Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Missouri (1841)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

USS Missouri (1841)

edit

USS Missouri (1841) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator(s): GGOTCC 15:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first American warship named Missouri. While the most obscure USS Missouri, this frigate brought the Navy kicking and screaming into steam era, and both established and legitimized the roles of engineers throughout the fleet...before one of them dropped a wrench, destroyed the ship, and nearly got everyone killed. Regardless, Missouri and her sister are officially considered to be among the most impressive early engineering feats in US naval history, at least according to the Navy in 1937 and a mosaic which depicts the six ship classes that hold the title. I was also motivated to write this article after meeting the US Navy's Curator of Models. We worked together to identify a bunch of old ship models, and we had to rely on Wikipedia to identify some of the most difficult. Since the US is shockingly underrepresented in the list of FA/GAs on Wikipedia, I wanted to change that and improve the copy+pasted entries from the US Navy's website with legitimate articles. Additionally, this ship holds a special place in the lore of US Navy engineers. Now that I am finally in college, this article feels appropriate for my first FAC and second A-class.

GGOTCC 15:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Paddlewheel_frigate_USS_Mississipi_abeam.tiff is missing a publication date
  • File:Caleb_Cushing.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
@Nikkimaria Thank you for the review! I added the publication date (1853), author's death (1896), and rescued the link. GGOTCC 04:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TIFF files are not to be used for display in wikipedia articles, please see c:COM:TIFF. Consider converting the file to a png or jpg. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GGOTCC: given that you have not uploaded a PNG conversion, I have done it myself at File:Paddlewheel frigate USS Mississipi abeam.png. Please replace the TIFF with the PNG version. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33 Hello, thank you! I was looking into ways to convert the image without having to redownload it and upload it again, but this would do! GGOTCC 18:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Olliefant

edit
  • Can you specify which Congress ordered it? I'm pretty sure it would've been the 25th United States Congress
    • I am not sure if any of my sources specify, but I will check
  • Under "Development and design", [Secretary of the Navy] [James Paulding] is an MOS:SOB violation
    • Done
  • "Brooklyn" -> "Brooklyn, New York" for consistency
    • Done
  • "Washington D.C." -> "Washington, D.C."
    • Done
  • "Norfolk to Fayal in the Azores" where are these places?
    • Specified Norfolk Virginia and Fayal Island
  • Under "Service history", [ship of the line] [HMS Malabar] is an MOS:SOB violation
    • Done
That's what I found ping me when done Olliefant (she/her) 20:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, @Olliefant:! GGOTCC 20:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olliefant (she/her) 21:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A.Cython

edit

Overall, a great article. I enjoyed it as it is also related with the societal resistance to new technologies.

Prose

  • Three steamship were → Three steamships were
  • officers that outlined → officer who outlined
  • main difference between the ships were change "were" → was
  • an audit lead by change "lead" → led
  • axillary power and → auxiliary power, and
  • which was already add comma before "which"
  • A boat from Gibraltar crewed by convicts and → A boat from Gibraltar, crewed by convicts, and (add commas)
  • US Navy Charles Copeland, and were built → US Navy, Charles Copeland. They were built
    • Thank you! I made these changes or redid the prose to flow better.

Other

  • 568,806 is this today's money? If not wouldn't be useful to have a note to the corresponding value of today's money? see example
    • Good point! I added the inflation template in the prose.
  • routine maintenance.[17] is the citation needed here since it also at the end of the paragraph
    • The two sentences ("Captain John T. Newton... routine maintenance") are cited to ref 17, while last sentence ("Her arrival marked...when she arrived") is cited to ref 17 and 15. I did not want to overcite as ref 15 is only for one part of the last sentence.
  • Her chief engineer Her? not clear
    • I swapped it to mention the ship's name
  • Range 20 days of coal Range typically means distance, I do not know what 20 days means in terms of distance. I found it a bit confusing. A.Cython(talk) 03:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am open to changing this, but none of the sources provide a range, as the frigate was never intended to have a maximum distance like later warships. Instead, everything focused on the number of days the engine could be kept running.
    • Thank you for the feedback, @A.Cython:, it is much appreciated! How does everything look now? GGOTCC 04:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Support: Thank you for the making the changes and providing a clarification about the range. I am not an expert on ships, so I do not have strong feelings about it. Happy editing! A.Cython(talk) 14:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I reviewed at GAN and did a source review at ACR so I might not have much too add, but I will take a look. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • " disrupted the traditional conservative zeitgeist throughout the Navy" - this is a bit nit-picky, but I'm of the view that it's generally bad for readability to be including obscure words that we have to link (here zeitgeist) when there are plenty of other, more plain speech, words that can be used which will actually be more understandable to the majority of readers
    • I am a bit surprised to see "zeitgeist" considered obscure, but I see your point. I swapped it with mindset.
  • "named after the Missouri river. " - shouldn't "river" be capitalized? "Missouri River" as the name of the place is a proper noun, and using Missouri as an adjective here doesn't really make sense because a lot of the river isn't in Missouri
    • Capitalized the R
  • I believe the correct form is "Paixhans" not "Paixhan"; this isn't a plural, rather the designer's last name included the trailing s
    • Good point, thank you
  • "and cost US$568,806 equivalent to $17,752,252 in 2025." - I'd put the inflationary conversion into parentheses to improve reading clarity
    • Done. I forgot I can do that outside of the template
  • " known as the "Dark Ages"" - known as this by whom?
    • Several of my books use the term, but I removed it and reworded the sentence.

This is my third time reviewing the article, so I'm not surprised that I don't have much to add here. Hog Farm Talk 00:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting for the content review part. Hog Farm Talk 01:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • Some books have publisher locations; some don't, even when available. There should be consistency.
    • I am going through each ref and seeing what else can be added
The first one I checked showed a missing location which is available - Kinnamann 2022. (Wilmington)
  • Several works lack identifiers when they are available. Eg the ISBN for Dulles is 9780404022167, the OCLC for Bennett & Weir is 1435130402 etc.
    • Same as above
  • "an engine producing 9 knots". An engine doesn't produce speed. Suggest rephrasing.
    • Changed to 'output' in both instances
Which gives "an engine that output 9 knots". Save objection, an engine does not output speed (eg knots).
Developed?
  • "... the three masts were located unevenly on the hull. Combined with the funnel preventing the use of mainsails, they were inefficient while under sail." With the information spread over two sentences it is not clear that you mean that the masts were inefficient. (I assume that is what you mean?) And how can a mast be inefficient? Suggest rephrasing.
    • How is "Due to the position of the engine and funnel, the three masts were located in unconventional locations on the main deck. Combined with the funnel preventing the use of mainsails, the design was slow while under sail"?
  • "Below the gun deck was the berth deck." Which was what? Bearing in mind that MOS:NOFORCELINK states "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
    • I added a clause defining the berth deck
  • "800 tons of coal for 20 days of steaming." At what speed? And is it known what range this gave the ship?
    • In this era, the unreliability of steam engines made it hard to measure speed and range in the modern sense. As a result, the period of time a steam engine could be operated was the goal. I can check again, but none of my sources specify.
  • "Below the berth deck was the tween deck and hold". Is this two separate decks, one split into two parts, or one named "the tween deck and hold"?
    • Two decks. I reworded the sentence to separate the two
  • "Missouri was praised as having an interior, "much superior" to that of her sister ship USS Mississippi." Is it known in what way her interior was superior?
    • The source only specifies a rug and headboard in the captain's quarters, but also generalizes about the entire ship. A previous comment during the A-class review removed both examples for being very limited in scope and requiring knowledge about what was normally in a captain's quarters, but I can re-add it.
  • "During the trials". During what trials? They have not previously been mentioned. And what are "trials"?
    • The trial run with Mississippi mentioned in the previous sentence. Should this be more clear?
  • "and did not return until next April." Return to where?
    • Added mention it was regarding Washington DC
  • "the Home Squadron, which complained about". A squadron cannot complain. A person can, such as the commanding officer or the senior supply officer. Or, in more general terms 'complaints were made' or 'which elicited complaints' or similar. Were these formal complaints made to someone? Or more in the way of intra-squadron grumbling?
    • How is "which elicited complaints"?
  • "with unclear terms and protections." What are "protections" in this context?
    • I reworded the sentence to emphasize terms of service and job security, although the source referred to protocols protecting the engineer's jobs
  • "the US Consul to Gibraltar and the governor of Gibraltar, Sir Robert Wilson." 1. Why the lower-case g but an upper-case C? 2. This reads as if Wilson held both positions.
    • Changed to upper-case Governor. I added a comma, but am unsure how to further designate the consul and governor being two different people.
  • "The men planned to stay ashore". What men? Only one person has been mentioned as going ashore to this point.
    • Cushing and Newton, mentioned in the previous sentence. Is this unclear?
  • "Her arrival marked the first powered crossing of the Atlantic by an American warship and was applauded by British sailors when she arrived." This would fit better as the second sentence of the paragraph.
    • Great idea!
  • The paragraph commencing "At 7:50 pm" uses "then" five times. This is not flowing prose.
    • I removed most of the uses of "then".
  • "To protect the ship's alcohol amidst the chaos, a sentry was posted outside the storeroom." To protect it from what? Catching fire? How would posting a sentry do this?
    • The source does not say. I'd assume it was to prevent the seamen from pillaging the spirits, but I am not sure at this point.
  • "Cushing traveled East on land to reach China." Why the upper-case E?
    • Changed to lower case
  • "Missouri's chief engineer was also court-martialed and was suspended for one year, although only eight months were served before he was relieved." I don't understand this - "relieved" usually means relieved of command, but how could this happen if he were suspended from service?
    • I tried to not repeat two things in a row, and has changed it to, "although only eight months were served before the punishment was likewise remitted."
  • "Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, steam engines were only to be used as axillary power, and that every use needed a justification." 1. "that doesn't make sense in this sentence. 2. "every use" of a steam engine, or every one fitted in a naval vessel?
    • I am confused on your comments. What does not make sense? The Secretary of the Navy only had authority over naval vessels. I reworded the sentence to, "Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, every use of a steam engine aboard warships required justification, as they were intended only for auxiliary power in an effort to prioritize sail." Does this work?
  • "The Steam Navy of the United States states there were three boilers, while The Destruction of the U.S. Steam Frigate Missouri at Gibraltar and The Old Steam Navy states there were four; the latter specifies that the boilers were arranged in pairs." This needs appropriate citations.
    • Would I need citations if it is the three sources cited in that sentence?

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that looks good. I have a couple of comebacks, but unfortunately real life means that it may be a while before I can get to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild, do you have any further comments? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

I notice this is still listed as needing comments, so will chip in a few, trying not to step on Gog's much more knowledgable toes above:

  • Being very nitpicky, note A needs a citation.
    • Done
  • Her introduction helped legitimize the role of engineers and disrupted the traditional conservative mindset throughout the Navy: I'd like to know a bit more about this, even in the lead. I don't immediately see how "her introduction helped legitimize the role of engineers" would have worked -- did they advocate for it? Have a lot to do with building the ship? Presumably lots of them were needed to operate it?
    • While I believe the issue is addressed in my response to the next point, Missouri was involved in a scandal that lead to an engineer-lead engineering corps
  • Similarly, "disrupted the traditional conservative mindset" -- I'm not a huge fan of "traditional" (as a wise person pointed out, all traditions are invented, and usually more recently than we think). Presumably the US Navy wasn't a particularly conservative institution in 1794, and that's only 50 years previously. I'm reminded of the British military joke that the Army has traditions, but the RAF is only old enough to have habits. More seriously, I note that the "traditional" idea isn't found in the body, where we present this as the result of a few specific senior officers having a conservative outlook (any names? Paulding wasn't an officer).
    • Both of these points are very enlightening. I changed the lead to focus on the modernization of the Navy rather than the mindset.
  • spilled turpentine ignited a fire: did the turpentine ignite the fire? As we find out later, it was the turpentine that was ignited, by a lamp.
    • Reworded to "spilled turpentine ignited"
  • Despite an international firefighting effort, her captain judged it futile: this isn't quite grammatical (what's the antecedent of "it"?). Suggest "An international team attempted to fight the fire, but her captain judged the effort futile..." or similar.
    • Good idea!
  • Per WP:ISBN, we should use the ISBN-10 printed on the book rather than calculating a 13-digit one for those who don't have them: that's most books published before 2007.
    • Think I got them all
  • Endash, not hyphen, in title of Canney 1990.
    • Done
  • who vowed to never, "See our grand old ships: as we're running the sentence straight into the quote, I don't think we want the hyphen or the capital letter (the latter is normally used when the quotation is a full sentence -- this isn't).
    • Fixed
  • the floating battery Fulton.: would "floating artillery battery" help clarify what this is? I was at first picturing a very large device to store electricity.
    • "floating battery" is a specific technical term. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but is there any way to pad it out with anything that might help the non-expert understand it? Google Books has plenty of hits for "floating gun battery", "floating artillery battery", and similar. "No" may be a perfectly good answer here, and to be honest it's not particularly important given the context that the reader understand exactly what sort of ship we're talking about.
        • Changed to "floating artillery battery"

UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC) More to come. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first group was composed of line officers who outlined the capabilities they would like in the vessels: similar to "floating batteries" above -- I know that "line officers" is a term of art, but it's also pretty obscure and open to misinterpretation (something to do with telegraphs? Ropes?). Is there a way to rephrase or buttress it? Unlike the floating batteries above, here it does matter that readers understand what these people did for a living.
    • I am thinking of a better term. A line officer is an officer in charge of a combat unit. Compared to officers that may be engineers or surgeons, "line officer" identifies their role clearly. The sources do not mention who they were, so I can not name them.
      • You could keep it and do e.g. "line officers (that is, officers serving in combat roles)", or paraphrase to something like "officers serving in combat posts". UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed it to line (combat) officers, but I do not see the need if it is wikilinked.
          • MOS:NOFORCELINK: if we can, we should avoid having readers follow links to find out information necessary to understand the article. Primarily, it's best to have all the information necessary to understand a piece of text within that piece of text; a lesser but important concern is that some people print articles or otherwise can't follow the links at all. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Excellent point. How is adding "(naval officers who lead warships)"? GGOTCC 07:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Would that not imply that they commanded them -- is that accurate? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, that is a better word! Thank you GGOTCC 06:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Is it definitely true (and supported by the source), though -- were all of these people the commanding officers of individual ships, as opposed to either more junior combat officers or commodores/admirals commanding larger formations? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          That is a very good question. None of the sources specify who the line officers were besides nor the positions they held. The only person named was Matthew C. Perry, who played a role in both roles and related bureaucratic proceedings as he was managing a shipyard at the time. This confusion was a factor in why I initially only used the term "line officer". Do I also need to cite the definition now that it is in the article? GGOTCC 06:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          We need a definition that matches the term in the source. If the article defines it, we can use their definition or paraphrase an equivalent; if it doesn't, we need to define it based on what the term is likely to have meant to the author. What we can't do is give it a definition that's more restrictive or different to what the source actually allows us to say, and "line officer" does not generally mean "commanding officer of a warship": all of the latter are line officers, but not all line officers are the latter. In terms of citing that definition: in most cases, we allow uncontroversial definitions to go uncited (there's no specific policy for this, though), and sometimes expect citations when the term is very obscure or being used in an unusual way (for example, when arguing that it had a specific meaning in a specific time period). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          I have no reason to believe the source uses a different definition, but at this point, including the definition seems to do more harm than good. GGOTCC 01:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Then we need to rework: we can't have a phrase that is opaque and necessary and still meet FACR 1a. If the way we've constructed the article makes an explanation unwieldy, we need to revise that construction. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          AH! The Steam Navy of the United States uses the term "commodores" . This is a rank of senior officer. Would this term work better? GGOTCC 02:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Sounds good to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Great! I just added it now. Was there anything else? Thanks for all the help, UC! GGOTCC 02:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • engineers and constructors who analyzed the officers' request and developed specific instructions required to build the duo.: requests, surely?
    • This was brought up during the A-class review. I think request is correct as it was one description for the ships, but the description contained multiple points. I am not that sure myself.
  • ocean-going steamships equipped with 10 guns, provisions to supply a crew of 200 for two months, and enough fuel to power an engine producing 9 knots (17 km/h; 10 mph) for 20 days: if we're doing 9 and 10 in figures, we may as well do 2 (MOS:NUM).
    • Done
  • Combined with the funnel preventing the use of mainsails, they were inefficient while under sail: this seems a bit confused: the masts were inefficient when the ship was under sail? Surely we mean simply that the sails didn't power the ship very efficiently?
    • Good idea, I reworded the sentence to make it clear that the sails were inefficient due to the mast locations
  • the engine located amidship: the link here is to amidships. Is there a difference? The latter seems to be more common.
    • In my experience, Americans spell it with only one S, as I pronounce it as "amidship". There is no difference beyond spelling,
  • double return copper boilers: compound modifier: double-return.
    • Done
  • Missouri's engines were designed by principal engineer of the US Navy Charles Copeland: this is clunky with such a long title: suggest "the principal engineer of the US Navy, Charles Copeland".
    • Changed to "Missouri's engines were designed by Charles Copeland, the principal engineer of the US Navy"
  • She was laid down at the New York Navy Yard in Brooklyn, New York sometime: comma after New York to balance the one before. The same, later, with and sailed to Washington, D.C. for a trial run and ran aground off Port Tobacco, Maryland on 1 April. There are a few more.
    • I believe I have gotten all of these
  • She was laid down at the New York Navy Yard in Brooklyn, New York sometime in 1840 and launched on 7 January 1841 and cost: a bit breathless with the "and ... and"
    • Removed two instances of 'and'
  • US$568,806 (equivalent to $17,752,252 in 2025: round for sig figs.
    • I can not see an option to add sig figs for the inflation template. Am I missing something?
    I see, thank you! I have done that just now. GGOTCC 06:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • for a trial run along with Mississippi: when was Mississippii built and commissioned? We say this for Missouri, but I can't find it for the other ship. We should at least mention that it was built first, and I think it would be good to give the date of commissioning somewhere.
    • I added more information on their construction, and a timeframe for when Mississippi was commissioned
  • to transport US Minister to China Caleb Cushing to Alexandria, Egypt, as the first part of his voyage to China, where he was to negotiate a trade treaty with the Daoguang Emperor: I may not be a great geographer, but I'm struggling to follow the logic here. Was he due to get the train from there, or wait for another ship? We might say something like "en route to China" rather than calling this part of the voyage to China.
    • I changed the mention to, "trip for China". Per the article later on, the plan was to take another ship from Suez to reach China. For some context, the US lacked major ports in the Pacific, so it was easier to sail around the world with easy access to ports and coal.
  • The crew then manned pumps, hoses, and bucket brigades: I'm not sure you can man a bucket brigade: I think you have to form or organize one.
    • Changed to organized
  • To protect the ship's alcohol amidst the chaos: this is a bit mealy-mouthed: presumably his job wasn't so much to protect it (prevent damage to it) as to prevent the crew from taking advantage of the chaos to steal it?
    "A sentry was placed over the spirit room." from this article while discussing the crew's response without further elaboration. Since a sentry guards against unauthorized access, I assumed it was to prevent sailors from stealing the alcohol for themselves. GGOTCC 06:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be tempted just to cut "to protect..." and amend "storeroom" to "the room where the ship's supply of spirits was stored" ("alcohol" could theoretically be stuff for wound-cleaning that nobody would drink; "spirits" can't). "Storeroom" clearly isn't right, since the source doesn't say that the ship had only one of those. That way, we don't need to go beyond the source or set ourselves up for difficult questions we can't answer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea! I will do that now GGOTCC 01:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the afternoon of 25 August: I would restate the year here, as we're starting a new section that's fairly likely to be one that people click down to from the ToC.
    • Done
  • as Missouri's crew was pushed towards the bow and stern.: I think were works better here, as we're talking about individual people rather than a group acting (or being acted upon) as a coherent whole.
    • Done
  • Congress budgeted $60,000: inflate, as we did before.
    • Done
  • steam engines were only to be used as axillary power, and that every use needed a justification: their every use or every use of them. Can we explain exactly what we mean here: did he issue an order that captains needed to justify their use to... whom, exactly? Or simply that did he create doctrine that sails should be used unless there was a good reason to turn on the steam engines?
    • How is "Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, every use of a steam engine aboard warships required justification, as they were intended only for auxiliary power in an effort to prioritize sail."
    Hmm...I struck that mention and replaced it with, " Under de facto Secretary of the Navy David Porter, every warship was ordered to be fitted with sails and the development and use of steam engines were severely limited." How is this? GGOTCC 07:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely an improvement. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note C could do with references.
    • I will remove it entirely
  • Note 4 and 19 (possibly more too): check capitalisation and punctuation in title.
    • Fixed
  • Personal preference, maybe, but I would capitalise the first letter of e.g. "Newspapers.com".
    • I removed the Newspaper.com mentions entirely
  • Note 1: year only in the date field. Ditto for Note 8?
    • This issue was for every time I cited Steam Navy, which I now fixed
  • I notice Bolton's first-hand account in the Further Reading -- we haven't mentioned him at all in the article. Should we?
    • While one of my sources refers to Bolton's account and includes a summery, nothing else mentions Bolton's role or the book. Nothing besides his description of events is that notable IMO, and the other sources already provide that information.
  • Thank you for the insightful feedback, @UndercoverClassicist:! Sorry for only getting back to you now, I had finals to get through. I believe I have incorporated all of your feedback. GGOTCC 01:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

*:Hello @UndercoverClassicist! As I begin to wrap up this nomination, would you consider supporting this FAC? GGOTCC 14:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • She was assigned to the Home Squadron, which elicited complaints about her high cost to coal and operate: This seems like a non sequitur: why would assigning her to the Home Squadron elicit (cause) complaints about cost? Was coal more expensive in the US versus where she might otherwise have been deployed?
  • An article from the United States Naval Institute later describes Thompson's arrangement as: described.
  • She then sailed to Fayal Island in the Azores and arrived 12 days later, where she coaled before proceeding.: I think we need sailed for: sailed to implies that the ship arrived.
  • Her arrival ... was applauded by British sailors when she arrived: redundant: I would suggest "and she was applauded by British sailors when she arrived".
  • She maintained an average speed of 8.02 knots (14.85 km/h; 9.23 mph) an hour and consumed 1.4 tons of coal an hour: there's no such unit as "knots an hour". I knot is one nautical mile per hour.
  • A distress signal was fired, which was responded to by sailors from Gibraltar and several nearby vessels which included HMS Malabar, a British ship of the line: better as vessels, including... (to avoid "which ... which")
  • a boat from Malabar attempted, but failed, to scuttle the steamship by drilling a hole in the hull: not a fan of the anthropomorphism here: surely it was the people aboard who did the drilling? Did they manage to drill the hole?
  • At about 2 am, Missouri's forward magazine detonated, obliterating the bow as the wreck continued to burn for another six hours: needs a rework: these things did not happen simultaneously.

Metalicat

edit

Just a prose pass alongside the existing reviews.

  • Service history: The engineers were paid less then their civilian counterparts — "then" should be "than".
    • Fixed!
  • Development and design: In the stern was the officer's quarters — should be "officers' quarters" (plural possessive, as the quarters housed multiple officers).
    • Thanks!
  • Development and design: In front was the engine located amidship — "in front" of what? The preceding sentence describes the stern. "Forward of the officers' quarters" would be clearer, and would avoid the colloquial "in front".
    • I added fowards

Spot-checked the Naval History and Heritage Command (DANFS) source against the article's claims about the commissioning date, grounding off Port Tobacco, deployment to the Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic crossing. All supported. No other concerns beyond what Gog and UC have already raised. Metalicat (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Metalicat, thank you again for the review! Just to confirm, do you support the nomination? GGOTCC 14:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @GGOTCC:. Support on prose, structure and the Manual of Style.
One small thing remains from my third point, which RoySmith has also picked up: Forwards was the engine located amidship still reads awkwardly, since "forwards" and "amidship" pull against each other and it is not clear forward of what. Forward of the officers' quarters was the engine, located amidships or similar would resolve it. Not a condition of my support, just worth tidying alongside Roy's comments. Metalicat (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Metalicat! I made the change now. Since RoySmith's feedback is so detailed, I am going in order to make sure I do not skip any, but fixed this one since it was raised twice. GGOTCC 02:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing comments

edit

Aza24 requested my thoughts on some of the sourcing of this article, particularly the heavy reliance on the 1912 Proceedings piece by Farenholt and potential institutional connections between the USNI and the Navy. I thought it would be best to respond here so that the comments are more visible for FAC reviewers and coordinators:

The 1912 source is from Proceedings (magazine). Naval History Magazine is a similar thing from the same publisher, but with a somwhat different focus. Naval Institute Press is also part of the United States Naval Institute. The Naval Institute is officially independent from the US Navy, although it does have some ties to the Navy. It has published some quasi-official works such as Morison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II but is an academic source. I would only be considered about the independence from the subject for a USNI work if the author had a close connection, or the work was discussing a recent or then-current topic (for instance, Morison with WWII being too close to the events to really be able to discuss certain classified matters, or potentially embarassing matters such as the possibility that Norman Scott (admiral) was actually killed by friendly fire). In this case, from quick searches I can't find any connection between Farenholt and the discussed wreck; this should really just be treated like any other older academic journal article. I haven't immediately seen anything that would indicate detailed significant scholarly coverage of this wreck since then other than the Cressman article.
The book by Howard I. Chapelle is also older (originally published in 1949) but represents a major piece of scholarship). My go-to work for early US naval steam technology is Canney, which is appropriately relied upon. Canney notes "The most telling evidence of this inattention is seen in the paucity of literature on the subject of early naval steam vessels compared to the numerous books on both the sailing ships of the navy and the modern steel warships." Canney goes on to describe Bennett 1896 as "The nearest approximation to a study of the ships of the steam navy" but also states it has "serious shortcomings". Canney seems to view those shortcomings as being related to a perceived lack of comprehensiveness, insufficient focus on the ships' "sailing qualities, hull designs, or construction" as well as the "small format and primitive photographic reproduction methods", rather than issues with factual accuracy. (all quotes from p. xix). I am not familiar with Kinnaman's biography of Lenthall or Vernon Press but didn't see any obvious red flags during the ACR source review.

My one question would be regarding the inclusion of Weir as a co-author for the Bennett book - from what I can tell, Weir's participation is limited to the suspected production of an older satirical piece called "Uncle Samuel's Whistle and What It Costs" included by Bennett as Appendix C. Hog Farm Talk 20:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Hog Farm, thank you for the wonderful input! I'll throw in my two cents as well, although it is finals week and I am pressed for time.
The United States Naval Institute (USNI) is independent from the US Navy, although they do overlap. Currently, USNI resembles a think-tank for conferences, essays on naval policy, news site, and book publisher. In my opinion, USNI's book publishing arm is the most extensive and reputable publisher for American naval history. As a member myself, Proceedings is a collection of essays. Even today, authors are very critical of naval policy and Proceedings is no means a propaganda arm, with USNI News often being one of the first to report on the latest naval screwup.
Somewhat recently, Naval History was stood up as an independent magazine and contained historical articles that would have previously been published under Proceedings. While I do rely on the historical articles from USNI, I have found no significant faults in the text. Missouri was destroyed nearly 180 years ago, and there is not a significant number of modern sources on her destruction as they would all ultimately repeat the same claims.
Ammen C. Farenholt wrote his 1912 article when he was a surgeon, and there is no reason to believe he would be biased in describing the events. The ship was destroyed more than 70 years prior, and I struggle to imagine someone wanting to suppress information about the event. Even if that were the case, none of the other sources differ in the cause of the fire or related events. To address @Aza24:'s concern, the only sources from the US government I cite are:
  • The Evolution of Ship Naming in the U.S. Navy, which defines the meaning of "USS"
  • Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered, which is used to mention what was the last sailing warship in the Navy
  • The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), which I wrote an essay on here. While DANFS is biased, I primarily use it to discuss the location and task of the ship, which the source excels in as it is drawn from government documents.
GGOTCC 21:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the well reasoned thoughts above. The rationale for the 1912 source's independence is well heard. However, I am still a bit concerned about its age.
Do no better sources for the 1912-sourced content exist? I can understand when old sources are used in one-offs, maybe out of necessity. But to see nearly nine references covering large swaths of text, all from a source 100+ year old? That is difficult for me to understand. Aza24 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Cressman's An Ornament to the Navy was published 100 years later in 2012, and also by USNI. I also cite this profusely, but Farenholt is more detailed in how the crew responded to the fire while Cressman gives more context to the ship and the cleanup efforts. In fact, several sections are only cited to both, and I struggle to find a more modern source that includes the same details. I believe Farenholt used A Narrative of the Last Cruise of the US Steam Frigate Missouri for some of the details, but that book was published in 1844 and was a first-hand account of the accident. I am not drowning in modern, reliable, sources about a 180-year old naval accident, hence my reliance on more dated articles and books. GGOTCC 02:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 do you have any further comments or queries? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nominator's explanations make sense to me. Aza24 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

edit
  • Clarify: "She was assigned to the Home Squadron, which elicited complaints about her high cost to coal and operate." Can you add some words to tell the reader: Who was complaining? Why was the high cost of coal significant here? If there is something significant behind the complaint, then elaborate on it.
    • The source does not elaborate, but the coal of coal was relevant as she was one of the first steamships to deploy (and thus need to be supplied with goal). I would search for anything that gives more details.
  • ".. to witness a test run of Missouri with her new funnels. The trial was a dismal failure, and Thompson successfully blamed..." Consider expand "trial" to "trial run". Lay readers may get confused and think a legal proceeding was involved.
    • Good idea, I switched the terms out
  • Quote not needed: "While otherwise similar, Missouri was praised as having an interior, "much superior" to that of her sister ship USS Mississippi." In general, most text in any encyclopedia article should be in the encyclopedia's voice. Quotes should be used sparingly, and only for good reason. Consider replacing that quote with prose in the encyclopedia's voice. Alternatively: if that quote is special somehow (e.g. spoken by a very important person) then explain to the reader why the quote is important (e.g. name the speaker).
    • I am quoting the book, but I will put it in enclopedic voice.
  • Suggest add link to Caleb Cushing in image caption: "Caleb Cushing; his voyage to China was the motive for Missouri to sail to the Mediterranean." Not required for FA. But many readers glance thru articles, and some focus on images: may as well help those readers quickly find more about the subject of the photo.
    • This is done for an earlier image, so I see no reason not to
  • Ditto for caption " ....The crew of HMS Malabar (left) ..." link to HMS Malabar (1818)
    • Done
  • Inconsistent use of publisher location/city. (Did another reviewer mention that above?). RefCheck tool shows 8 books name city, and 13 do not. All books (or none) should have the city.
    • My understanding was to list the city when the information is known, but I do not object to removing it all.
  • Source Dulles, Foster Rhea (1930). The Old China Trade. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin. p. 194. ISBN 9780404022167. has an inconsistency: year is 1930, but books did not have ISBNs back then. The book has had a few reprints/editions over the years. The reprint/edition identified in the article should be the precise one the nominator read. If you read the IA edition at https://archive.org/details/oldchinatrade00dull then year is 1930 and ISBN should be blank/omitted. If you read a post 1970 reprint/edition, then an ISBN can be included, but you need to update the year to the reprint year (and also specify "orig-year=1930"). I see a 1974 reprint at google books with ISBN 9780356047553. Which is weird because 13 digit ISBNs did not arrive until 2007.
    • Struck the ISBN
Looks great! Support on prose and MOS. I have not scrutinized images or sources. Noleander (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stikkyy

edit
  • Per Template:Inflation, For inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich, the US-GDP or UK-GDP indexes should be used, which calculate inflation based on the gross domestic product (GDP) for the United States and United Kingdom, respectively.
    Thank you for fixing the issue, Stikkyy! Your implantation makes much more sense than the documentation. GGOTCC 02:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paulding only became Secretary of the Navy in mid-1838, casting him as the face of the anti-steam resistance seems a bit unfair?
    • I do not see how? He was Secretary when Missouri was ordered, and his opposition played a part in Congress's push for modernization.GGOTCC 02:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • James K. Paulding was the Naval Agent in New York in 1824–38, a civilian role, not a commissioned one. I read the section, and it seems to me that it's trying to give me Paulding as one of the conservative senior officers, when he wasn't for most of the 1830s. If Paulding was the impetus for Congress ordering Missouri, then that seems like a factoid worth including in the article. Stikkyy (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        You make a fair point. While I believe that Paulding counts as a, "conservative senior officer", the wording should be more clear. Do you think Another opponent to steam power was James Paulding, the Secretary of the Navy, achieves this more effectively?
Yeah, I think that would be better. Stikkyy (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! I just made the change now. Thanks again! GGOTCC 02:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GGOTCC: Looks good, save for the quibble above. Stikkyy (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speeds could be reconciled, listed as 9 knts in infobox and body (for 20 days), 10 knts in body, Copeland says she reached 14 knts top speed during trials but 8 knts cruising?
    • Thank you for pointing this out; I added the cruising and top speed to the infobox.
  • How is 26–27 August calculated? As I read it, she blows up on 26 August and her wreck burns for six hours after that, not enough to reach 27 August even in Auckland.
"At about 8:05 [on the 25th], a boatswain's mate on the gun deck spotted flames emerging from the forward hatch and yelled, 'fire!' " ... "At about 2 am the next morning, Missouri's forward magazine detonated, obliterating the bow as the wreck continued to burn for another 6 hours." Does that explain things? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that's not 27 August, is it? Stikkyy (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It now says 25-26 August GGOTCC 02:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph in the Legacy section should be tied specifically to Missouri.
Hi Stikkyy. I am not sure what you are getting at here. Any chance you could unpack that comment a little? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph is talking about Constellation and the (delayed) adoption of steam ships by the Navy, with little direct connection to Missouri. Stikkyy (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I forget where it is written, but a FA should give the reader a wider understanding of the topic at hand. Previous reviewers have mentioned an abrupt end, so I figured a paragraph focusing on the Navy's continued quagmires with steam engineering would be beneficial. GGOTCC 02:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I won't press on it. Stikkyy (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stikkyy (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Stikkyy (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

edit

Let's see if we can move this off the bottom of the pile ...

  • In the lead, ordered by Congress in an attempt to force the fleet to modernize ... part of an effort to force the Navy to modernize Avoid repetition about forcing to modernize.
    • I removed the second phrase and focused more on the controversy with Thompson in the lead section
  • Another opponent to steam power was James Paulding The use of "another" implies another person. Here you're comparing "conservative senior officers" to "James Paulding, which really doesn't work.
    • Stikkyy raised a similar issue. Would "An additional" be better phrasing?
  • specific instructions required to build the duo I don't think the use of "duo" is wrong per-se, but it seems like an odd word choice. Maybe "build the two ships"?
    • Since "two ships" is repeated several times, I changed it to "vessels"
  • equipped with 10 guns, provisions to supply a crew of 200 It would be good to compare this to a traditional design. How many crew would it take to man a 10-gun sailing ship?
    • This is a good point. While none of the sources on Missouri draw a comparison, I added a footnote comparing her to the brig Truxtun of 1842. The answer is 80
  • enough fuel ... for 20 days It seems odd that you would carry 2 months of provisions for the crew but only enough fuel for 20 days. This could do with some explanation.
    • That is a very good point. I added a note to explain they (Missouri and Mississippi) were expected to operate with only sails
  • and a barque rig with 19,000 square feet (1,800 m2) of sail This is confusing. I thought they were building "ocean-going steamships", but now it sounds like they're doing some hybrid sail-steam design? This needs explaining.
    • I clarified this in the lead and design section
  • After the two boards met, they agreed to only build two steamships I had to search backwards to understand the "only build two" reference, so I suggest reminding the reader here that Congress had wanted three.
    • I added , down from the three initially ordered from Congress
  • enough space for the engines, coal stores, and provisions Ah, I was wondering what fuel they were using. I think you should mention earlier that they were coal fired.
    • I swapped the earlier mention of "fuel" to "coal"
  • all ten guns were kept on the open gun deck You link to Gun deck which says that only enclosed decks were called gun decks. It might be worth a quick explanation about the discrepancy.
    • I swapped it to "main deck" because of the odd design for such a specific term
  • The hulls were made of live oak Why was this particular kind of wood used?
    • Live oak was common for American warships for their strength and density, but none of my sources seem to specify in regards to Missouri. I am hesitant to generalize as Missouri having an engine and such a large hull was almost certainly factors.
  • In the stern was the officers' quarters, "were", plural.
    • Done
  • Forwards was the engine located amidship if it was "forwards", it wasn't "amidship". Perhaps you mean "forward of the officers quarters"?
    • How is Forward of the officers' quarters was the engine, located amidships?
  • In front of the engines was the enlisted quarters again, "were", plural.
    • Done
  • I'm curious about the location of the engine. I would expect it to be mounted on the lowest deck of the ship, for stability reasons. Is there anything which explains why it was not?
    • None of the sources specify, but a paddle wheel needs to have an axel to connect to the paddlewheels
  • 10-foot (3.0 m) stroke and 62-inch (160 cm) deep cylinders I don't understand what a "62-inch deep cylinder" is. How do you get a 10-foot (120 inch) stroke in a 62 inch cylinder?
    • The depth of a cylinder is essentially its height. The stroke is how far the pistons move.
      • This is still confusing. Does the source actually say "deep"? In modern parlance, cylinders for engines are generally measured in stroke and bore. Assuming it's correct, "10-foot stroke and 62 inch bore cylinders" would make sense. Is that what the source means to say? You might also want to link direct-acting to Marine steam engine#Direct acting.
        • Both are great points, and I have incorporated them.
  • The engines turned two 28-foot (8.5 m) tall, 11-foot (3.4 m) wide paddle wheels that developed 517 indicated horsepower I'm not an expert in these things, but to me it makes sense that the engine is developing that power, not the paddle wheels, so this is kind of confusing.
    • The intent was that the paddlewheels are what output the power. I am unsure of better ways of wording this...
  • There were 21 paddles on each wheel; every paddle had a length of 6 feet (1.8 m) and a width of 3 feet (0.91 m). I don't get how this works. If the paddles are 3 feet wide, how can the wheels be 11 feet wide?
    • The wheel's hub would have made up the remaining 5 feet
      • I still can't picture what this means. I don't know what "length" and "width" mean in this context. A diagram would be useful.
  • Construction of the ship was awarded to Samuel Hartt at his shipyard where was this yard? Was it part of the New York Navy Yard, as the following sentence suggests?
  • (equivalent to $16,790,000 in 2024) this would be easier to read as "$16.8 million"
    • I am unsure if the inflation template can handle this. Should I maintain the number of sig figs?
      • It's a pain, but you want something like $2 million ($71.7 million in 2025)
  • a top speed of 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph), although she cruised at a speed of 8 knots are these under power alone, or a combination of sail and power?
    • The source does not specify, but previously stressed that "top speeds" were easily cheesed due to currents.
  • She was eventually freed and reached ... Move this sentence to be immediately after the one about running aground.
  • Of the 200 crew, do we know how that broke down to people tending the machinery vs people tending the sails? Or did the same crew handle both?
    • No sources seem to specify
  • Thompson successfully blamed Haswell for the poor performance good to see that transference of blame was as much a part of history as it is today.
  • to transport US Minister to China Perhaps just an accident of how the line was broken on my screen, but I originally read this as transporting somebody to China. Could it be rephrased to make this more clear?
    • How is Her next assignment was to transport Caleb Cushing, the US Minister to China, to Alexandria, Egypt, as the first part of his trip to China?
  • She then sailed from Norfolk, Virginia, to Fayal Island in the Azores, where she coaled before proceeding. It would be good to state the distances of these legs (in nautical miles) and the average speed she made over the voyage.
    • I have no information on her average speeds, and it becomes WP:OR by measuring the distance as there is no evidence that the ship sailed in a perfect line between these locations
      • I see your dilema. But, I think WP:CALC would justify saying something like "She departed Norfolk, Virginia at X O'Clock on <date> arriving at Fayal Island at X O'Clock on <date>, covering the the great-circle distance of 2240 nm in X Days, Y Hours, for an average velocity made good on course of ZZZ knots." If you could find the information, it would be nice to be able to say "This route was typically covered in X Days Y Hours by the conventional sailing ships of the day". The whole point of this ship is that she would perform better than the designs which preceeded her. Saying "She got to where she was going" doesn't say much. What you want to be able to say is "She got to where she was going faster than the ships she was meant to replace".
        • Double checking the sources, none of them provide exact times of departures or arrivals. Combining several sources, the voyage began on 5 August, although she spent more than a day in Hampton Roads before proceeding to Fayal. Ammen Farenholt (citing a crewmember's testimonial from 1844) states the voyage took 12 and a half days, but this information is vague enough to draw several conclusions. WP:CALC is not relevant, as it requires extrapolating data from the sources. I also do not see why the comparison is necessary. While steam engines superseded sails across a century, Missouri was not intended to replace sailing ships. As the article states, the US Navy continued to build sail-only warships for another decade. Later on, the article mentions the crew's return trip to Boston taking 42 days, which can serve as a de-facto comparrison despite none of the sources pointing this out. I did find a mention of her average speed during the voyage, which I have added.
  • The entire ship's complement of 384 reconvened on Malabar previously we were told she had a "complement of 226 sailors and officers".
    • This seems to be the design complement vs her crew for this one voyage. The infobox clarifies the two numbers
  • At about 2 am the next morning you don't need to say both "am" and "the next morning".
    • Good point, I removed the next morning
  • the sailing sloop was built as a cheap and economical replacement for the sailing frigate USS Constellation. I had to read this a few times to understand that new ship was replacing an older one of the same name. I'd be explicit about that.
    • I clarified ; both ships had the same name

OK, that does it for a first reading. RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't usually comment on reference formatting, but what you've done is kind of weird. You have, for example, four entries in your reflist for Canney, Donald L. (January 1, 1990). "Harbor Batteries to Frigates, 1815-1840", each one citing a different page. You've done the same for a few other sources. I don't know if that's strictly disallowed, but it's certainly unusual and WP:IBID suggests not doing that and gives three acceptable alternatives. My personal preference is {{rp}}, but lots of FA authors use WP:SFN. RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thats...a great question. I certainly agree that short citations would be better, but my experience with previous GA reviews is that I should not change the citation style at will. This is the citation style the article had before I started editing, so I stuck with it. (I am just replying here as I work on the above feedback). GGOTCC 04:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another item I just noticed:

  • . Missouri was fitted with inclined engines, which were popular with American paddle steamers. Mississippi received side-lever engines, commonly used by trans-Atlantic steamships and the Royal Navy. This is a bit odd, as it implies that "inclined engine" is somehow comparable with "side-lever engine", i.e. an engine can either be inclined or side-lever. Those are orthogonal concepts. Engines can have the axis of the cylinder(s) in various orientations: horizontal, vertical, or inclined (with the latter two also possibly being inverted). Independent of that, the piston can be connected to the load through a variety of mechanisms: side-lever and direct-action being just two. See Marine steam engine#Engines classified by connection mechanism.

OK, I've nit-picked enough. I think there's still room for improvement regarding my last point (inclined vs side-lever), but I don't see any reason to hold things up any further over that. Overall, this is a very nice article, well written and easy to read. Support based on the quality of the prose (FACR 1a, engaging and of a professional standard). RoySmith (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the support, RoySmith! I had not actually gotten to your last point, which I would do now. Canney describes, "On the question of propulsion, there was disagreement over whether to use the English type of side-lever engine or inclined cylinders. As a compromise, one of each was to be build..." At least to the Navy, the choice of engine type was binary. Is there a better way for be to describe this? GGOTCC 14:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the best thing would be to just leave it as is. Steam engines are a little out of my area of expertise, but now that I've got a bug up my butt about this, I'll keep looking around to see what I can figure out and I'll update the article if I come up with something better. RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Bennett and Weir 1896: "The Mississippi had two side-lever engines with cylinders seventy-five inches in diameter and seven feet stroke, and the Missouri had two inclined direct-acting engines with cylinders sixty two and one-half inches diameter and ten feet stroke: the cubical content of the cylinders of the two vessels were practically the same, a difference being made in the length of the stroke to test the relative merits of long and short stroke engines." Three things are said about the Missouri's engines. They are 1) inclined, 2) direct-acting, and 3) have the same total volume as those on the Mississippi but a different stroke ratio. Of these, the fact that the cylinders were mounted in the inclined orientation is the least significant. If I was comparing the engines, I would talk about the direct-acting vs side-lever design and the difference in the stroke ratios as the most important things.
If I may make a bold observation, looking at your odd choices of terminology regarding words like "forward" and "midships", your obvious unfamiliarity with knots as pointed out by both @UndercoverClassicist and @Gog the Mild, and your apparent lack of technical understanding of engines, I'm wondering if this was the best article for you to be working on? I get the impression that in a number of places you are pulling statements out of the sources without fully understanding the material. RoySmith (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/USS_Missouri_(1841)/archive1&oldid=1361669438"