Talk:USS Oklahoma (BB-37)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Further research

Has there been any research done on where the Oklahoma sank after it was sold for scrap? :: See external links added to article 70.233.148.72 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

I would think that more could and should be added about the torpedo damage, why she sunk, why she was not repaired. Tirronan 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

She was an old ship and was very badly damaged, probably sustaining damage to her hull when she capsized. I think it's pretty clear why this old ship wasn't refloated and fitted out. FrancisDane (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Through a glass, murkily

A couple of points. "Many of her men"? As originally written, it suggests these were Nevada crewmen; is the change, as now, correct? "540 miles" Is that =1000 km (as I'd expect, dealing with naval matters) or =870km? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mascots

Just a quick note to say that there is a photo and a little bit about the ship's mascots available in "The Book of Dogs" on archive.org here: http://www.archive.org/stream/bookofdogsintima00nati#page/10/mode/2up on page 11. Miyagawa (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Efforts to Rescue Survivors

There were many sailors trapped in her hull when she capsized. The article makes no reference to the heroic and harrowing efforts to rescue these men. I will got to the Navy Library and get the information and insert it here. FrancisDane (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Loss

In first paragraph, "But suddenly without warning the Hercules was pulled back past the Monarch which was also being dragged 15 knots in reverse." doesn't quite make sense. Second paragraph, "visibly shaken" may apply to crew, but not the ship. Deleted, with two other words. And is "the grave of" correct for a ship? Sammy D III (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Link/source dump

The turret stuff is probably better suited for the class article.

• [1] Images, description
• [2] ridiculously detailed description, one page on the trials on page 360
• [3] propulsion stuff
• [4] description, some opinions on the design
• [5] triple turret problems, next page = new designs
• More triple turret
• Descrip
• US Navy estimates, assessment of design pp 150-51
• short descrip, search for "Oklahoma"
• three-gun turret, search for that (not Oklahoma)
• More three-gun turret stuff Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• [6] Harper's Weekly
• Fire control
• [7][8] Apparently Oklahoma was originally supposed to be an earlier battleship?
• [9] thought of as too slow (this book was originally a series of articles in the New York Tribune; see also)
• bid details
• machinery
• machinery
• 1912 SciAm descrip, pics
  • [10] republished
• [11] Navy is really American (probably doesn't help)] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Eight hours, hah
• [12] same
• First mention of 14-in guns Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Oklahoma (BB-37)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow in the next few days. Zawed (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• No need for the cite (4) in the lead, as cited in article body  Done
• Shouldn't West coast be West Coast?  Done
• 2nd para. The word "ship" is used several times in successive sentences, perhaps vary these.  Done

Infobox

• The ship's nickname and motto aren't mentioned in the text so needs to be cited here. The battle star is cited but I wonder if it is worth a mention in the appropriate section as it is not discussed at all in the article body.  Comment: I added a reference for the nickname but I couldn't find one for the motto
  • Also found nothing on motto, so removed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Design

• The range information in the text is inconsistent with the infobox. I see that different speeds are used (10 kn vs 12 kn), this might explain the inconsistency.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• From the text, I make the deck armour 4.5 inches as opposed to the 5 inches recited in the infobox.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

World War I

• A little uncertain on the MOS here, but shouldn't east coast be title case? If so, then this will apply to the next section as well.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Interwar period

• It seems as though you don't link countries, so you might want to amend the pipe link for Portland, England.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Link New York City, San Francisco, Norfolk, Hawaii
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor

• "approximately 0756": again, an MOS issue that I may be wrong on but isn't it 07:56? And 08:00 later in this section?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

References

• There is a little inconsistency in the presentation of print refs: some include the year and some don't.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Shouldn't La Forte be La Forte & Marcello?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Note 56, missing the word "retrieved"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography

• It looks like only one of the online sources is used. And one of the remaining ones is also in the external links section
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• None of the other sources appear to be used. May be convert to a further reading section?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Other stuff

• Tags on the images look appropriate
• No dupe links

That's my initial review done but I have a couple of checks to still make as the dab and external link tools aren't working for at the moment. Regardless, I will check back in a few day. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ed!: just a ping in case you missed this. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahh thank you!! Will get to this in the weekend. —Ed!^(talk) 20:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ed!: would you mind if I helped in the GA review? Also, I did some of the things that Zawed suggested, but then where do I write that its done? Should I place a {{Done}} template after the suggestion? L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: Sure thing! And yes, just indicate after each comment what's done — so we each know what tasks are left to do. —Ed!^(talk) 21:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Have done dab/external link checks, these are all good. Zawed (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Zawed: I think we've fixed everything! Thank you! —Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good, passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"Ed Vezey" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ed Vezey. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether an article for him should exist or not is for a different discussion, but to have a redirect exist solely on the mention of the man's name here is not appropriate, as his mention was not appropriate (per wp:notmemorial & wp:shipsnotcrews). He was noted for no other reason than being the last surviving man to have served on the ship. Further, this mention was placed in an inappropriate section and would not merit it's own section. Perhaps the RfD should be reviewed. - wolf 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from USS Oklahoma (BB-37) to John C. England. See former article's history for a list of contributors.]] to John C. England. See former article's history for a list of contributors.]] to John C. England. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)