Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/2008/Promoted

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships‎ | Assessment‎ | 2008
Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

edit

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please remember the Iowa47. As an Iowa Battleship Sailor from Mar. 85 - Mar. 90. and someone who was there, I would hope that none of this will every be forgotten. You can split it up but please DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING!!! Thank you. Muddrum

USS Iowa turret explosion edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article about one of the worst peacetime disasters in US Navy history is ready for A-class review. The article is long and detailed because, in my opinion, the story of what led up to the explosion and the investigation into why it happened is so convoluted and controversial. If you believe, however, that the article contains too much detail, as well as any of the usual issues such as prose, grammar, formatting, NPOV, or sourcing issues, I look forward to addressing your concerns. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments An initial look

  • The First Navy Investigation section should be broken out into an article of its own leaving behind about 50% of what is in place now. At 160k this article needs to be reduced of size.
  • The red bar in the infobox is a bit eye-watering. Suggest a more neutral color.
  • The Notes section should be given a |2}} option so that it is not so long when scrolling down the last parts of the article.
  • A copy editing is needed. I spied several spelling mistakes.
  • A great effort on your part for an important event in recent Naval History. --Brad (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that a large part of the size comes from the references, so reducing the size of the relevant prose may not be the best idea. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seriously considering splitting the first investigation into a separate article, but am also still trying to figure out if would be best just to cut out a lot of detail. Thank you for the review. Cla68 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've now addressed all of your comments, including shortening the article [1]. Cla68 (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments:
    • I agree with Brad's comment about the article being too long. In particular, the lead section is a bit too long and the description of the inquiries probably goes into too much detail
    • The 'background' section needs a copy-edit as it's a bit choppy. The quality of the rest of the article's writing is excellent though.
    • 'turret' is repeated three times in the article's second sentance
    • You don't need to say both that 'Iowa was the lead ship of her class' and 'She was the first ship of her class of battleship to be commissioned by the United States' (the second sentence should be chopped, especially as the reference to the US is confusing given that no other countries ever operated Iowa class BBs)
    • Were any of the faults which caused Iowa to fail her InSurv inspection directly related to her main armament? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I included in the footnotes some details about the InSurv inspection which included problems with the main guns. I'll move those to the main text. I'm still trying to decide whether to split the article or prune the details. Thank you for the review and comments. Cla68 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I've addressed the rest of your concerns [2]. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • I want to see what the prose size is before passing judgment - I think that with lesser-detailed refs, it wold be in the 90-100kb range (not saying that the detailed refs are bad!).
    • Is the last para of the lead really needed?
    • "Iowa was the lead ship of her class of "fast battleship" designs planned in 1938 by the Preliminary Design Branch at the Bureau of Construction and Repair."
      • Wait - fast battleship was not an official designation. According to the Wikipedia article, it was an "informal" term which "was not distinguished from conventional battleships in official documentation" or "recognised as a distinctive category in contemporary ship lists or treaties." This article makes it sound like they were called that when they were being built...correct me if I am being dumb.
      • Wikilink lead ship and get rid of the next sentence ("She was the first ship of her class of battleship to be commissioned by the United States.")
    • "16 inch (406 mm)/50 caliber Mark 7 naval guns"? Too long...I think that just " 16"/50 caliber guns" would suffice.
    • You then say that they could fire shells "some 24 nautical miles", but later (5th para, 'Gunnery training and experiments' section) you state that "Skelley claimed that one of the 16 inch shells traveled 23.4 nautical miles (40 km), setting a record for the longest conventional 16 inch shell ever fired." Is something wrong here between these two statements?
    • "After serving in both World War II and the Korean War, she was decommissioned 24 February 1958 and entered the Atlantic Reserve Fleet at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard."
      • decommissioned "on", Reserve Fleet "in", I think.
    • "After a quarter-century in mothballs, Iowa was modernized under the command of Captain Gerald E. Gneckow, primarily at Avondale Shipyards near New Orleans, Louisiana as part of President Ronald Reagan's "600-ship Navy" plan, and recommissioned 28 April 1984, one year ahead of schedule."
      • This sounds odd to me...
    • I will try to do a references check tomorrow, but I really have to get to bed. However, staying up was worth it - I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. Great work, and I mean it. Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 08:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted a lot of extraneous text and footnote info [3] which has reduced the article size down to about 134kb. I'm not sure that I can delete any more without removing key details.
  • I removed the last paragraph of the lead.
  • I fixed the "lead ship" and "fast battleships" issues [4].
  • Done.
  • I couldn't reconcile the "24-mile" claim with the test fire "record" so I just deleted the "24-mile" claim.
  • Added "on" for the decommissioning sentence.
  • Changed sentence to read, "In 1983, Iowa was modernized at Avondale Shipyards near New Orleans, Louisiana as part of President Ronald Reagan's "600-ship Navy" plan. Under the command of Captain Gerald E. Gneckow, she was recommissioned on 28 April 1984, one year ahead of schedule."
  • Thank you for the helpful feedback. Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete anything more if you have any doubts. A long article is not the worst of everyone's problems. :) Just make sure that everything is covered.
  • Looks good. Supporting now. Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 07:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • O, and those portal links at the bottom have to be moved. They are squishing the references and making them thinner! Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 07:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support
    • Why did it fail the InSurv? You don't have to specify, since it is long, but if any of the reasons are related to the explosion you should mention them.
    • You need {{fixbunching}} where you have all those images on the loading procedure.
    • What's with the picture of Jerome Johnson? You can barely see him, or the plaque behind him. It looks like there's a guy standing behind the plaque, and he's semi-transparent.
    • In the Media section you like to tailhook, but capitalize it. Did you not properly disambiguate the link?

Please resolve these and the other issues brought up, but besides these I wasn't able to see any major problems. – Joe Nutter 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added more details on the discrepancies that caused the INSURV failure, including some related to the problems with the main guns' maintenance.
  • I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but when I use the fixbunching it comes out like this [5]. Perhaps I'm not computer literate enough, but until someone can explain to me what I'm doing wrong I reverted it back to how it was.
  • I don't know what we did differently, but somehow I was able to get it to work.– Joe Nutter 14:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some explanation in the image caption to explain what's going on in the Jerome Johnson image.
  • I fixed the link to for Tailhook [6].
  • That, and everything else looks good now. Good luck with FA. – Joe Nutter 14:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the helpful feedback. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lexington class battlecruiser edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this for 2-3 weeks, and I've greatly expanded it along with adding references. I'd like helpful hints for a potential FAC in late January/early February. I won't be on every day after this Thursday due to me going home and not having unlimited internet access (;D), but I will get on often enough to fix any content issues while La Pianista will handle any prose issues. Thanks and cheers everyone! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly co-nominate. Article has very few, if any, prose issues - so finding any will be a task. :) —La Pianista (T•C•S) 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A note for anyone else who wanders here: Allanon = Ed 17, but Allanon is my alt. account, which I am using while I am at home because of insecure internet connections. Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 09:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • The first thing that struck me is that the lead is pretty short; take a look at Montana class battleship, an FA on an uncompleted capital ship class for an example of how to expand this article's lead.
      •   Doing... ...will work on.
    • As far as this source is concerned, what qualifies it as a reliable source?
      • Well, I don't think that it is reliable per WP:RS, but I'm citing really uncontroversial info (the date they were laid down). If you guys want me to remove it, I'll revert back to just the month and year - (not a specific day).
        • I wouldn't trust that source. It gets the fate of the Lexington and Saratoga wrong; USS Langley (CV-1) was "CV-01"; Lexington was CV-2. If it can't even get basic information right, why should it have the dates right? – Joe Nutter 22:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I went hunting after I saw this (which was about 45 min. ago =/), and I felt stupid when I realized that my big bad Conway's book gave these dates. Almost grounds for a trouting... -_- Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 08:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I'm not sure I like the photo of Guam at the bottom of the article, mainly because it's jutting into the notes and references sections.
      • I'm working on it...for the moment I'll leave it in because I have to expand the notes section (I think) -- the aim is to have it in just the see also and notes sections. For what I am trying to do, see Alaska-class battlecruiser towards the bottom
    • Other than that, everything looks pretty good. I made a couple of tweaks, but nothing too major. Parsecboy (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • The infobox does seem a little spartan compared to other A-class and FAs of ship classes (even the incomplete Montana class given by Parsecboy above) specifically in the class overview section. Try to fill in the fields that you can after look at the Montana class BB article. -MBK004 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the poke. :) I'm working on it (slowly...)! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having gone through the article again, I can see nothing that precludes me from supporting this article. -MBK004 05:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an excellent article; I've got a few comments to make below:

  • 'Design' section - this has me pondering. Perhaps dividing the section into 'Design' and 'Development' to break it up and make it easier for the reader?
    • Breaking it where? 'Genesis' => 'Design' and the other two third-level sections => 'Development'?
  • 'Even as early as 1912, the U.S. Navy (USN) had thought of constructing new battlecruisers to combat the four new Kongō-class battlecruisers that the Imperial Japanese Navy were producing' - Why is 1912 significant? What happened then? Why was it not considered earlier than 1912?
    • That's a good question. Morison doesn't say anthing more than that though...
  • 'In 1903 the General Board assumed that the U.S. would build two battleships per year, but Congress had other ideas' - that last bit needs to be rewritten, it's a tad novel-ish
    •   Fixed, I think.
  • 'and the USN began to expand greatly with all types of ships in 1916' - This is a bit awkward for me to read. I know what you mean, but rewording slightly would be a good idea
    •   Fixed, I think.
  • 'However, the ships were not laid down right away, as capital ship construction had been suspended to facilitate construction of needed merchant ships and ASW destroyers.' - Can you spell out what ASW stands for? In fact, you do so later on, so swap them around - wikilink 'ani-submarine warfare' first, then just use a non-linked 'ASW'
  • 'However, in 1917, the class came on hold' - 'was placed on hold' or 'delayed'
  • 'The Lexington-class were still on hold in 1918' - Nothing wrong with this sentence, but the picture underneath it is bleeding through to the text
    • I can't see it on this old 640 x whatever computer...could anyone else fix it? =/
  • '(two triple superfiring over two double turrets)' - I honestly have no idea what that means - can it be clarified?
    • I honestly have no time to create an article on tha right now with my mom limiting my time, but I will create one as soon as I can.
  • Can you integrate the 'See Also' section into the text to get rid of it?
    • I think that you reviewers hate "See also" sections... :)

And can I be cheeky and ask you to review Tetrarch (tank) in return when you get a chance? It's just above this review. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Support
    • "many contemporary historians classify them as battlecruisers' This sentence is slightly ambiguous, contemporary is generally used to mean "of the time period" but the present tense is used, making it unclear if contemporary means this, primary, definition or the secondary definition of "modern".
    • The two images after the infobox sandwich on my laptop monitor, while I am no expert on image policies I believe this is bad.
      • ... On my laptop and this old cluncker that I have to use now, they aren't sandwiched...
        • Well, in FF on mine it does. The painting of the original configuration has the bottom at "Other changes" while the definitive design painting has the top at the beginning of that paragraph.
          •   Fixed Call me a liar, but my laptop did have a sandwich.
    • "The solution for this was "very unusual";" Might a colon be better than a semicolon here? It would read better.
      •   Fixed To answer your question: yes, it would be better. :)
    • " the opportunity to redesign the ships was not missed." Passive voice should be avoided when possible, who didn't miss the opportunity? Naval architects? Congress?
      • Better? "was not allowed to pass" - I don't know who didn't allow it to pass, but I'm just trying for a transtion here (sort of...)
    • The paragraph about the Hood is bad; it mentions that exposure to plans for the Hood caused the redesign, mentions various changes, and then goes back to talking about the Hood. The reader thinks that all the changes were caused by exposure to Hood plans, and then is told that not all of them were.
      • Is the para better now? I did a quick run-through...(hope it wasn't too quick...)
        • Yeah, that's better.
    • "According to Bonner," Who is Bonner? Explain this.
      • The reference/in-line citation...?
        • I suppose, but just using the last name makes it seem like you're mentioning someone previously referenced in the article. You could at least say Kermit Bonner or something.
          •   Done (will address now)
    • Any chance of including how much complete the Constitution was, to be consistent with the others?
      •   Done
    • The See Also section can be integrated: You linked to G3 earlier discussing the Washington Treaty, Admiral Class can be mentioned when discussing the Hood (HMS Hood, an Admiral class battlecruiser) and Lexington Class Aircraft Carrier can be linked to when discussing the fate of the Lexington and Saratoga."
      •   Done

Please fix these and what was mentioned above and I'll support it. – Joe Nutter 00:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • I would be much happier if the article didn't refer to the Alaska class as battlecruisers. Particularly as this causes confusing statements like "Succeeded by: Alaska class battlecruiser" - there is simply no sense in which the Alaskas succeeded the Lexingtons.
      • I fixed the caption on the Guam image, but otherwise they all have the little explanatory "modern historians..."
Yep. But that's not very helpful. The problem isn't the terminology, it's the fact that it's mentioned so often that it will lead people to create a falsse association between the two classes, which werre nothing to do with one another.
As I mentioned "Succeeded by: Alaska class battlecruiser" is a totally untrue statement. At very least, we should take that out. I would also prefer "first and last class of battlecruiser" ordered by the USN. The Alaskas were certainly not ordered as battlecruisers. In my view mention of the Alaskas should be confined to footnote A2. The Land (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, the 'succeeded by' appears already to have been removed. I have changed the article to something I'm happier with for the time being. The Land (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:P I did that. :) Early in their design, the Alaskas were intended to be battlecruisers, though. But I doubt that this matters, and I will start to try to shove the class into a note(s). Cheers! Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, I broadly concur with the other comments, and would be happy to support if they were fixed. The Land (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments everyone! I have to go soon or now, but I will get to these as soon as I can... Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support

  • "they were originally designed mount ten"
  • "making them was the only other battlecruisers ever built by the U.S."
  • "and would designated as CC-1 through CC-6"
  • "after an almost 5-month delay"
  • "every U.S. battleship that was built in the prior to the Washington Naval Treaty"

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary) edit

This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - references satisfy MoS. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could the redlinks please be stubbed out? Skinny87 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. No problem. (It may take a couple of days, though.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know where to find reliable information for the geographic feature, but all the other red-links have either have articles or have been eliminated. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support another well-done ship piece. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Short but, as normal, sweet. – Joe Nutter 00:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alaska class battlecruiser edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this because I think that it is ready to undergo this, even without a GA review yet (it's pending). The only real big question I have right now is the name of the article..."Alaska class battlecruiser", "Alaska class large cruiser" or "Alaska class cruiser"? If consensus says one of the last two, an admin will have to move it, 'cos I moved it from "cruiser" to its present location without really thinking about it before... =/ Anyway, thanks for any and all feedback you give me! Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • As far as the name is concerned it looks like DANFS refers to them as "large cruisers" and further defines the hull classification symbol "CB" as meaning "large cruiser". Do other sources call them "battlecruisers'?
      • See the '"Large cruisers" or "battlecruisers"?' section....
        • The name as it is doesn't bother me. You were just asking for opinions on what name it should be under… — Bellhalla (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant that there are sources that call them battlecruisers, and just see that section. Sorry! :)
    • "See also" and "External links" sections are usually located after "Notes", "References", and "Bibliography" sections.
    • In referring to ships of the various classes, the awkward italic/Roman clash, as in "Alaskas", can be avoided by using other constructions like "the Alaska class", "the Alaska-class ships", or other variations. Also, in several places where ships of a particular class are referred to, a grocer's apostrophe is used when I don't believe the intention is for a possessive.
      • Trekphiler went through and removed a lot + I got some, but apparently there are more. :) I'll hunt for them.   Doing...
    • This is a really long sentence: The design process of the Alaska class was "torturous"[7] because of the numerous changes and modifications made to the ships' layouts by many different departments and individuals;[7] indeed, the ship had at least nine different planned layouts,[19] ranging from 6,000 ton Atlanta class antiaircraft cruisers,[18] to "overgrown" heavy cruisers,[7] to a 38,000 ton mini-battleship that would have been armed with twelve 12-in guns and sixteen 5-in guns.
      •   Done
    • Unclear antecedent: what does she refer to in this sentence: "Outside of the USS Saratoga (CV-3), she was the least maneuverable ship in the U.S. Navy,[7] which was due to the decision to use a cruiser-like single rudder instead of a battleship-like dual."
      •   Done
    • What's a "raining mission"? A typo, perhaps?
      • ...posssssibly.... =/
    • By using an A prefix for the discursive notes, they end up looking too much like the citations. Perhaps using the word Note would make them more readily distinguishable?
      • Having [Note n] all over bothers me...I want to have the notes look somewhat like references, if only they are short like refs.....I don't want an overabundance of nice blue superscripted text.
        • No problem, then. (Too bad they can't be sequential letters.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you have a sentence beginning "Arguably the best light anti-aircraft gun of World War II…", it just begs for a citation. I know that the entire paragraph is sourced to Navweaps.com, but an additional citation to make clear where the opinion comes from is in order.
      •   Done
    • For compound adjectives, WP:HYPHEN recommends no hyphen for abbreviated units, so it should be "12 in gun" rather than "12-in gun". I'd also suggest using {{convert}} for SI unit conversions; "…12 in (300 mm)…" is potentially less ambiguous than "…12 in guns…"
    • The range of speeds in the lead looks funny with differing levels of precision. If the range comes from the same source, I would expect something more like "31.4–33.0 knots (58.2–61.1 km/h; 36.1–38.0 mph)". If they are figures from differing sources, I'd just make it 31–34 knots (57–63 km/h; 36–39 mph)
    • Given that this is an article about U.S. Navy ships, the "USS" prefix is superfluous in just about every case in this article (except for the list of class ships in the "Ships" section). If you add the optional parameter "|3" at the end of {{USS}}, it will hide "USS". While adding that, you might evaluate each ship link to determine if the hull classification number is necessary in all cases. One example: in the "Design process" section, USS Hornet (CV-12) could easily be just Hornet without any loss of clarity (and would avoid the ugly double parentheses, too).

— Bellhalla (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support w/Comments In addition to Bellhalla's comments, I have a few of my own:
    • Just an FYI, but its usually a bad idea to have two ranking review processes open at the same time. In the future it would be better to clear the GAN before moving on to the ACR becuase they have on occasion conflicted with each other on certain matters.
      • Can do. :)
    • Can we maybe lose some of the citations in the lead? If the info appears further down in the article it does not nessicarly have to be cited in the lead per se, although you are certainly welcome to do so if you like.
      • The info does not appear further down. :)
        • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of what appears below and generally shouldn't have material not in the rest of the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See about integrating the links in the see also section into the article body itself and removing that section altogater, the FAC people have ion the past frowned on the presence of see also sections, so if you can get remove it now would be the time to do so.
      •   Done...I'll just remove it; it doesn't add too much to the article anyway.
    • Can we do something about the redlinks for the big guns in the article about where the Armement section is? They are kind of distracting, and could be useful to other articles if created.
    • Do we really need the external link to Wikitionary? It looks out of place in the article.
      •   Done...changed to WP link.
    • "The anti-aircraft batteries on the Alaska "large cruisers" consisted of 56 x 40mm guns and 34 x 20mm guns. These numbers can be compared to 48 x 40mm and 24 x 20mm on the smaller Baltimores and 80 x 40mm and 49 x 20mm on the larger Iowas." As a rule, anything making a camparison using numbers should have a cite since the information is open to being challenged otherwise. This paragraph doesn't have a cite, although it should be too hard to find one or two cites for the info presented.
      • Will do tommorow..as you said (I think you said, Mr. Typo King), it shouldn't be too hard. :)
        •   Done
  • Otherwise it look good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the article has now been tightened. Comments I think that this is pretty close to A-class, but it needs a bit more tightening up. Some suggestions are:
    • "The original idea for a U.S. class of battlecruiser began in the late 1930s, when the U.S. Navy wanted to counter both the German Scharnhorst class and a new battlecruiser class Japan supposedly had under construction.[7][A 7] The Alaska class were intended to serve as "cruiser-killers", in order to seek out and destroy this type of post-Treaty heavy cruiser. " - these two sentences are confusing - were the Alaskas designed to counter battlecruisers or cruisers?
      •   Doing...
    • "This was the point in the war where the Navy, and the President, realized that the next fleet carriers, the Essex-class aircraft carriers, had not even been laid down yet and only one (Hornet) would enter service before 1944" - the Essex class aircraft carrier article contradicts this sentence - three Essexs had been laid down during 1941 and they started to enter service in December 1942
      •   Doing...
    • "Even though their raison d'être served with the U.S. Navy in the last years of World War II." - I don't understand what this sentence means
      •   Done...that's what I get for trying to merge in a deleted section too fast.
    • The service history section is a bit too brief, even considering that neither of the ships served for long. It would be good if this section covered the dates the ships entered service, what the Navy's commanders thought about the ships (were they regarded as being worthwhile reinforcements, or a waste of supplies?) and why they were taken out of service in 1947 given their high construction cost and success as carrier escorts (presumably because they were less cost-effective escorts than heavy cruisers and destroyers)
    • how many kills did the cruiser group achieve?
      •   Done...whoops, zero, not few. =/
    • The sections on the Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft guns and Oerlikon 20mm anti-aircraft guns don't really need to be in the article - these generic descriptions of the guns should be in the articles on the guns. Was there anything unusual about the way these guns were mounted or used on the Alaskas?
      • They are just short blurbs on them so that readers can see what this "400mm gun" is without have a problem with WP:TLDR.
      • Not that any source said...
    • It would be interesting if the discussion of the ships' armament included a description of their radars and other sensors - were these the reason they made excellent carrier escorts?

Nick Dowling (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; under the condition that everything above was dealt with. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns are being dealt with, albeit slowly... I had two 5-7 page papers due this week, so my time on here has been cut for the last 3 days. =/ —Ed 17 (Il Viquipedista)— 06:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support.

    • ""pocket battleships"," In the Genesis section; shouldn't the comma be inside the quotes?
    • "Indeed, the ship had at least nine different planned layouts,[19] ranging from 6,000 ton Atlanta class antiaircraft cruisers," This might be better rephrased as "ranging from a design similar to the 6,000 ton Atlanta..." unless one design morphed into Atlanta class? This is a rather confusing sentence.
    • "a realization that these "cruiser killers" had no more cruisers to hunt—the fleets of Japanese cruisers had already been defeated by aircraft and submarines—made the Alaska class "white elephants"." Again, I think the period should go inside the quotes (might want to check to see if there other cases that I missed). Also, it kinds of reads a bit awkwardly, you might want to consider rephrasing it - not necessary though, just a personal thing.
    • "She served in the Pacific with Alaska almost all of the same operations." This is awkward, please rephrase it.

      Besides those, however, it looks good. Fix those and the other changes made above, and it'll have earned my support. Joe (Talk) 00:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Improvements do need to be made to the article, although I can't pick out anything that hasn't already been listed above. Having said that, significant improvements have already been made since the listing here began, and the_ed17's commitment to implementing these changes means I have no qualms about thowing my support in now, as I think that the current incarnation is sufficient for A-class. -- saberwyn 10:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SS Mauna Loa edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has passed a (strange) GA review and a peer review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but Image:SS West Conob.jpg is tagged for no category. --Brad (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for catching that. I've added categories for it at Commons — 19:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Another example of your excellent work. Joe (Talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unquestionable Support: meets all criteria and a very good read. Good work Belhalla! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 18:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and that really was a strange GA review. I can't see any outstanding issues that would deny A-Class status. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SS Black Osprey edit

This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments A generally well-written article. I focus here on a number of prose issues:
    • Watch redudancies throughout prose. Here is one example: The ship was inspected by the United States Navy for possible use as USS West Arrow (ID-2585) but was neithernot taken into the Navy noror ever commissioned under that name
      • Since USS West Arrow (ID-2585) is a redirect to the article, I was trying to make clear that though that would have been the ship's name, she was never officially known by that name. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try to simplify sentences, such as this one: After the United States established a "Neutrality Zone"—a zone where American-flagged ships could not enter—in late 1939, American Diamond was unable to use Black Osprey or any of the other seven vessels used on its Dutch route, and chartered the ships to other U.S. companies.
      • Sentence split into two sentences now. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • West Arrow was inspected by the 13th Naval District of the United States Navy after completion and was assigned the identification number of 2585
      • Well, the ship was inspected after completion. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I have this morning, I'll try and return. Good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My replies are interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I corrected a minor redundancy. Do you think the article would be too short for FA? --Brad (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for catching that. (D'oh!) I don't think the length would necessarily be a problem with an FA. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as normal more than deserves A-class. Joe (Talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I couldn't see any issues. The length is good, I have seen smaller FAs. It seems comprehensive and that is all that matters. Good work. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Constitution edit

This article recently had a GAR and passed. I've covered all of the suggestions given in the GAR as well as reworking all the references. The exception at this point is the book by Fitz-Enz; I'm awaiting the book to become available in my library network; at this time I cannot supply the needed page numbers. Redlink fill-ins are ongoing with help from Benea (talk · contribs) in regards to the Royal Navy ships. Of course the ultimate goal will be FAC so I hope this review will shake out more MOS and other overlooked issues. --Brad (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tenative Support I've been watching you improve this article for nearly 9 months now, so far as i am aware everything has and remains good, but I will take another look when I have a spare moment to ensure that all the i's are dotted and t's crossed with regards to A-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, after rereading the article I am giving full support gor the bump to A-class. Well done! TomStar810 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support - per Tom. I'll take a look in a few days once the weekend gives me a bit more available time. -MBK004 15:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just read through the article, checked the images and references. All looks good. As the MOS issues (spacing, access, etc) are not my specialty, I did not check those things, but there are some people who are knowledgeable who will definitely let you know about the problems at FAC. -MBK004 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautiful article. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References satisfy MoS. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article. One comment...I thought that a year ago or so I added a couple of sentences about a recent captain of the ship being relieved and charged with abusing his crew? What happened to that text? Cla68 (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mention is in the very last paragraph of the article. --Brad (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MS West Honaker edit

Closed as promoted --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has passed a GA review and I believe it's meets the requirements for an A-Class assessment. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment The lead is lacking references. Looks quite good otherwise. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something, but where exactly is the prose missing references? Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I follow a widely accepted style that leaves the lead uncited (unless there is a contentious fact that needs it). Please see WP:LEADCITE for further informattion. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, lead doesn't need refs. Cam (Chat) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article and I found not one thing out of place. Of course redlink fill ins for FAC will be needed.

--Brad (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - another excellent article. My only real suggestion would be to possibly reconsider the use of the wool picture, as it really doesn't add that much to the article. All the best, Cam (Chat) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another excellent example of your ship work. Joe (Talk) 22:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Nevada (BB-36) edit

I am nominating this because I've worked on it for a lot of hours over the last few days and got it through a GA-review, and I think that it is a good enough article to pass A-class as well. Happy reviewing and cheers, the_ed17 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I'm thrilled to see this moving up the assessment ladder, but I do have a few questions:
    • What makes the following sources reliable?
      • http://spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2008/01/spitfires-in-us-navy.htm
        • It isn't, but the magazine article that is on this particular page of this website is...should I just cite the article instead using {{cite journal}}? (It says on the bottom of the page that "This article was first published in Naval Aviation News, May-June 1994") the_ed17
      • http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/uss_nevada_bb36_data.htmremoved —the_ed17— 01:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure if it is (obviously meaning that it probably isn't.). However, I'm going to leave it there until MBK004 replies to a question I asked him about what those source; if he has a book that I can use to source those instead, I will use the book. the_ed17
          • I'll reply here. I've found a replacement online source that will stand for the info about the sinking, but nothing yet about the re-gunning. The replacement is the Naval Vessel Register: [7], which also needs to be accompanied by the following template, {{NVR}} just like {{DANFS}}. Also, Tom the Iowa participated. Perhaps something for that article? -MBK004 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • She killed her own brethren?!?!? =D Thanks MBK004!!! the_ed17 02:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's precedent for the fratricide: New York and Texas sank Washington in 1924. -MBK004 03:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Our government at work. =) Cheers, the_ed17 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Indeed :) I think that we can work in a mention of this "friendly" fire incident in the Iowa article, but I think its going to have a wait just a little while longer becuase I have to do anymore thinking in the next 60 minutes my brain in going to spring a leak and then I am not going to remeber anything I studied or read today for callage.
    • Consider removing the header "Service life"; as the entire article is essentially just that there really isn't any reason to have that as the lead header.
      • 'Service Life' is there to distinguish her life from her 'Design and Construction' section...should I remove it anyway and bump up the header levels for the rest? the_ed17
        • What I am getting at is that 90% of your article is service life, so it would IMO be better to remove that header and instead rely on the other headers in the article for sectional seperation. This was suggested at an FAR on USS Wisconsin (BB-64), the argument was that if the entire article was serivice history it would be better to have the WWII, Korean War, and Gulf war headings as main heading rather than being subordinate to a mast "service life" heading. Incidentally, this format has also been adopted by Brad during his continual update of the frigate USS Constitution. I bring it up here becuase I figure that it will be an FA issue, so its something I wanted you to think about before getting to the FAC page.
  • Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! the_ed17 00:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: I believe that all copy & pasted DANFS text has been modified now...per this debate here. the_ed17 02:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.
    • I would consider renaming the "Between the Wars" section to something like "Interwar period," that sounds more encyclopedic.
      •   Done
    • "The overhaul took about a year; after, the battleship looked like a South Dakota-class battleship.[21]" That sentence sounds rather awkward, might it be better to have afterwords instead of after?
      • Does this sound better? "The overhaul took about a year and made the old battleship look similar in appearance to a South Dakota-class battleship.[21]"
        • Yeah, that looks good.
    • Link "the invasion of Southern France" in at the beginning of that section to Operation Dragoon.
      •   Done
    • Throughout that section there were a variety of grammatical errors and awkward phrases, which I've attempted to fix.
    • Thanks!
  • Other than those issues, it looks great. Good job and good luck at FA. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for the amount of awkwardness is/was due to me trying to not use copy-and-pasted DANFS text anywhere...I had a few complaints about it from doncram.... Thank you for reviewing the article! the_ed17 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...that incidentally was the reason I tried to rely less on DANFS while rewriting USS Iowa (BB-61). I figure this is the best premptive stike against any formal recognition of the plagerism piece. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Its a good article, but I am still a little concerned about those two sources. That doesn't bother me enough to oppose, but I would recommend asking about them at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or removing them from the article before heading for FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now. I strongly suggest it needs a copyedit before an FAC. Other than that, my comments have been met. The images all seem to be licensed correctly, seems comprehensive, is well-sourced. Meets the criteria in my opinion. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, mainly prose problems.
Woody's resolved prose problems
{{{2}}}
  • Date formats: having recently audited the dates of many US battleship articles and a smaller number of US military aircraft articles, I can safely say that nearly all of them (> 95%) use international DF. Until the whole autoformatting thing came up at MOSNUM, I hadn't realised that the US military uses international DF. It's written into the current proposals for new guidelines on the selection of DF. Tony (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The sectioning still needs work. There should not be a main section == immediately followed by a subsection === The design section really doesn't need 3 subsections in that short of space. The references section is also a mess. --Brad (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does it say that? Regardless, though, I changed it.   Done
    •   Done
    • What, exactly, is wrong with it??? Saying that it's "a mess" does not help me fix it! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be ok if I took a try at it? Probably easier than trying to explain. --Brad (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go right ahead. =) Thanks! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. What you think now? --Brad (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, but I added the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" section again—every other 'slice' of WWII has its own heading, so Pearl deserves one too. If this violates a guideline that is buried somewhere in the MoS, then I'm gonna go and cite WP:IAR.... =) Sorry. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your referencing is a bit heavy on the danfs article. Any possible way to reduce the cites to danfs by about half? What is the idea with all the "Quotes" throughout the article? And in the last sentence of the article "As of 2008" automatically makes your article obsolete. --Brad (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really...as with most U.S. warship articles, DANFS is the primary source, but I can't use one cite for an entire paragraph because all of the paras have more than one source (with the exception of the "Okinawa and Japan" section)!
Third party references are not found at the DANFS article. They would be first party references. Would serve ok as secondary references but not primary. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the quotes like "huge engineering advantage"? I put them there because they are borderline POV, and quoting the source directly removes that problem.
Removed. =) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets the term {{Quotefarm}} in its present state. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a few of the quotes; does it look better now? -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondarily, using the disambig finder Third Fleet and bulkhead are used in the article...but I can't seem to find them! Can anyone help? (F.y.i. USS Nevada doesn't count because that is from the {{Otherships}} template.) Thanks, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 02:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I found them all. Quotes look better as well. --Brad (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SS Iowan edit

This article has passed its GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Again, great work. Cla68 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good from here; one minor red link to fill if going for FA. --Brad (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks great to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS West Bridge (ID-2888) edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article successfully passed a GA review, and I believe that it meets the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Again, great work. Cla68 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Good job. However, I would like to see J. F. Duthie & Company made into a stub. The red link shows up twice. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sure you've looked high and low for references but is there a chance that the reliance on DANFS can be reduced somewhat? The first three paragraphs that describe the torpedo attack are all ref'd to danfs. --Brad (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only two contemporary news accounts I found list West Bridge as sunk, so no details there. Crowell & Wilson have a few details of the torpedo attack mostly in agreement with DANFS, but since they report that the ship sank (mentioned in the article), I'm not sure how accurate they are. (As an FYI, the material is not verbatim from DANFS, in case that's a concern.) — Bellhalla (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess that sometimes there won't be any other source besides danfs so as long as its not copied verbatim, all the better for an article. --Brad (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Iowa (BB-61) edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important note for closing coordinator: The nominator, TomStar, has taken an urgent wikibreak but asks that this review be kept open until his return so that he can deal with any matters arising. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last unfeatured Iowa-class battleship is ironically the class leader, USS Iowa, which I have just updated immensely. The goal is to drive to FA and then FT by the end of the year, and this is the first stop on that road. I am open to any and all comments on the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  1. This bathtub issue, while interesting, is given too much coverage and I'm not exactly sure why the pic has been left out of the article. Perhaps you could remove the mention of this from the article text and instead describe it in the photo caption. The issue over Polio and FDR is now disputed as a cause of his paralysis so introducing this debate into the article would only cause problems.
  2. There is too much military lingo such as "Navy brass" "splashing planes" "flattop" etc. I understand what these mean but the inexperienced reader may not.
  3. The coverage of USS Thompson (DD-627) is unnecessarily too long and should be trimmed.
  4. "A glimpse of hell" is too sensational of a description for a subsection.
  5. Overall I'm still confused about your reluctance to crack books on the Iowa class. You have 25 references given to an Iowa veterans website for example. Third party references would seem to imply that primary sources in this case should not be from the US Navy or veterans groups as they have an interest in Iowa only to promote her in a positive manner. --Brad (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. See what you can do to eliminate the "Awards" and "See also" sections. They contain limited information that likely could be mentioned in the article text or the infobox.--Brad (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectively,

  • That was actually part of the construction section and was moved to its current location during a copyedit. I didn't move it back because I had not gotten any input on the article in its rewritten form, and I did not add the picture directly because it would have crammed up the spacing in the article (having the tub photo and the table would force the text to a very small size), although if more people agree with your solution I will add the photo and edit the paragraph for inclusion as a caption.
    • I went ahead and put the image in the article with caption as you suggested. Is this batter? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that fixes things up. --Brad (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to find and eliminate as much of that as I could, but after I while it gets harder to spot and remove. I will take another pass and see if I can find any additional phrasing that needs "englishized".
  • Done.
  • Done. That was supposed to be remained "1989 turret explosion" before being moved out to the mainspace, although I apparently forgot to do so. M'bad :)
  • I actually looked hard for books on Iowa in three separate libraries because the DANFS coverage was so bad for this ship, but all I could find were crates of material on the explosion in the gun turret. I suspect that is probably why DANFS hasn't got better info on the ship, it seems like everyone wants to forget about this vessel because of that fiasco over incident of April 19. I was also attempting to meet the plagiarism people half way with this article since some view the copy/paste of DANFS material here qualifies as plagerism. As to the veterans website, I used their site because it was more exacting on the details than any other source I could find (DANFS included). If that is judged to be unreliable then I may be up the creek without a paddle so to speak.
  • I really find it hard to believe that you can't find books on this subject. I had given you a list of books that I found in my own library network that surely must be in the library network you have access to. The sources cited on the veterans page aren't exactly high quality and are evasive regarding their origins. I hate to make comparisons but for my work on USS Constitution I've read 6 books on the subject and likely will read a 7th. In total I have at least 9 books to cite including the ones I found at Project Gutenberg. This is why I'm dumbfounded when you say you can't find one book on the Iowa class. Sorry if this sounds harsh but my opinion is that your sourcing is too weak for A-Class. --Brad (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find plenty of books on the Iowa class, just not on the USS Iowa specifically, at least none that don't devote 3/4 of the book to the turret explosion. What I am doing now is checking generic WWII books for mentions of the battleship in the various pacific campaigns. I have a GAC open on the talk page in which a user has suggest some places to check for better info, so you can look for some of that to get into the article here before too long (I hope). Thats why we these assessments, every little suggestion counts for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Comments

Hi Tom. Good luck with the FT drive! I'm wondering why there aren't more of the great images from [8] in the article. One of them - firing off Korea - is available without the annoying text. Dhatfield (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The simple answer is room issues, we haven't yet got the article to a stable version, and I need some stability in the text before adding additional photos. Also, I haven't yet had the chance to view the article on a higher moniter resolution setting, so I am not sure how much more room I have to play with in the article. I do intend to add more, I just need a little more time :)
    • For some reason this image won't load when I click on it. I will try again later to see if it will come up, but at the moment I think we may need to pursue alternative website to get to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Overall, excellent article, just a few points:

    • There's some inconsistency with regards to the usage of "US" and "U.S." when referring to the United States. Although either is acceptable, I would clean this up to ensure that only one is used throughout the article.
    • Would it be possible to create a separate section as "References" to list the books and articles used, and then change the current refs section to "footnotes"? It becomes quite confusing at times when there isn't a list of the books used above or below
    • On that note, there seems to be a lot of articles & government publications used in the references. There's gotta be a few books out there on the Iowa-Class as a whole. Would it be possible to diversify the refs by drawing resources from some of these? While I recognize the issue raised in your response, I've got plenty of books on the Pacific Campaigns that can likely be used. I'll see what I can help with in regards to print-references.
    • There's a lot of choppiness throughout the prose (this can be solved by a copyedit, which I'm willing to do some of)
    • There's some difficulty with a lot of unnecessary dates being linked (I have problems with this in my writing as well;). I know we like blue, but it does get a bit excessive at times (like I said, I take flak for this as well)
    • That's all I can find for now, I'll take another look tomorrow morning (I'll do some copyediting in the meantime). Regards, Cam (Chat) 06:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Overall I thought it was a very good article, however, I cannot support it for A-class till the issues mentioned above are resolved. Besides those, I just found a few stylistic/grammatical errors, which I've gone ahead and corrected for you. I agree that the tub picture should be displayed if at all possible(funny picture, by the way - I love the little toy cruiser...for FDR to play with?). Borg Sphere (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could have been added for visual effect, as I'm not sure roosevelt would have had any toys in his bathtub (although I wasn't there, so I wouldn't know that for a fact). I added the toy picture and am working on the other issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Looks like a great article, just a few comments below:

  1. I notice you have All Hands in the notes section, a quick search lead me to the Navy's All Hands archive site which will help you get a more full cite, and the ability to link to it.
  2. According to WP:MOSNUM, inparticular MOS:UNLINKDATES: The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. So you might have to remove the date links, or wait until the handful of users who are auto unlinking arrive at the article.
  3. In the construction section is there anyway to expand it? Like add more information on it's construction like how many men worked on it, any challenges faced during construction, etc. because that whole section sans 4 sentences is about the armament, which leads me to my next comment.
  4. Can an armament section be created/expanded by either adding a subsection to the construction section or it's own section with like a paragraph or two about its fire power? The way it is now is 4 quick sections about it's armament, and I understand that a FA article exists on the Iowa class in general, but a section in the USS Iowa article I think is warranted.
  5. I'm going on a stretch here, but can this image be placed in the article? It's a featured picture and would be well placed to show the strength of the ships fire power.

That's it for now, I'm kind of new at this so I probably be back with some more questions and comments. El Greco(talk) 20:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repectively:
  • I hadn;t realised that they had an online archive, that will likely help in formatting the article's All Hands references. Thanks for that.
  • In general I tried to link only those dates that had a full month name year setup, although I admit that I need to read up on this a little to see how exactly this effects my article here (and by extenion, the other five articles already there :)
    • Tony has removed all instances of just date linking, so we are good to go on those grounds now. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could look into expanding the section along those lines, although I am not sure to what extent information on the subject will be available. I do know that the battleship wasn't built by men, it was built by women, who were working the navy yards for the men while the latter were off to fight the war. Apparently, the "rosies" left good luck messages engraved within a fuel tank on Wisconsin, so there maybe some material of this nature for Iowa as well.
  • That bumps up against both Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:summary style, both of which need to be kept in mind when working on the article. Moreover, almost all the armament info is at armament of the Iowa class battleship. This format was adopted some time ago to keep all involved editors mostly happy, and it has worked up till now with little or no resistance. Most problematic with the issue of the construction section is that rattling one section also invites the possibility of rattling these sections for the other three completed Iowas so they maintain uniformity for a FT shot. I want to say here explicitly that I will rearrange the sections if enough people agree it needs to be done, but I until I see the enough people mark (maybe three or four people in agreement with you) I am not going to rearrange the sections (yet, anyway).
  • Of course. I just need a little more stability in the article and a higher resoltion moniter before I add the image in. It will be added, trust me; this is one image that most accurately says "600-ship Navy", so it will be added even if I have to remove and article or two to get it in. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with my fourth comment, I just threw it out there. Better to keep it consistent with the other articles then not to. I mainly brought it up if there was any difference in armament for the USS Iowa as compared to the other ships since she was the lead ship. El Greco(talk) 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've reviewed some of the sources, and added some material myself as I build the USS Iowa turret explosion. I think the article accurately reflects the current sources and meets the criteria. Cla68 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question...Is the section on WWII taken more or less directly from the US Navy's history of the ship and/or from Morison? It seems kind of hagiographic. Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The others are, but this one isn't; the WWII section was rebuilt from the Iowa veteran's association ship's history page, with checks against DANFS (what little material there was to check against) and reports from other ships (one liners mostly) that confirm Iowa's presence in the combat actions. If you like I could try and tweak this a little, although admittedly I am not sure exactly how I would be able to pull this off. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with giving the history of an individual ship, is that to perhaps get an objective outside opinion of the ship's performance might require unreasonable searching through seemingly unrelated sources. For example, the book: Brown, Herbert C. (2000). Hell at Tassafaronga. Ancient Mariners Pr. ISBN 0-9700721-4-7. states that the interception of Japanese warships fleeing Truk lagoon during Operation Hailstone was fairly botched, with at least one or more of the Japanese warships escaping in spite of the superior numbers of American warships present with many of them almost being hit by Japanese torpedoes launched during the encounter. I'll review the article again. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The concerns I had have been addressed. Excellent article. Cam (Chat) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SS Panaman edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has already passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class— Bellhalla (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support One minor issue noticed and corrected. --Brad (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and referenced article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work as usual. Cla68 (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SS Ohioan (1914) edit

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently passed GA review. I believe it meets the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support We can expect great things from this contributor. Both this article and the Minnesotan are worthy of A-Class. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent work again. I assume that many photos of the ship were taken while she was aground off the California coast, but all the ones you have found so far are still copyrighted? Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there were quite a few published of the ship on the rocks, but none that I found that were free. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--I personally think that the lead could be expanded a bit, but otherwise it looks quite good. Nice job! ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line 16:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I expanded the lead to include more details about the sinking. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don't know how I missed this review until now. This article as with all the sister ships meets A class. --Brad (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SMS Von der Tann edit

Promoted: --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been expanded significantly since passing GA in July, and was peer-reviewed shortly thereafter. I feel it meets the A-class criteria, and would like it to be evaluated by other editors, hopefully for some pointers to help the article reach FA-class. Parsecboy (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Looks good. I would suggest, though, that you try to have a citation at the end of every paragraph so that you won't appear to have any uncited material. Also, quotes are only supposed to be indented if they are four lines or longer. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, as well as for your corrections to the article; I fixed the quotes in the Jutland section that were too short to justify indenting (the other, in the Yarmouth and Lowestoft section appears to be at least 4 lines on my screen, although I know my monitor is on the smaller end, so it might not appear so to those with larger screens.). I'll look at adding more citations tomorrow, as it's getting late here. Thanks again, Parsecboy (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with Comment. An excellent article (and an interesting read, to boot!). One minor thing on reference formatting (which, when I get back on Sunday, I might change) is that "Smith, p407" should likely be reput as "Smith, p. 407". It helps in that it doesn't make it look as jumbled. Just a thought.....Cam (Chat) 06:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I think I've got the references fixed as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SS Minnesotan edit

I'm nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks good. --Brad (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article. I do have one question though, that applies to the Ohioan as well. The article states the the contract set a maximum cost of $640,000, but both ships' final price was above that. What happened? - Hargrimm | Θ 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The final cost included the financing (interest) charges. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wonderful article. Can this article be expanded further or has it reached its limit? (Forgive lack of expertise in naval realm) Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cla68, has it right. From available sources, it's pretty much at its limit, but if one were to write a book on the ship, for example, I'm sure that many more primary sources could be found. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I suspect that primary sources (port logs, naval escort ships logs, etc) might have more information on her movements over her career but I think the secondary sources used are excellent and provide enough information for a an encyclopedic entry on the ship's history. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SS Montanan edit

I'm nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You wouldn't happen to have a more precise time of her sinking, would you? Cam (Chat) 05:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regrettably, no. The sources don't give a specific time, just that she sank the morning of 16 August after unsuccessful salvage attempts. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work. --Brad (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article appears to meet all criteria for A-Class. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think I found one missing comma; otherwise, this is great. - Hargrimm | Θ 23:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SS Washingtonian edit

Result: promoted. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets the requirements. Note: there appear to be no free images of Washingtonian (or Elizabeth Palmer, for that matter) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regretful oppose With the adoption of the new five point A-class standards the articles we have are held to higher standards, and like all of Bellhalla's articles this one is exceptional for its well cited information, however it currently fails A5, the criteria on supporting visual aids. I would be thrilled to support the article, but the standards demand a picture or two (or a very good explination f why there are no pictures) before I can in good faith change my !vote. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After thinking the matter through, I changed my mind. If there are no free images, then we could in theory add non-free images, but that wouldn't nessicarly be helpful since our low pixle policy on fair use pics would deprive the auduence of the pleasure of viewing the ship, and an external link to an image would not add signifigantly to the article. I think this qualifies as a unique circumstance and thus switch to Support. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added Image:SS Washingtonian.jpg, a fair use image of the ship, to the infobox. (I've never added a fair-use image to WP before, so I hope I have done everything properly.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support You're on a roll here. --Brad (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As ever, support. Meets all the A-Class criteria, the infobox would actually be enough I think, it doesn't have to have an image to become FA, though I like the fair-use one (and it is licenced correctly). I added in the == Collision == sub-header as the large block of text was a bit unmanageable. Good work. Woody (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the header and the check up on the fair use image. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SS Pennsylvanian edit

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but wondering about the strange placement of pics overlapping two sections? Should they be entirely within the sections instead? --Brad (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the Mulberry damage picture was within the WWII section, it hung down into the "Notes" section on my monitor. When I moved it up higher, I needed to move the previous image up to avoid sandwiching text between two images. If you think it's problematic, I can change it, but I like that it gives the layout some dynamism. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should try shortening the description for those pics. Maybe work the description onto the article text? --Brad (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice work. But, a stub article needs to be started for the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company. Right now it's a glaring red link in the first part of the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written article. Good job. Borg Sphere (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Mercy (AH-4) edit

I believe that this is ready for A-class. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Nice work. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Under SS Saratoga 2nd paragraph where the collision is described, what happened that the Captain couldn't identify the other ship? If he waited three hours, why? Did the other ship run for the hills?
It was in stormy seas at 1:00 a.m.; the article hinted that the other ship must have been OK. I would infer some combination of that plus no lights, poor sea conditions, and/or lack of maneuverability by the sailing ship in bad weather may have been a factor.
  • The formating of "she/her" or "it/its" needs to be standardized. Right now there is a mix.
There were two that I found and changed.(plus one where the antecedent was the convoy, not the ship; I changed it for clarity).
  • Was there a particular reason for the danfs template to be under USS Mercy rather than down in the references section?
A particular editor frequently mentions the small size of the {{DANFS}} wording when its in a "References" section, so I preemptively moved it. I did remove the bullet from in front (which made it look funny).
Also, I had failed to cite the DANFS text, but that oversight has now been corrected.
  • Is there any chance for expansion? The article is a bit short and there are gaps in some continuity, though a shortage of information can contribute to that.
My usual news sources don't bring up a lot for commissioned ships unfortunately, so the postwar information is pretty sparse.
--Brad (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support Another nice one! --Brad (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains a line commented out about setting off as part of the fifth convoy the day after being stranded after a collision. The issue of which version is correct needs to be sorted out. At least, transferred to the talk page with explanation to be worried over later.
  • I did some further research and found two sources that say passengers from Saratoga were transferred to Finland and sailed about a week later. One of the sources gives the info that the hole in the ship was 30 feet (9.1 m) long. I've addressed the conflict in the text saying that one source says they sailed but was conflicted by others.
Then, as you are using footnotes anyway, I would be tempted to transfer the contradiction to a footnote. I know it is difficult to choose between versions but having lines in the main text like 'making it seem unlikely that she did sail.' is really inserting a POV about the source reliability into the article. Was there reason to think the contradicted source ought to be accurate? I dont know what others might think about how to play this one? Sandpiper (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point (no pun intended). I've moved the expanded discussion to a footnote. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an english reader, I am slightly puzzled by the phrase 'rest room', which tends to convey a lounge with comfy chairs. While I hesitate to change it, it doesn't come across well to me as a British reader. In context, it is also either a 'state of the art rest room', or 'both ships were outfitted with...rest rooms'. Depending on exactly how the sentence is meant, whether 'state of the art' applies to all things listed or just the first, either my mind boggles at what exactly a state of the art one is, or under what circumstances ships would not be outfitted with them.
  • The exact sentence from the source is: "The equipment includes the most modern of operating rooms, X-ray laboratories, rest rooms, and various special compartments." I had replaced the "most modern of" with "state of the art" so it would sound a little less Gilbert-and-Sullivan ("… ♫ ♪ the very model of the most modern of operating rooms ♩♫ …") and a little more contemporary. The source wording, regrettably, is ambiguous as to whether or not most modern of modifies only operating rooms or all of the list. Also, my suspicion is that the article was trying to draw a distinction between a restroom (WC) suitable for female nurses and a head (watercraft) suitable for male-only personnel, but is unfortunately ambiguous on this point as well.
I'm obviously not familiar with the nuances of american euphemisms on this subject: Do you think then that this point was specifically getting at the presence of female nurses and facilities for them? Would the term customarily, in civilian usage (presuming the source to be civilian), be sex-neutral or imply female, particulalry considering the time it was written? I don't like the current sentence even though it mirrors the source, because it simply causes confusion in the reader (well, me, anyway). I think it would be necessary to interpret this somehow as 'facilities for female staff', or simply ditch it as obvious to a modern reader that female nurses would imply appropriate facilities. Though, as a liner, surely having facilities for females would not be new? I take it there is no question that at that time 'rest room' might have had the face value meaning of a room to rest in, which not being familiar with the usage was something which occured to me on reading it. Sandpiper (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "… were outfitted with state-of-the-art operating rooms and X-ray labs and could …" The more I thought about it, the more unsure I was as to whether it did mean restroom/WC or something else, because, after all, the ship was carrying female nurses when it sank (or didn't?) in New York before the conversion. Rather than add some vague "…among other facilities…" or something, I just left the rest out. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of the collision, what is 'head gear' which the schooner lost?Sandpiper (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked it up in the OED and found it means rigging from the front of the ship. I have reworded that sentence into more common terms.
Thanks for the copyedits you made. They certainly clarified some muddy language. (My other replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, well researched, well done :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article, meets the criteria. Only suggestion would be to explain why it was painted without the hospital markings. Borg Sphere (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppot and close as promoted Woody (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passed --Brad (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Palestine Line edit

This is a spinoff article from USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) that made GA the same date it was created. I'd like to think that it meets A-class requirements and would like to nominate it for that. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should ask milhist people to come over and comment since it seems dead at this point. --Brad (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made one small change (according to MoS, the first instance of an abbreviated term should be preceded by the unabbreviated words in the term, in this case USSB in the intro), otherwise everything looks good: the pictures, the info, and the source. Good luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HMS Ark Royal (91) edit

I am renominating this article for A class review after it has been worked on and overhauled by myself, User:Saberwyn and other editors to fit the criteria. The previous review is archived here. Benea (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as contributor. I believe that the concerns of the first A-class review have been adressed: namely that a significant copyedit of the prose and formatting was required. In regards to the featured article criteria, the article either meets the points given, or is within easy reach. It should be noted that my opinion may be biased, as I've done a lot of copy-editing on this article. -- saberwyn 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Commonwealth English throws me a bit but everything looks to be in order and the article has certainly been through the wringer enough to work out the problems. --Brad (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great work! -MBK004 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I know that uboat.net is acceptable for sourcing, but you might want to have a response for that ready when you take the article to FAC, because I am sure that it will come up. -MBK004 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a very good article, but I'm uncomfortable with the number of rough patches at present.
    • I would strongly suggest a comprehensive copy-edit of the early part of this article. Some of the text in the early sections is vauge or inconsistent and I think that the wording could be improved. The Service history and following sections are excellent, however.
    • "Designed to carry a maximum number of aircraft" - this is vauge - do you mean "designed to carry a large number of aircraft"?
      • That's that basic meaning. Changed.
    • "Her sinking was critically investigated, as the carrier was lost despite significant efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar." - this is a bit awkward and slightly missleading given that RN practice was to investigate the losses of all major ships - perhaps something like "The causes of her loss were investigated, and the ship's captain was found to have acted negligently" would be clearer?
      • I think it would be a mistake to mention the charges brought against Maund here, as I think it would tend to imply that he was in some way responsible for the sinking. Recent investigation has shown that the fate of the ship was probably out of Maund's hands the moment the torpedo struck. Better to leave this for the appropriate section where this is discussed in more detail. I've altered it to 'Her sinking was the subject of several inquiries, with the investigators keen to know how the carrier was lost, given that there were significant efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar.' Which I think conveys the basic thrust of the various inquiries.
    • "They found" -> "The investigation also found"
      • Changed to 'The inquiries found' (the Board of Inquiry, the Bucknill Committee and the court-martial all analysed the various aspects of the sinking to varying degrees.)
    • If the ship was laid down in September 1935 and launched in April 1937 she didn't spend "two years in the builder's yard before being launched".
      • Changed to 'nearly two years'
    • Notes b, c and d are trivia and should probably be removed. Notes a and e look suitable to be integrated into the body of the article.
    • I'm a bit confused about the para which states that "The carrier was to be deployed to the Far East" but then says that it was decided not to do this on the basis of "recent events" which include two crises which occured before she was commissioned. Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that there was an intention to use her in the Far East when she was ordered, but this changed due to world events while she was under construction? Nick Dowling (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I've clarified this. Benea (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 article passed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) edit

I believe that this meets the requirements of an A-class article. I'm marching it up the assessment scale with a goal of FA, soon. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given that it reproduces a first-person account, I felt the site was OK. (Looking around at the site, all of its pages seem to have bibliographies and personally would not have any qualms about the site as a whole as a reliable source.) — Bellhalla (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright then, I am happy. Everything else appears in order, although I may have additional comments later. On the whole though, well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Solidly support. I did catch a few minor wording problems and corrected those. I also found in a few places where the ship name was showing as President Arthur 's (but in italics) and fixed those, though I hope it wasn't just my browser doing that; I think I got them all. A few more redlink fill ins and FA should be a breeze and if Al Jolson sailed on this ship it should be FA! --Brad (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - However, I have some comments which may or may not be correct.

    • The lead is really long. I know that leads are supposed to cover the text, but they are also supposed to be concise. I admit that I don't really know the guidelines for leads that well, and so the lead might actually be fine, but as it stands it's incredibly long in my perspective. Perhaps some one else can offer their opinion and tell me I'm wrong. :)

JonCatalán (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're correct. The length of the lead has been a concern of mine for some time. I need to sharpen my editor's knife and be ruthless to get it down to four paragraphs. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Couple of issues. The lead is too big for FA, it needs cutting down, be ruthless though you have acknowledged this above, so no biggy. The trouble with having such a huge infobox is that it can take over half the article. Under MOS:IMAGE, text should not be sandwiched between images and infoboxes so you have quite a big problem with three of the images. Images should also not be left aligned for level 2 headings. (see Image:SS Princess Alice interned at Cebu, Philippines.jpg and ==USS Princess Matoika== Some prose issues, she would not budge off the ledge. just seems a bit too colloquial to me, might just be me though. You might want to try and find one of those mythical copy-editors to review it, though to me, it reads quite well. So, I support for A-class but a few things to sort out for FA. Woody (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies:
  • I'm working on trimming the lead.
  • I reworded so it now says "remained stuck on the ledge"
  • I'm aware of the no image "sandwiching", which seems to apply to text between two images but doesn't specifically address image and infobox combos. Your exact point came up in a previous FAC of mine (which ended up passing without a need to change image placement).
Thanks for the feedback. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It applies the same for infoboxes, but I went down to 800x600 and the images are pushed below the infobox so it is fine. Woody (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Bellhalla (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SS Kroonland edit

Closed as Promoted Woody (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently updated this article and believe that it currently meets the requirements for an A-class article — Bellhalla (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Detailed, informative, well-organized, and incredibly well-referenced article. The only quibble I have is that, although I know this is allowed, I don't think it's necessary to place citations in the middle of a sentence. I believe that all citations should be after periods. But, no big deal. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking the time to review. I generally try to only put citations in the middle of a sentence when they will appear after a complete thought (and usually after some sort of punctuation, like a comma or a semicolon). — Bellhalla (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've caught a few minor errors in wording an corrected them.
  • Under Troopship duties, 2nd paragraph the statement Two minutes later her lookouts spotted a submarine bearing down on Kroonland so close aboard that the liner's guns could not be depressed enough to open fire on the raider. I'm not clear on what aboard means in this context. Seems like you're saying the submarine was aboard the Kroonland?
  • The infobox does not reflect the Army career of the ship unless it was too short to bother including. Are there flags available for her passenger service periods?
  • I'll assume you're going for FA eventually so the remaining red links should be filled if possible.
  • Overall an outstanding article with bits of relative humor injected here and there by describing the antics of passengers. It's nice to read an article and be able to chuckle a bit.
    • The "close aboard" phrase comes from DANFS. I agree its strange wording, but I'm not at all clear on exactly what it means myself.
      • close aboard normally means alongside. In the current context substituting alongside makes as little sense as the original wording. I have reworded to show that the sub was very close to the ship. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Army career seems, according to DANFS, to have been only one voyage. The status of the ship in the time span from the entry of the US in WWI until April 1918 is really unclear from sources. My usual WWI sources don't give any information during that span. One of the few bits of information is about the U.S. 42nd Infantry Division sailing on Kroonland in September 1917.
    • Thanks for the kind words and the corrections. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support A solid A-Class article all around. --Brad (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well referenced, seems to meet the MOS, well-illustrated, comprehensive, the prose seems ok to me. Great work. Woody (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Montana class battleship edit

This just cleared a GA-class review with no compliants so I am listing it here for A-class status. The next stop is FA, so if anyone sees anything that needs to be fixed/addressed, please speak now so I can fix it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Excellent Article. no objections here. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ready even for FA in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article. One concern, the subjective opinion paragraph at the end of the history section is not cited. You might consider deleting the word, "interestingly" and moving the sentence up to be the last sentence in the preceeding paragraph. Anyway, a well done, informative, and complete article. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your concern has been noted and addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComment Seems to be accessible to non-mariners, though I am not the best person to judge that. Before I "support," I have a few questions about the sources. You really need the publisher for all refs, specifically 1, 4, 10 as of my timestamp. Is this reliable? How reliable is warships1.com? Reference 1 is dead. I changed a few ndashes to mdashed per WP:DASH, and I added a few commas. Other than the small refs issues, nice work. Woody (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll look into your comments right now and get back to you with more deatiled info in a little bit, but I can say that I am aware that the ussmissouri.org links are dead, or to be technically correct, the museum which runs the website recently had it updated, in the process wiping out almost all of the old links. Thanks for pointing that out to me, as I had forget some of the ussmisouri.org links were on this page as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, 1,4, and 10 now have publisher information. The missing ussmissouri.org link has been reinstated through the use of the internet archive, so the page should show as visable now. the website warships1 should be reliable; I checked a few pages on the Iowa class battleship there and compared their statistics against those in a copy of Janes I have at the house and both sources seemed to agree with each other. I believe daveswarbirds.com is accurate for the statistics proveded, although I will see about adding other sources to reinforce the website. This may take a while though...but it will be done. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just had a look at our seahawk page, and it appears that daves war birds is used as a source on that page as well as this one. Moreover, it use on the seahawk page is as it appears here, so I would assume that its presence on two pages on Wikipedia means that the source is reliable. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that argument really doesn't stand up. Youtube is used on thousands of pages, it doesn't make it reliable. By the way, this link is being used on about 40 pages, a few of those are for images, so it is being used as a source on about 30 pages. At FAC, you will have to explain why this is a reliable source, how is it verifiable? If it is simply a personal interest website, then it cannot really be used as a verifiable source. It is run by David Hanson apparently, but it does seem to be well funded and well supported, but I can't see where they got their information from.
        • I have changed to support as one possibly dodgy reference does not stop it from being A-Class, but at FAC, this will probably be asked again. Woody (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and a question, should the hull numbers that belong to the individual Iowa's in the beginning of the history section be wikilinks to those ships? ({{USS}} has a parameter for just the hull number) -MBK004 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Comfort (AH-3) edit

I would like to see if this article is ready for A-class (with an ultimate goal of pursuing FA, as well). The WP:MILHIST Peer review is here. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks good to me. Images all good, lengthy infobox, good per the MOS in terms of dashes, italics around ship names. I removed the italics on the quote per WP:ITALICS and WP:MOS#Quotations. Sandy also moved one of the images to avoid sandwiching the text on lower res screens. So, great article, well done. Woody (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article, meets all criteria in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HMS Cardiff (D108) edit

I've acted on the issues raised when it passed it's GA review and I have aspirations for the article to one day make the FA grade. Also can you guys look at all the pics there is on commons, how many should I have in the article? Are they laid out correctly? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not 100% sure this article is ready for A-class, but that may be because this is the first A-class review I've contributed to, plus I have high standards. Below is a list of things I feel need working on between now and a run for FA... I leave it to those more knowledgeable of the A-class process to determine which of these need to be dealt with now as opposed to later.
  • The article is not, in my opinion, comprehensive. It is missing large chunks of the ship's history. From my read of the article, the ship did not exist between 1980 and April 1982, late 1982 to late 1990, and for assorted individual years between 1991 and decommissioning in 2005, and I'd be hard pressed to believe that the ship did exactly nothing in those years.
  • Photo captions. The two photos of aircraft in the Falklands War section could use a little more context... at first glance it seems out-of-place to have pictures of Argentine aircraft in an article on a British destroyer. Adding a second sentance explaining the photo's relevance to Cardiff would be the way to go (i.e. to the Canberra bomber image add "...2. This aircraft, shot down by Cardiff, was the last Argentine aircraft shot down during the Falklands War.") Overall, use of images is pretty good, no other complaints.
  • Some of the sentances could use breaking up, as combined they don't seem very logical, and are sometimes quite awkward. For example, "She now resides in Portsmouth Harbour awaiting a decision as to her fate, her bell has been mounted in the north aisle of St John's Parish Church in Cardiff." to me reads a lot better as She now resides in Portsmouth Harbour awaiting a decision as to her fate. Her bell has been removed and is mounted in the north aisle of St John's Parish Church in Cardiff. (underlined text added by me).
  • Needs a good hard copyedit, but what article (up to and beyond FA status) doesn't?
  • A piece of advice: Grab the Wikipedia:Manual of style and go through everything you can. This will save you heartache at FA.
Any further questions/comments.. talk to me. -- saberwyn 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does need further copyediting. Ryan has submitted a request at WP:LoCE (an MHL request should also be considered). I don't know whether the ship's activities in those years you've mentioned were documented by published sources (Google hasn't yielded information of relevance). Articles are representative of the coverage of a subject and the availability of sources. Presently, in my opinion, there does not appear to be major omissions that would seriously undermine the comprehensiveness of the article. In terms of utilising available sources, HMS Cardiff (D108) appears to be more than adequately comprehensive to satisfy A-class criterion. SoLando (Talk) 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have moved the images around to fit WP:MOS#Images. This was primarily because section headers were distorted due to images. I agree that it needs a very good and deep copyedit before any attempt at FA. That being said I agree with Solando, this is comprehensive in it's use of available sources. Woody (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woody I've had to revert your move on the TC-92 pic, as it looks like this ( File:Cardiff distort.jpg ) on Internet Explorer. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this ( File:Cardiff distort 2.jpg ) now Woody. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I was told by TomStar (main contributor to FA class article, USS Wisconsin) that the pics had to be by their relevant sections of text. Otherwise I'd have some much "cooler" pics lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note, use {{wikipedia-screenshot}} as the licence for anymore screenshots). Yes, I know Tom well and he has edited many great articles, not just the Wisconsin and he is correct in saying that, per WP:MOS#Images. As far as I know I have not detached them from the relevant sections. Yet, as it is, the second Sea Dart image is distorting the header for the Gulf War section. I will ask around to get some comments on it. Woody (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the 2nd Sea Dart image can probably go, it's only loosely affiliated to that paragraph due to the "Cardiff fired a total of nine Sea Darts". In fact I'd love some help in picking out appropiate images for the article, have you looked at Commons page? As you can see there's loads of em! Ryan4314 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comprehensive article, well documented. But some comments, though:
    • As mentioned above, the article definitely needs a thorough copyediting. Some areas that will be greatly improved by a copyedit include:
      • Lots of parenthetical comments. Consider whether they are necessary in this article. If they are necessary, they really don't need to be in parentheses; if not necessary, they ought to be removed. Example: "… on the Armilla Patrol (a small group of British warships that spent six months at a time in the Gulf)." If it's key to understanding the duty in this article, set the comment off by commas; otherwise it should go away.
      • There are quite a few terms in in quote marks, but most seem to be standard terms that don't need quotes. Example: "…designed as "anti-aircraft" vessels…" Unless there's a compelling reason, anti-aircraft shouldn't be quoted.
    • Not sure what the final photograph really adds to the article. If it were a close-up of the rusty name or it showed the whole ship as it's laid up it might contribute more to the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your support, both of you;
  • In regards to the brackets, me and saberwyn are working on merging them into the article (and a copy edit), on his sandbox. All the bracketed information was added by me in an attempt to Exjarg
Good, glad to see it's already being addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the last pic, there is a pic similar to what you've requested (   ), However I've posted a logic why I chose the "rusted name" pic instead here (number 5)
Cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bellhalla, was this edit meant to create a gap before the "Notes" section? I think it was the {{-}} bit that did it. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I added that so that the notes would be the full page width. Sorry if that screwed things up. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, didn't know you could do that, thanks for showing me ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment(s) I have just now gotten home, and having pulled four continious 18-hour days in a row I am not thinking as clearly as I would if fully rested. Having said that I did see a few things that could do with some adressing:
    • I think we've all ID the need for a thourough copyedit, unfutenetly I do not possess the skills needed to aid with that.
    • As noted above, see about removing the parenthasis and quoate marks from the article body unless there is a good reason for retaining them.
    • Make sure the external links meet MoS requirements, and check to ensure that the notes section is properly formatted (some links appear on the surface to be the same, like #66 & #67; they may need reformatting for proper viewing). SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) can help with this, if you explain the situation she will either handle it her or refer you to someone who can help. *I may add more after I take a nap, so keep an eye out for additional info. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have fixed up the links, stray "|"s were breaking the templates. I have used the {{Londongazette}} templates which are really useful as well. In terms of format, I don't like including news.bbc.co.uk., BBC will suffice. After looking at these refs, some of these are not up to standard. Anything with the word blogspot is generally not reliable, personal self-published webpages are not very good. If you need help regarding these, Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) is good at these. Woody (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Orizaba (ID-1536) edit

Self-nomination. Has undergone a MILHIST peer review here. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks good. I added in a couple of nbsp's but couldn't see anything substantive. I do think it might need a copyedit from someone not involved with ships as there are a few nautical terms in there that might not be self-explanatory to a newbie. Also, should it be underwent overhaul or underwent an overhaul? I think the latter flows better... Woody (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. Fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've copyedited it; changes were largely nonbreaking spaces and endashes (I think some were endashes, but some weren't, so excuse my blindness in 'fixing' them all). Can you clarify which type of tonnage is given in the infobox? Also, in the footnote 'Williamson, DANFS' the word 'Williamson' shouldn't be italicized; quotes would be more appropriate.
I've generally always italicize DANFS entry titles because that's the way the titles are styled at the NHC website (and they're usually ship names, too). That note and the reference for Orizaba in the references section both use {{cite web}}. Removing the italics would be easy if you think it would be best, but should I use a different template for quotes? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good case for keeping the italics. Let's talk about coming up with a standard cite template to cite DANFS (where it's actually cited, as distinct from the PD disclaimer). Something along the lines of {{Ref Jane's}}, {{JamesAbstract}}, etc, but a bit more complex since some entries have a distinct author. Maralia (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, clarified that the 6,937 is "gross tons" as from source. I listed it as that because I don't know if that's the same as GRT or not. Tonnage stuff is always so confusing. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 'gross ton' is a measure of weight, not volume, though. Is it abbreviated in the source? It may be 'gross tonnage'. Maralia (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It just has "Gross tons..............6,937" in its list of specs. (The source has no 'key' for the data it provides either.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of issues to consider before FAC:
  • There are quite a few single sentence paragraphs, or very short ones, that should be consolidated.
Will do. Done.
  • The doublestack images are awfully large for the position that they're in (squished opposite the infobox). Can you shrink them to thumbs?
Image size is one of those tricky things because there are so many variables. What size would you recommend?
I would use the default thumb size of 180px; those two images are of pretty mediocre quality, so they don't look appreciably better or worse at a larger size, and the smaller size will make the text sandwiching less egregious. Maralia (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, well done, as usual :) Maralia (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support Fine but with a couple of reservations:
  • I'd jettison the one-sentence "Awards and honors" section and tag it onto the end of "World War II".
I'd thought about that myself, too. Will do. Done.
  • Uncomfortable repetition in "Commander Richard Drace White in command".
Yes, that is clunky, isn't it?
OK, so I tried to rephrase by moving White's name into the following paragraph where he was mentioned already. It's still clunky, but not quite SO clunky. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any clues why Hart Crane jumped?
I gather from the source that he was (1) was drunk, (2) despondent over his sham marriage, and (3) reportedly embarrassed after a failed, clumsy pick-up attempt of an Orizaba crewman the night before. In a situation like this, how much information is appropriate in this article?
  • "U.S." > "US"   Done
I've always used "U.S." myself (vs. "UK", for example), but I'm OK with "US".
  • Numbers less than ten are usually given in words, therefore "6 convoy trips" > "six convoy trips;   Done
  • Clunky? "the two ships accommodated 306 first-class, 60 second-class, and 64 third-class passengers". Is that each, or between them? Perhaps use berths instead of passengers?
The source doesn't explicitly say. Based on WWI troop capacities, I'm sure it's each, but the wording reflects what's provided in the source.
  • "The ship was permanently transferred to Brazil in June 1953 and struck from the U.S. Navy Naval Vessel Register on 20 July 1953." Run onto the end of previous (short) paragraph.
Will do. Done
  • Just noticed "transited the Panama Canal". More elegant phrasing?
How about "passed through"? (Done.)
--ROGER DAVIES talk 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(My replies interspersed — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
No grumbles with them. :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 A-class nomination was successfulBlnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Siboney (ID-2999) edit

I believe this meets the requirements of an A-class article. Recently promoted to GA (see talk page). Underwent peer review here. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Excellent article on the subject that appears to meet the criteria. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Indeed, a great article which meets all A-class criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fantastic job on the infobox as well. Mrprada911 (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 article successfully passed the A-class review. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMAS Melbourne (R21) edit

I've expanded this article and run it through Milhist Peer Review to get rid of most of the kinks. Although I do admit it could use a copyedit (which is on request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics, and anyway, what article couldn't use a copyedit?) is this article ready for A-class status, or is there anything else that needs fixing? -- saberwyn 06:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good piece and, unusually, applies the MoS stuff about figures and numbers correctly :) Well done, --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been smacked down by WP:MOSNUM so many times I thought it would be more painless to try and fix that stuff before anything else. -- saberwyn 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An outstanding article --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Really well done. One of the most comprehensive articles I've seen. Carom (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Outstanding article! Go ahead and nominate it for FA. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Support This is 100% the exemplification of an A-class article. Good work. Everyone involved gets a pat on the back. --ExplorerCY 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just made a couple of minor copyedits but this is one of the best A-Class nominees I've seen - go for FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Outstanding work. Go for FA, you can do it! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Bridgeport (AD-10) edit

I would like to have this article undergo an A-class review, with an eye on a possible future FA candidacy. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, lots of paragraphs are unreferenced, the article is long, but I don't think that it would pass an A-class review for a while, until it has the references, and probably untill it has reached GA-Class, which I do not think it is right now. ~ Dreamy § 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Lose the history header. The entire article is history, so in this case it would be better to make your sub header the primary headers.
    • Entire sections of the article have no inline citations, but DANFS and other sources are given in the table. Some of those citations need to be in the article body, otherwise this article will get shot down by FAC Anti-Ariticle guns.
    • Good job on finding images for the article.
    • I doubt it, but do you happen to know if this ship was part of a larger class? I'm guessing no, and I won't hold this against you if you can't find any info, but it would be nice to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know but suspect that SS Brandenburg (1902) of Norddeutscher Lloyd was probably a sister ship. They were about the same gross tonnage, built at the same shipyard, and had more or less the same dimensions (per info gleaned from de:Norddeutscher Lloyd#Passagierschiffe). Also, an image of Brandenburg (here) bears a striking resemblance to Breslau/Bridgeport. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at the moment. As Dreamafter points out, there is a need for more rigorous citation. I would also suggest that you expand the lead a little, but that's a relatively minor complaint at this point. Carom (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support following improvements. Nice work. Carom (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the addition of inline citations does much to improve the article. I am happy now. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment/2008/Promoted&oldid=408842325"