Talk:Wampanoag-class frigate

Wampanoag-class frigate has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 8, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

A fact from Wampanoag-class frigate appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 April 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Union Navy, despite being embroiled in the American Civil War, built the Wampanoag-class frigates for a planned war against Great Britain?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wampanoag-class frigate.

Wikipedia

"All three ships built against Isherwood's design had failed"

The article contains the statement "All three ships built against Isherwood's design had failed". I am not familiar with the turn of phrase "building against a design", but I would have guessed that it meant "implementing a design". However, given the context of the sentence, it seems that this statement actually means "All three ships using engines not designed by Isherwood had failed". Also, the article seems a little ambiguous as to whether all the ships used the same basic design, except for the engines. Can anyone clarify? Riordanmr (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is correct, but do you think there is a better way it could be worded? I appreciate the input. Regarding the design, each ship was built for the same purpose and role, but varried due to the engines and the de-centralized methods of naval architecture common in the 19th century. Is the description following 'Ships in Class' also unclear? GGOTCC 21:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 19:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Lead of her class, USS Wampanoag c. 1869

... that despite being embroiled in the American Civil War, the Union Navy built the Wampanoag-class frigates (pictured) for a planned war against Great Brittain?

Source: "By by 1863...[the] U.S. Navy looked to commerce raiding as the best means for neutralizing potential British involvement. Congress authorized the construction of a fleet of large, fast steam cruisers—the Wampanoag and her seven siblings."

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2016/april/historic-ships-wampanoag-germ-idea-battlecruiser

ALT1: ... that despite being the fastest steamships in the world at the time, the fastest Wampanoag-class frigate was only in service for a few months?

Source: "In February 1868, the USS Wampanoag sped across rough water at a record-breaking speed of 17 knots. That feat made her the fastest steam screw-driven warship afloat...The active life of the Wampanoag, however, was measured in months..."

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2002/august/wampanoag-goes-trial

Source: "By the time Wampanoag steamed into Hampton Roads on 17 February, she was the fastest ship in the world." https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2016/april/historic-ships-wampanoag-germ-idea-battlecruiser

Reviewed:

Created by GGOTCC (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

GGOTCC (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

@GGOTCC: The article looks good, it is properly sourced, it is neutral, it is new, and there seems to be no instances of plagiarism. The image is properly licensed, it is clear, and is used in the article. Congratulations! The article is ready for further DYK development! 🐝 B33 net 🐝

GA review

Passed. E_F⁵ 14:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wampanoag-class frigate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 03:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 15:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, will be reviewing this shortly. I'm currently on a semi-wikibreak for a while, so it'll probably take me a few days longer to review this. :) E_F⁵ 15:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Take your time. GGOTCC (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My deepest apologies for not starting this sooner, I'll start and (will try) to finish the review today, probably in the next 5 hours. :) E_F⁵ 15:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
All good here.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I'm not experienced in writing about maritime-related things, but this seems to cover the main aspects of the ships.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
See below
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Sure, sees stable. Recetnyl made, but that's no reason to disqualify an article.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
See below.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Comments below.

I don't see any sources in/that support the table, could you please point me to those?
- The data comes from the refs in the above sentence, as I did not know how to add the citations to every line. Are there better ways of going about this?

Ah, okay. I think it's fine there. E_F⁵ 21:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the vessels are American, 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph) and the other "knots" conversions in the "Trials" and "Ships in class" sections should have the "km/h" and "mph" swapped, such as 15 knots (17 mph; 28 km/h).
- How do I do this? To my understanding, the order is generated by the convert template. Can I override it?

Instead of imputing "km/h" in the first spot, input "mph" and in the second spot insert "km/h" instead of "mph".

The date formats in the references vary from reference-to-reference, this can be fixed by putting a <nowiki> template at the top of the article.
- Y Oh, so that's what that does.
As stated above, I'm no expert on maritime things, but is "A myriad of engineering, financial, and operational issues greatly limited their practicality" a style of wording commonly used? The words "myriad" and "greatly" stick out to me in specific.
- Y Simplified diction, thank you
Same goes for "His design was immediately controversial"; was there any support for Isherwood's proposal? The opening sentence of the "Engines" section being "The primary issue with Isherwood's proposal was speed" is a bit concerning. Again, this could just be me, but poor Isherwood is getting slammed here.
- Very interesting that you bring this up. I am very open to discussing WP:NPOV, but the ships were very controversial, with Isherwood being ferociously defamed by cabals of officers and engineers writing in engineering journals as the ships were being built. I mention this in the article as the controversies were more than a matter of opinion and had physical ramifications in why every ship of the class was diffrent. The sources from USNI touch upon the matter, but the objections to Isherwood were a mix of professional complaints and (unexplained) personal grudges so extreme that Congress undermined his project by awarding ships to other engineers.

Huh, so his ship-designing skills really did just suck that bad. With that, nothing needs to be done here since the criticism isn't an exaggeration. E_F⁵ 19:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, he was right. His designs were the only ones that worked (as mentioned at the end of the article), and I am still puzzled as to why half the Navy hated his guts. GGOTCC (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions are important. Should I explain more in the article? I first planned to, but I left it out as all of the sources do a poor job of explaining why the grudges existed and were problably limited to Wampanoag. GGOTCC (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GGOTCC, you could if you'd like. — E_F⁵ 21:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images need alt texts per MOS:ALT.
- Y
I'll spotcheck a few of the references shortly.

[10] and [13] support prose in the article; several refs give me gateway timeout errors due to my internet but in good faith I'm assuming they verify the info. [3] doesn't seem to have a usage need; I don't see anywhere in the paragraph it is used to verify where anything from the source is mentioned. E_F⁵ 19:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[3] regards explaining British neutrality, but I will move it so it will be more obvious GGOTCC (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What refs did you have timeout issues with? The US gov't sites tend to have an issue with that, but I wonder if there are any links I can change to a more reliable one. GGOTCC (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The USNI sources have been giving me issues. — E_F⁵ 21:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am having the same thing now. I had the same thing happen a few weeks ago while making the articles. It takes them a few hours to respond to this problem. GGOTCC (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5 Thank you for your input! This should be all of your points addressed. Is there anything else you object to? GGOTCC (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GGOTCC, no, good job! Passing. — E_F⁵ 14:40, 8 April 2025 (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.