and several other Barbary States… is confusing. If it means that by the time Congress and her group arrived that the war was already over?
Clarified. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Bibliography" section: there's one entry that is formatted with {{citation}}, giving it a slightly different format than the rest, all formatted with {{cite book}}
Fixed. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copy edit; replies above. --Brad (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have given this a quick copyedit; few changes, as Bellhalla had been through before me. One quibble: the Citation template used inside the one Note is not displaying properly. I'm not fond of two-sentence paragraphs, but recognize that sometimes they're better than smashing unrelated events/information together. Otherwise, looking good. Maralia (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your corrections. You bring up a point I've been trying to figure out myself. The note currently uses a Harvard style reference which is not inline with the rest of the article. I'm not sure how to use a ref within a note to produce the [#] citation and have it match the others. --Brad (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to solve that directly. Given that it's just a single citation, I've rewritten it in plaintext, to display inside the footnote itself. Maralia (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kirk - Striking objections; I tried finding an image of Captain Sever for the Quasi-war section but failed; I'll see if I can find/scan the sheer plan. The placement of the body plan image is in a bad spot; it could be closer to the construction section where I originally put it, but if you don't like the text sandwich, I think that can be accomplished by expanding the lead. Kirk (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Well-written, and well-structured - which makes for a very good flow whilst reading throughout. After reading about the successful operations of the ship, one wishes she were still around to help combat incidents of modern-day piracy today. I noted a few Captains that could possibly be independently notable, but that would be work for another time, not required here as part of this process. Great job on the research and writing. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I generally like this article. However I found a few problems.
    1. and the third ship to carry the name. The information that she was the third ship to carry that name is not mentioned in the main text. Some information about ships with the same name is, in my opinion, necessary as well (as a footnote).
      That passage was another bit of cruft left over from a change in the article text and I have removed it. The otherships link would allow those interested in other ships named Congress. --Brad (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. She arrived at Gibraltar on 11 August joining the ships of the Mediterranean Squadron, among them her sister ships Constellation, Constitution and President. There is no explanation of what Mediterranean Squadron is. (It is not mentioned before.) I think some context should be provided. Currently this name appears suddenly without any explanation, which is confusing.
      The wikilink to Mediterranean Squadron doesn't help explain the concept? --Brad (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I of course saw the wikilink. I think a sentence or two are still necessary. Ruslik_Zero 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I certainly could explain the concept of squadrons on a station but the trouble I'm running into is having citations to back it up with. None of the sources at hand are going to help explain this. Even going to US Navy sources have turned up nothing. The only alternative I can see for the moment is to remove the mention. --Brad (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ruslik0, I did some checking of FA Ship articles and its not common to provide context for ship formations; look at USS Iowa & Atlantic Fleet and Pacific Fleet, HMS Royal Oak (08) and Atlantic, Home and Mediterranean fleet, Brazilian cruiser Bahia and its various squadrons. I think a wikilink is sufficient. -- Kirk (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed myself (added a sentence). Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The passage you added cannot be backed up with a source. This is what I was explaining to you above. Most of us know that squadrons were formed and operated that way but if it cannot be cited it cannot be in the article. It should be removed. --Brad (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3. proceeded towards the Virginia capes, and arrived back in Boston on 31 December. During their time at sea, the two frigates captured nine prizes. However the previous sentence says that Congress and President remained together during November but they did not find a single ship to capture. Please, clarify.
      Hopefully I have done so. --Brad (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, however, found another problem. The article says Rodgers succeeded Samuel Barron as Commodore in November [of 1804], subsequently taking command of Constitution. However the article about Rogers says His brilliant record fighting the corsairs won him appointment as Commodore of the Mediterranean Squadron in May 1805. This needs a clarification. Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into this. --Brad (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting to withdraw I have lost confidence in this article being as complete as it should be. Likely this was caused by writing two other frigate articles at the same time. I need to go over this article from beginning to end without the pressure of an ongoing review. Right now it feels like I'm just throwing patches at it to get it passed. --Brad (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • A couple more patches:
      • naval constructor is not a title, and should not be capitalized; idiom would be to recast: James Hackett, the shipwright,. Hackett should be linked; he may be a redlink now, but if there is a biography of him in some obscure historical society newsletter, the link should be available.
      • The building of Congress and her sisters was a matter of high political controversy in the United States. I'm sure the nom knows this; but the reader should be told too. In this connection, the date of the authorization is important. (This is the second-best choice; silence is better than partisanship; but do second-best choices make FAs?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per nominator request. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/USS_Congress_(1799)/archive1&oldid=1078808777"