Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Indiana (BB-1)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:29, 30 June 2010 [1].

---

USS Indiana (BB-1)

USS Indiana (BB-1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/USS Indiana (BB-1)/archive1

Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

An interesting little article on the United States first "real" battleship. She just passed Milhist A-class review and this is the next step to making a featured topic about the battleship class. Yoenit (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - No dabs, all external links OK. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Indiana (BB-1). I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 12:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look good, subject to a couple of nitpicks:-

• It isn't necessary to give the location of The New York Times'. Also, in the final citation, 47 (Landenberger), you add publisher information (The New York Times Company), which again isn't necessary for the NYT.
• Page ranges shouold be shown pp. not p. (see ref 6)

Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Have fixed both. Yoenit (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - a couple of minor quibbles...

I have taken the liberty of rewording the first sentence. She was the first US Navy battleship - full stop. There is no need to say anything else in that sentence. :-)

With all due respect, this is simply not true. USS Texas (1892) was the first battleship, but it was under construction for over 7 years and utterly obsolete at the time of launch, hence it being renamed a "second-class battleship" before being commissioned and never given a BB number. Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Am still not sure that "battleship equivalent to a European one" is quite the way to put it though - they weren't really the equal of British ships.... The Land (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be sure, the text actually says "comparable", not "equivalent" (bringing this up because it was a major point in the class article FAC). It is not intended to convey the meaning that Indiana could take on a Royal Sovereign one on one, merely they were in the same category (similar firepower, armor and speed), while Texas was clearly inferior in every aspect. I am open to any improvement however, so if you have an idea don't hesitate to say it. Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

After a comment below I changed the lead again and added a ref Yoenit (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In the lead the sentence about not being able to take part in the chase for the cruisers assumes to much knowledge - should be reworded.

You are right, gonna fix it Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I decided to expand the line before it, explaining that the battle was an attempt to break through the blockade and the Spanish cruisers where escaping. Is it better now? Yoenit (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In the infobox, can we specify Harvey steel please.

Can you clarify this further? Should I specify for each armor part (belt, hull, ed.) that is Harvey armor? or should I just link it once? Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd just link it once. My point here is that without information on the nature of the armour, someone glancing at a load of battleship infoboxes will end up confused because the thickness of armour, on its own, doesn't make a great deal of sense. (A bit like giving gun calibres on their own doesn't make sense).

Added it to the infobox, making also a distinction between sections that were Harvey armor and those that were not. Yoenit (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In general I would prefer to see more about design, construction etc - the article feels very short without this info even if it is mainly in the class article...

Regards, The Land (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Originally it included that information, but I received the following comment at the A-class review:

"You've placed too much emphasis on the technical/design in the section than what is appropriate for this article as opposed to the class article. After I comprehensively review this article in a few days, this may be a major sticking point in my eventual !vote... -MBK004 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)"

Either way is fine with me, but I think additional input from other reviewers would be nice here before action is taken. Yoenit (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well don't change it for now then! The Land (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

• In the lead, I think it would be useful to give the dates of the Spanish–American War in brackets.
  • done.
• The lead mentions that the Indiana was "comparable to European designs of the time". First of all this is unsourced, and secondly it is not elaborated on in the main body of the article. Why mention Europe at all? Was it a conscious decision to contend with European naval powers? This could be developed in the design and construction section where isolationism is briefly discussed.
  • good catch on the unsourced part. As stated above the comparison with is made to distinguish Indiana from it's predecessors USS Texas (1892) and USS Maine (ACR-1). These were also called battleships, but were definitely not comparable to what passed in Europe for a battleship, hence Indiana being designated "Battleship 1" and later "BB-1". Without any objective qualifiers to say what is a battleship and what not the only thing that can be done is compare it to European ships of the time. Gonna think about this for a bit, as The Land also brought it up. Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I added a ref for the lead and also slightly changed it, from "European designs" to "foreign battleships" Yoenit (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Construction of the Indiana class was authorized on 30 June 1890 and the contract for Indiana was awarded to William Cramp & Sons in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania": Indiana twice in the same sentence is slightly repetitious. I realise they refer to different things in this instance, but couldn't the sentence be rephrased?
  • Changed "Indiana class" to "ships" Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• How much did the Indiana cost? How did this compare to other ships etc.
  • I thought it was in the infobox, but there doesn't seem to be a field for it. I don't think I can do a comparison with other ships without violating WP:OR, but I can give numbers for the contract cost (3 mil) and total cost (6 mil). Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Is the problem mentioned in the early career section regarding the turrets symptomatic of the Indiana class? If so, did the experience aboard the Indiana lead to class-wide changes?
  • yes, bilge keels were installed on all three ships, not just Indiana. Added "on all three ships of the Indiana-class" at the end of the early career section. Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A good article, but the above issues need addressing. Nev1 (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that's everything, I can't see a reason not to support the article. Good effort. Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

• In the "Design and construction" section, who (or what) was the policy board? Was it a US Navy board? Congressional board? Something else?
  • According to one source it was "a special policy board convened by the secretary of the Navy". Don't have Friedman here, but I will look up what he says, as he gives most of the information about the board. Yoenit (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Took me a while, but finally had a look at Friedman. He just refers to it as "the policy board". Seeing how it was convened by the secretary of the navy however, I decided to call it a "US navy" board. Yoenit (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think the line at the end of the article about the Indiana being used for aerial bombing targets is a bit weak. There was actually quite a bit of drama about the use of aircraft in an anti-shipping role, and the Indiana played a role in that. The Billy Mitchell article briefly discusses this, and I know there are better sources out there for it. I don't think the article needs a huge expansion to cover it, but there's more to it than just being used for target practice.
  • This might be a place to start.

-SidewinderX (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • Why thank you! I had not heard of this before. Gonna check the newspaper archives for some more information and add some stuff about it. Yoenit (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I have included a few sentences about what exactly happened during the test and a tiny bit of the Mitchell controversy. Funny how t isn't mentioned in any of my battleship books. Yoenit (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

        Looks good! My only comment would be a possible addition to the last sentence there to read "...and several more bombing tests were conducted other decommissioned battleships, culminating in the sinking of the SMS Ostfriesland.[50]" (addition in italics). It might give interested readers (like me) somewhere to go next. Take it or leave it! Maybe the reason it isn't mentioned in any of your battleship books is because the battleship crowd still holds some animosity towards the naval aviation crowd... :p -SidewinderX (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

        • I would if the ship was sunk in a fair test. Mitchell obviously violated the conditions to to get his sinking battleship after failing earlier attempts. Also Ostfriedland was far obsolete by now and could not be compared to more modern battleships, who are obviously far superior to those bloody birdfarms.... just kidding, I will add it to the sentence. Yoenit (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

          I'll take my Bomber mafia and my Fighter mafia against your Battleship admirals any day! Article looks great! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Another excellent piece of work - more power to the formidable battleship team. Doug (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• A minor point, check typo in "The total cost of the ship almost twice as high, approximately $6,000,000." Doug (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I had to read the sentence three times before I spotted it. fixed now.
• Another minbor one, I expected United States reserve fleet to be linked, not sure why. Doug (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • reserve fleet is about the general concept, while United States Navy reserve fleets is mostly about the current status of the US reverse fleet. I considered the first to be more useful to a potential reader unaware of the concept, but if you want it changed that is fine with me. Yoenit (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.