Talk:United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I)/GA2

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   see below

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   couple minor issues detailed below

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• "Though not the most modern American ships, they were still very formidable, each [...]"
  • Was the fact that they were not the "most modern ships" already stated in the part about the Nevada and Pennsy-class ships? Also, the use of the word "formidable" seems a bit off, as that conjures images of castles and battlements to me. Perhaps "... were still powerful ships with their 21-knot [...]"
    • I'll have to leave the call on this one to you. I don't personally think "formidable" is limited only to fortifications. One of it's definitions is "of great strength, forceful, powerful" which describes the ships of the Division, and notably six Royal Navy ships have been named Formidable, so it has a sea-going history. So on the whole I think this is fine, but if you are certain that it must be changed, please tell me and I'll take care of it. (Or feel free to change it yourself, of course!) Jrt989 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Have changed it myself, but I left 'formidable' in. I have one more question, however: the modern part seems to refer to all of the ships, but New York was launched in 1912—many readers would consider that to be modern. Perhaps 'newest' would be a better word to use? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I've changed it to "newest." Jrt989 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• "After nearly five months of hesitation, [...]"
  • This begs the question of "why?" Why was there hesitation?
    • In my opinion, this is covered by the preceding paragraphs, which are largely about why Admiral Benson and Sec Daniels were hesitant to send the division. I feel this was a "summing-up" sentence. Jrt989 (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You make a very valid point. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Any difficulties, however, that might have arisen from this transition based on national pride or rivalry were dissipated by the professional example set by Admiral Rodman himself."
  • I cannot imagine that it was Rodman alone who accomplished this...
    • Surprisingly, it seems that Rodman largely was credited as being responsible. On page 124 of Marder, From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow, Vol. 5 for example, Admiral Beatty is quoted as saying that the smooth relations between the two forces "is mainly due to Admiral Rodman." I have qualified this statement though and added backing citations which I think correct the problem. Jrt989 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• "The result was that, if an encounter between the two fleets had occurred, American battleships would have had the honor of leading the British fleet into what could have been the largest naval battle of the war."
  • I'm assuming that the citation following this covers this sentence, but this needs a citation at the end of the sentence whether it is repeated or not (the "largest naval battle" part is what I'm looking at). Also, the "honor" part seems POV-ish; is there a way to reword?
    • Have added citation and re-worded. Jrt989 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Copyedited a bit more, striking. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Just days after the second incident, however, things began to heat up for Battleship Division Nine."
  • "Heat up" is rather colloquial.
    • Have changed this. Jrt989 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Am liking the change. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• "From the beginning, the autumn weather was particularly rough, impeding progress and making any chance of sighting the German ships unlikely (especially since the report was false). Accordingly, the Allied force set course to return to Scapa Flow."
  • Read this to yourself and see what is wrong :) I don't like what is in the parenthesis... When was it discovered that the report was false?
    • I imagine that it was discovered after the war. The part in the parens was added to show that there were actually no German ships at sea, so that whether the weather was bad or not, they weren't going to encounter any enemy ships. I can delete this however, as it is ultimately immaterial. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with what is written... if there is anything, please point it out. Jrt989 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • What I mean is that the construction of the sentence is odd. I think that the "false report" part should be split off, something like "From the beginning, the autumn weather was particularly rough, impeding progress and making any chance of sighting any of the German ships unlikely. Accordingly, the Allied force set course to return to Scapa Flow." (for why it is "A1", see WP:REFGROUP). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Good thought :) I've added the note per your suggestion. Jrt989 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Cool beans :) The reason why I suggested the note was because the report being false has nothing to do with the situation at hand; I felt that the separation a note gives would help keep the prose in the actual article flowing along. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• "The only possible conclusion was that New York had accidentally collided with a submerged German U-boat."
  • "The only possible conclusion..." - according to whom?
    • Have fixed this to indicate Rodman and Beatty. Jrt989 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• "The German U-boat captain probably misjudged the ship's speed."
  • Who thinks the captain misjudged the speed? If it was Jones, I think that this would be better: "According to author Jerry Jones, the German U-boat captain probably misjudged the ship's speed."
    • I've made the change per your suggestion. Jrt989 (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Unlike in previous cases, this torpedo attack was almost certainly no false alarm."
  • "Almost certainly no"?!
    • Have changed to: "...was almost certainly not a false alarm." Jrt989 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Question: the other "torpedo attacks" were disproved using German war records; was this one? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • An excellent question and one I hadn't thought to check! Jones's note on the matter in his dissertation says that there are no reports in the German records of any torpedo attacks that day, but that the attack may have come from one of the submarines sunk in the area around that time, which obviously would not have had a chance to make a report of an attack. I will change the wording and add an explanatory note to address this. Jrt989 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Hmm, being sunk would make it rather difficult to transmit a report. Now, I like the changes for this part, but what about the other torpedo attacks? Could they not have been actual attacks but the submarines were then sunk later? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, that's a good question. The best thought I can give on the difference is that in most(if not all, I'd have to go back and look) of the "torpedo attacks" that happened previous to this one, there was substantial doubt among officers of the American division as to whether attacks had actually occurred. In this case, however, a number of officers, including the captain of the New York himself, reported seeing the torpedoes clearly, and a sub was sighted nearby shortly afterwards. So I think this incident was much more likely to have been an actual attack than the others. Tell me what you think; if this isn't a strong enough argument, then some explanatory notes might be in order. Jrt989 (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Perhaps that could be added into a note there, but it is certainly nothing to forstall the passing of this article. Great job! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• "After two close encounters with German U-boats in a matter of days, New York was lucky to have escaped with no greater damage."
  • I am of the opinion that this is sentence is not needed...
    • I've removed it. Jrt989 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Though a monumental endeavor, the barrage proved largely ineffective. After an investment of 70,263 mines and more than $40 million"
  • What citation covers this? (it's not Measuring Worth, that's for sure :)
    • The citation for this info is citation 60 at the end of the paragraph (see below). The Measuring Worth citation is only there for the info in the parens about $40 mil being worth $572 mil today. I have moved Citation 59 into the parens to make this more clear. Jrt989 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Though a monumental endeavor, the barrage proved largely ineffective. After an investment of 70,263 mines and more than $40 million (the equivalent of $572 million in 2009),[59] only six submarines were confirmed as sunk by the barrage.[60]"
  • Is this needed in the article? It doesn't really pertain to BatDiv9...
    • Respectfully, I think this should be kept. Although it doesn't directly relate to the Division, I think it is information worth including since it is brief and since so much of the Division's time was spent guarding the laying of the NMB. I feel people may want to know whether the Division's service in this manner was worth the risk. Jrt989 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You make another good point. :-) Struck. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

*"Throughout Battleship Division Nine's time with the Grand Fleet, the most potent enemy proved not to be the Germans, but boredom."

• • "the most potent enemy" is rather novel-ish...
    • Have re-worded. Jrt989 (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am very satisfied with the sentence now. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Due to the efforts of the officers to keep their men entertained, however, morale remained high throughout the war, much higher than in the opposing High Seas Fleet."
  • I'm sure that that was not the only reason. Morale could have been lower in the HSF just because they had no victories, for example...
    • I've deleted the reference to the HSF. Jrt989 (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• "After lunch aboard Queen Elizabeth, the king visited Admiral Rodman's flagship New York, where he inspected the ship. King George inspected her engine and fire-rooms, remarking with admiration to Rodman, "Admiral, your fire-room is as clean as a dining room."[64]"
  • "Inspected" is repeated twice.
    • Have fixed this. Jrt989 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• "the man perhaps most qualified to judge the factors responsible for the defeat of the High Seas Fleet"
  • Probably needs a citation... ~
    • I've deleted this phrase. Jrt989 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• I am also going to invite comment from Bellhalla (talk · contribs) (the first GAN reviewer) and Simon Harley (talk · contribs) here. Cheers! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of my concerns have been addressed. The only thing holding this article back, in my opinion, is Bellhalla's and Simon's comments and the few things left above. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)