Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/USS President (1800)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS President (1800)

Yes, another original frigate article. Recently passed GA and has been copy edited to some extent. All sources are exhausted on this subject yet they still leave a substantial amount of information at hand. --Brad (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support

"During the war President patrolled as far east as the English Channel and as far north as Norway." Noway is east of the English Channel.

And there is the dilemma I was faced with. Norway is north-east of the English Channel. It's certainly farther north and east than the EC. The trouble I had was making it understandable. Perhaps removing the north and east descriptions would solve the problem? I'm open to suggestions.

Perhaps just "patrolled as far from the United States as the English Channel and Norway"? – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be more clear now. I also had to remove "christened" and replace it with "completed" as I have no evidence that the ship was ever christened. Another editor had added christened. --Brad (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources do not agree on the roles of those involved in her construction. Toll claims Cheeseman; DANFS claims Bergh; the New York Times article written by Bergh's son Henry, claims that Bergh was Naval Constructor appointed by Cheeseman;" This phrase doesn't make sense and makes the whole note confusing.

I'm trying to explain to the reader what each source I had at my disposal said about the builders. That is, none of my sources agreed with the other or made no mention of it. In this case my only choice was to include all three persons and attempt to explain why the article is unclear about who did what and when. Ideas?

I understand what you're trying to do, I just think you forgot a word. Toll claims Cheeseman...what? Was the foreman? Same with Bergh. A useful footnote, just badly phrased. – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this more clear now? --Brad (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mention her recommissioning in 1809 but no decommissioning, can this be clarified?

This question came up at the GAR. Being knowledgeable about ship procedures I could say that President was put in reserve after the First Barbary War which is quite likely, but none of my sources say this ever happened. So, if I can't cite it, I can't say it. I did have a cite to say that the ship was recommissioned on 1809.

Too bad, it's just rather confusing, but I suppose it can't be helped. – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note at the end of the section to explain the gap. Look ok to you? --Brad (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rodgers' squadron managed to capture seven merchant ships and recapture one American vessel before returning to Boston." Wait, I thought you said he hadn't caught the convoy. If he later went chasing other ships after giving up the chase for the Jamaica convoy, you should say that.

This should be more clear now? --Brad (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall good, just a few clarifications before I can support it. – Joe N 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, it's all good now. – Joe N 18:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with few comments:
- Please consider adding references inside the notes as well, even if the coresponding references are posted near the note links in the article text.
- There is no need for separate section for notes and citation. See here how you can easily merge the two sections in a more elegant referencing system.
- Why are some characteristics in the infobox cited and some not? They should all be cited even if they are referenced by the same citation.
Otherwise a good article and a nice read. Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest some ideas that I will pursue before FAC such as the easier setup on notes and references. As for the infobox citations.. I had another editor mention that whatever was cited in the body of the article didn't need citing in the box. Whichever way is correct I will repair the cites there. --Brad (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendations above would make your life easier through an FAC, but they are just advices so feel free to do what you consider best. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The images all have alt text, and the external links all work. There is one disambig link though that needs fixing (Irish Channel). Can you please investigate and pipe it through to the most correct link? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.