Talk:CSS Arkansas

MilHist assessment

Appears quite good overall. Coverage is very decent, so have upped that criterion, however:

• There are a number of paragraphs without any citations, so that B-Class criterion isn't met.
• Not convinced the lists of Federal vessels engaged belong where they are, almost as an afterthought, which spoils the structure criterion -- as they're sourced anyway, best solution may be simply to drop them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Losses

A little bit of bias has crept in here:

"Although Arkansas did not destroy any enemy vessels, she inflicted severe losses among the personnel of the Federal fleets."

The losses cited (18 KIA, 50 WIA, 10 MIA) are hardly severe when considering the size of the Federal fleet (18 warships and uncounted support vessels) and its manpower. By comparison, the Arkansnas lost 12 KIA and 18 WIA, which is far more serious when considering they were all lost in a single ship. A simple statement of the losses without editorial comment might be better. 98.255.85.245 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Date format

Respect the existing date format as per MOS:DATERET.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)