Talk:Iowa-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I know you're trying to save a featured topic here, but this article has a long history, and several review processes in its past. Nothing we can't get through, but it will take me a few days to read through everything and have a review posted. Courcelles (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to say how much better this article looks than when the FAR was initiated, and even than when it was closed. The entire popular culture section disappeared today... good decision. The stuff about "A Glimpse of Hell: The Explosion on the U. S. S. Iowa & Its Cover-Up" belongs more on Iowa's article than here, and the rest of it was a bit crufty.

The only thing Thompson's book is citing, is the turret explosion, as far as I can see presently. If I find something else to cite with, I will. Brad (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Referencing. Pick a date format- there's "yyyy-mm-dd" and "dd Month yyyy" scattered in roughly equal numbers.

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are the DANFS sources included in References and the Bibliography sections? It seems to me that references without a need for page numbers should be cited in in full in the references section, and the Bibliography section limited to books that are referred to by page number in the references section?

All DANFS templates and sources have been updated correctly and removed from the biblio. Brad (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Displacement- from the infobox: "45,000 tons (Standard);[8] 52,000 tons (mean war service); 58,000 tons (full load)[8]" If the citation is going to be repeated for the Standard and full load numbers, why not for mean war service?

I removed the first of those refs. These days, SHIPS people don't generally put the refs in the main infobox, and if I had done most of the editing and this were a new article, I would get rid of most of them. When there's been a lot of arguing over an article, I generally just try to stick to what needs to be done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The "armor" section has never returned.

I restored the armor section as it was when removed. Still needs reliable refs. Brad (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Coming soon. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've summarized G & D on the talk page in a section called Armor. Anyone want to weave this into the text? It's sufficiently different from the original G & D text, except of course for the parts in quotes. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC) tweaked 03:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is confusing me. The Washington treaty allowed 16-inch guns, then the next paragraph talks about an escalator clause in Second London allowing 16-inch guns, an increase from 14-inch.

Doing Done. I hope that's clearer; in any event, it reflects the cited sources better. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a terrible article, but is it worth linking Escalator clause?

I got rid of "escalator"; the two paragraphs using the word needed tightening anyway. The phrase "escalator clause" means a clause that raises a price to most readers, so it wasn't terribly helpful here. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (despite the fact that both Friedman and G & D use the word ... our readership is more likely to be confused by it than theirs IMO). - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The year of Second London should probability be mentioned for context.

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

""[t]he prospective effect of flooding was roughly halved and the number of uptakes and hence of openings in the third deck greatly reduced."" Pedantic, but a citation is needed after a direct quote.

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"U.S." or "US"? Be consistent.

Done, US -> U.S. Kind of a shame really, some of the MOS folks would really like to see us standardize this, because it's generally "US" outside the U.S., and US doesn't look totally awful to Americans, but there's just no chance that "U.S." won't wind up littering the page since it's ubiquitous in American sources. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a Wikipedia standard on this one, along with UK vs. U.K., but making each article consistent internally is about as good as we can hope for. Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Each battleship was modernized to carry electronic warfare suites, CIWS self-defense systems, and missiles." I think you either should bypass the CIWS redirect (so hovering provides the full term), or just spell it out. This acronym means nothing to the average person.

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Recalled to duty in 1968, New Jersey reported to the gunline[27] off the Vietnamese coast, delivering nearly 6,000 rounds of 16-inch (406 mm) gunfire and over 14,000 rounds of 5-inch (127 mm) shells before departing the line in December 1968.[27]" Can't believe I'm saying this, but is that first [27] needed here?

The Polmar source has been called into question; in the meantime I removed the double cite. Brad (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Missouri was donated to the USS Missouri Memorial Association (MMA) of Pearl Harbor" As far as I can tell, the MMA acronym never makes a repeat appearance... so why introduce it?

Done --Brad (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"In 1956, the bow of the uncompleted USS Kentucky was removed and grafted on Wisconsin, which had collided with the destroyer USS Eaton. " Citation?

Done --Brad (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"All four Iowa-class battleships were outfitted with Oerlikon 20 mm and Bofors 40 mm," Any chance we know how many of each were installed?

The totals are in the infoboxes of the 4 ships, look for "20 mm" and "40 mm". The totals vary by ship and over time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"ECM level background" I know what it means, but this needs at least a link to Electronic countermeasures as an acronym that everyone won't know.

Done ... now it reads "The AN/SPS-49 performs accurate centroiding of target range, azimuth, amplitude, electronic countermeasures level background, and radial velocity with an associated confidence factor to produce contact data for command and control systems." So I still have no idea what it means :) Help, someone? - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"In response, the Navy has pointed to the cost of reactivating the two Iowa class battleships to their decommissioned capability. The Navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million,[73][74] but this does not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish the gunpowder for the 16-inch (406 mm) guns because a survey found the powder to be unsafe." This passage, and these numbers, need a year for context. (refs 73 and 74 give full explanation, but what year dollars this is in would still be helpful in the text."

The section has been deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to tell me I'm nuts, but the Notes section would read better formatted like Jupiter_Trojan#Notes with superscript numbers instead of full references- especially since they're all repeated in the next two sections. (Especially since Note 9 uses a superscript reference) These full citations make the notes hard to read.

Yep, doing. And you're nuts. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

:What makes http://www.navweaps.com/ a reliable source?

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fnavweaps.com. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'll go through the referencing with a fine-tooth comb over the next couple days. Courcelles (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• One more, Single page: "Johnston, The Battleships, pg. 161" " Friedman, U.S. Battleships, 311" "Garzke and Dulin, Battleships, p. 3" and "Friedman, pg 449". All slightly different in the pages formatting. Multiple pages, "Newhart, pp. 90–101", "Friedman, U.S. Battleships, 311–312" and "Garzke and Dulin, Battleships, p. 218–222" Each of these groups should be a single style. (I'm being harder than the GA criteria here, so feel free to tell me to stuff it.) Courcelles (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• No you're right, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Note

The lead writer of this article and the whole class of battleships in general, User:TomStar81 has given up in many BB related matters. I hope that he will return to editing these articles as we need his help but If not, then I hope that this GAN will continue. If no one is willing to keep the nom going (though there does seemt o be several people working on it) I'll do what I can to save this FT. If anyone else is willing to continue this, be my guest since I have not made even one edit to this article and my own niche at OMT is Italy and Austria-Hungary. Thanks,--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Stale GA review?

Haven't been any edits to this review page for about 10 days with the review initiated 22 days (three weeks) ago. Is this review at the stage of being wrapped up? WTF? (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I need to get more involved; I'll integrate the material I added to the talk page into the article. - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... I've been rather busy. Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What still needs to be done here? It appears to me that Dank or other editors have addressed the issues you've raised, Courcelles. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed/improved before you're satisfied with the article? Parsecboy (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've been swallowed up in flagged revisions stuff on-wiki the last few days... I'll read this again tomorrow and see, alright? Courcelles (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

List?

Hey Courcelles, can you put together a list of any remeining issues for us to tackle so this can pass sooner? Thanks.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fresh look towards wrapping this up

• The two things on top of the Further reading section need to be formatted like the rest.
  • I've moved them to External links, since that's what they really were anyway. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (EC) Done.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Referencing formatting; date format inconsistency on refs 36, 37, 51, 53, 65, 67, 68, 70, 81 and 82.
  • Done. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Orange level tag on the "Reactivation potential" section- orange tags are show-stoppers for the GA criteria
  • Not really sure why this is even there. I see what the editor who added it to the means on the talk page, but I don't think the tag was appropriate and have removed it and renamed the section to "Reactivation proposals" to address his point. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Same story with the unreliable source tags on the Armor section
  • We can source this up with some additional refs, but I'm not nearly as familiar with the refs as other editors are. I'll let them pick which ones are the most appropriate to cite. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not much left to do, but still some work needed, I'm afraid. Courcelles (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed

There's a few issues left, but the article has been significantly improved since this process began- and the remaining issues can be easily handled at an eventual ACR. Passed. I'll go do some paperwork. Courcelles (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)