Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Kentucky (BB-6)

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

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USS Kentucky (BB-6)

Nominator(s): Inkbug (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has just been listed as a Good Article, and I believe it also meets the A-Class standard. Inkbug (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest take this for peer review, and/or having the guild of copy editors take a look at this article before moving on with this nomination? This will assist it in the future in potential FAN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help from the Guild of Copy Editors. It seems they have a bit of a backlog there, but I hope they will help with the prose. However, if I understand correctly, A-Class review is mainly for content problems, and less for style issues, so I believe the review can continue in the meantime. Inkbug (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~
- You've got some duplicate links - you might try using User:Ucucha/duplinks to catch them.
  - Removed. Inkbug (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You should probably link to United States occupation of Veracruz
  - Added. Inkbug (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might consider fleshing out the Great White Fleet section with a little background info - why did TR send the fleet out, for instance? The average reader won't know this, and FAC-level articles shouldn't require you to read another article to understand the basic context.
  - You might also want to look at USS Connecticut (BB-18), an FA on the GWF flagship, and crib some general information about the fleet's movements from that article.
    - I've added some more info. I'm not sure that more than this is needed, but if there is anything specific that seems to be missing, I'll be happy to add it in. Inkbug (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Same thing on the WNT - you might briefly explain that the treaty required the scrapping of dozens of battleships in the major navies to reduce naval armaments.
  - I've added some background. However, the sentence I added desperately needs references – is there some good source I can reference it to? Inkbug (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I got a source for it, but if there is anything better, I'll be happy to replace it. Inkbug (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You could use Breyer, Siegfried (1973). Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World, 1905–1970. London: Macdonald and Jane's. ISBN 0-356-04191-3. p. 70. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Replaced. Thanks, Inkbug (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Bradleys as a family were teetotalers" - should probably read "were a family..."
  - Changed. Inkbug (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did Kentucky go to China? Was it related to the Boxer Rebellion? I ask because I know Germany sent several warships in response to the uprising, and I wonder if this was also related.
  - My sources don't mention it. A Google search gives me this page as the number one result. Inkbug (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given the timeframe, it should be acceptable to say that Kentucky was sent overseas due to the rebellion (your article says Kentucky was sent on 26 October 1900, and the rebellion didn't end until 7 September 1901). Just my two cents, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added. Inkbug (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please specify what type of ship Rainbow was - as a rule, you should always tell the reader what type of ship you're talking about when you introduce a new vessel. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added. Inkbug (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Everything looks good to me now. You're doing excellent work on these early American battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support proved the above are all dealt with to Parsec's satisfaction. I've been through the article, made a few tweaks, and am fully happy with it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Structure, coverage and references seem fair.
- I've copyedited as usual but feel the article needs further work on the prose before going near FAC (you're quite correct that content is particularly important at ACR, but the style needs to be at least as polished as GA and, while it might be at that level now, I think it's only just).
  - The article is still waiting at the Guild of Copy Editors' request page. Inkbug (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This caused the guns to be mounted far back in the turret, making the ports very large -- Coming as it does right after mention of the turret designers, I'm not sure exactly what's causing the guns to be mounted that far back, something by the designers that we haven't been told about, or simply because the guns were on two levels.
- On 26 October, she left Tompkinsville, Staten Island, for China due to the Boxer Rebellion -- I felt this needed more info about exactly what she was doing re. the rebellion, and when I checked the source it only seemed to relate that she left port, not why or where she was heading. If one of your later citations mentions the Boxer Rebellion, you need to put it here (or mention the rebellion later).
  - I added the Boxer Rebellion based on the comments above. Inkbug (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see any changes since my last edits -- did you forget to save something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was referring to this edit, which I performed based on Parsecboy and Ed's comments above. Inkbug (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Licensing for first two images is fine but there's a tag on File:USS Kentucky bb6 in great white fleet.jpg that should be resolved. Also I couldn't find the image at the source page mentioned -- did I miss something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cleaned up the description page, and fixed the link, but what tag needs to be resolved? Inkbug (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tks, I see the image at the source now. On the WP file there's a tag re. US copyright -- I suspect the image is fine to use given its age but not sure about the ideal copyright template. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Switched the tag to PD-1923. Inkbug (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"resulting in", "due to": Consider the advice at WP:Checklist#because.
- Changed. Inkbug (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"became flagship of": Although "As flagship of" works, "became flagship of" doesn't quite; use "became the flagship of".
- Fixed. Inkbug (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.