USS Constitution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 4, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed September 27, 2008 Good article nominee Listed October 22, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Approved November 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted December 14, 2009 WikiProject peer review Reviewed Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Maritime / Memorials / African / North America / United States / Napoleonic era FA‑class 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Military memorials and cemeteries task force African military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ships FA‑class 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: Massachusetts / Boston This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. National Register of Historic Places FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Museums FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

A request for copyediting on this article is outstanding and I'll be tackling this over the next couple of days. Doug (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that beggars shouldn't be choosy but wikilinking things like United States isn't providing a link to anything helpful to the reader. Nor do "provisions" mean hardtack. Please stop wikilinking. --Brad (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked United States because I linked Algiers and wanted to avoid cultural bias. Doug (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a second look I had to revert your changes. Descriptions and word meanings in the article have specific purposes backed up by the references. --Brad (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take citations to support concepts, not words. In my opinion, the article is about as well written as it's going to get for a set of clearly defined facts, each rigidly backed up by a citation, so there is no work for me here. Doug (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a round of basic copy edits yesterday and am now trying to improve the flow, as noted in your copy edit request to WP:GOCE. Here is one problem that interferes with the flow: changing from present tense, to past tense, and back again. Here are two sentences with four different tenses: "Departing Boston on 29 December (present tense), Nicholson was to report (future) to Commodore John Barry near the island of Dominica for patrols in the West Indies. On 15 January 1799 Constitution intercepted the English merchantman Spencer (past), which had been taken prize by the French frigate L'Insurgente a few days prior (past perfect)." A few of these are ok for emphasis but some passages are switching back and forth constantly and it makes the material difficult to read. I will work on improving a few examples today so you can see what I have in mind. --Diannaa ^TALK 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is exactly what the article needed. I've been watching your edits and have no problems with what you've done so far. Paying attention to changes is part of keeping this article at featured status. --Brad (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brad! I am glad you were available on the weekend to review my work. I'll keep at it over the next couple of days. Regards, --Diannaa ^TALK 21:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. See you 'round the project :)) --Diannaa ^TALK 23:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had made some additions, which I feel add to the richness of this article, which have been reverted because, for lack of a better place to include them, I inserted a popular culture section (see my revision and subsequent reversion on April 9, 2010). This information does not fit anywhere else in most pages and USS Constitution, as a US Icon and Historical Landmark, Constitution's status in Boston is similar to the Statue of Liberty in NYC (which has it's own page on popular culture references). I think the entire business of omitting popular culture sections from military history pages, omits an entire class of information. When a military figure is features in a movie, or an entire movie is based on a historical ship (Old Ironsides (film)), there needs to be a section in military pages to list these references. Without knowing that there was a movie based on a section of Constitution's history, or that the crew made a video during their training for the Sail 200 event, or that (to use another famous military example with a created statistic) there are 26 movies about George Armstrong Custer. There needs to be a valid section to list this sort of information, especially for culturally significant military history topics, such as Constitution and Custer. I fail to understand why military history pages fall into a different category than other pages. Yotsuya48 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read over Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Popular_culture for the reasons why; especially being able to back additions up with good sources. Besides that, in my experience a pop culture section is a magnet for every trivial mention or appearance of the subject. Brad (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the popular culture mentions are unsourced and non-notable. To be useful to the reader, both should be present. Tedickey (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 37-year-old source for a comment about current events isn't a good source for the promotional statement "only active commissioned sailing vessel". TEDickey (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you one more current that contradicts the statement about Constitution and Eagle? QueenofBattle (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's you who ought to be answering that, since you're pushing the statement into both topics using a stale source. TEDickey (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki only requires that an editor wishing to insert a statement into an article affirmatively to support that addition, which I have clearly done. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only by relying on a distorted sense of "current". It would be nice if you took the time to improve your edits, rather than arguing about it. TEDickey (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a F-ing break. What is your point?! Are there other sailing vessels that have been commissioned into the maritime services of the US in the last 37 years? Are there other sailing vessels of the U.S. Air Force or Army that we should include? If not, pipe down and move on. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Eagle in the lead of this article is inappropriate. The note about Victory is there only because so many editors tried to insert something about Victory being the oldest commissioned ship and not understanding the word afloat. This article isn't here to make comparisons with other ships. It is what it is. Brad (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to have this article say that Constitution is one of only two active sailing vesels... We can make a smiliar adjustment to the Eagle article. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is still one of what information is relevant to Constitution. "Oldest commissioned warship afloat in the world" is undeniable and doesn't need explaining or watering down. Eagle has little in common with Constitution and does not warrant a mention. Furthermore, a lead section is to summarize the entire article and point out what makes the subject of the article notable. Items in the lead are mentioned in an expanded form where necessary in the body of the article. Eagle is mentioned in the body when crew members of Constitution practiced sailing techniques prior to the Sail 200 event in 1997. I still do not believe that Eagle is important or relevant enough to warrant mention in the lead of this article. Brad (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking the Coast Guard is not a military service. It belongs to DHS, not DoD. I'm inclined to delete it on that basis alone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 3 year old reference. It probably wouldn't be hard to find a more recent one. Haus^Talk 20:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there does not need to be a mention of Eagle in the lead and in this context, and that it should be removed. Benea (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the Eagle mentioned in the 3-year-old weblink. The point about DHS vs DoD seems relevant TEDickey (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the Coast Guard most definitely is an armed service. The five uniformed services that make up the Armed Forces are defined in 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4):

The term "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard is further defined by 14 U.S.C. § 1:

The Coast Guard as established 28 January 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.

As to the rest, I think we are in violent agreement to remove the reference to Eagle from the LEDE for Constitution. Ah, I see that it has already been done, rendering the rest of this discussion needless. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange.. the lead is still as you left it. Anyway, I will restore the old version directly. Brad (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the reference to Eagle by naming Eagle in Constitution's lede, which I changed previously to simply refer to Constitution as "one of two active sailing vessels..." QueenofBattle (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes clear that the cannons are still in working order in order to fire cermonial salutes but it's not clear whether they are still capable of firing in anger or whether actual shot and powder is carried so that in theory the ship could 'shoot to kill' or not. Anyone know? Exxolon (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any source that would say if they have shot and powder. My personal feeling is that they don't. What would be the point? Brad (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just upgraded the image of the USS Philadelphia burning. -- In full view it's nearly three times as large as the image that has been there since 2005.

Also obtained from the Dept of the Navy is an image of the USS Constitution engaging HMS Guerriere. It was painted by Anton Otto Fischer, August 19, 1812. Quite large in full view. Excellent image. Think there's room on the page for it? -- GWillHickers (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]