Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Iowa (BB-4)/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
USS Iowa (BB-4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Magus732 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the pre-dreadnought battleship Iowa. I believe it should be featured because of the concise nature of the article, its comformity to established writing style, and the extensive but not overwhelming detail about the ship's history. Magus732 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Was the editor who wrote this article consulted before you nominated it for FAC?
- The "Superior design" section header needs to be changed.
- The first paragraph of that section needs to go.
- Spell out uncommon units at the first use - indicated horsepower and nautical miles for instance. We don't make readers click links to find out what something is.
- Much of the article is overly wordy and should be cut down. For example:
- "The Congress of the United States authorized a 9,000 long tons (9,100 t) warship on 19 July 1892. Specifically, it was for a 'seagoing coastline battleship', to fill the Navy's desire for a ship that could sail and fight effectively in open waters; the preceding Indiana class— authorized by Congress as 'coast-defense battleships'— had many problems with endurance and speed" - it would be much better to simply state something along the lines of "On 19 July 1892, Congress authorized a 9,000-long ton (9,100 t) battleship, the design of which should improve upon the speed and endurance of the preceding Indiana class." The rest is needless padding.
- "One unexpected circumstance was that an Austrian battleship also named Infanta Maria Theresa was in the vicinity wanting to enter Santiago harbor, but upon outbreak of hostilities, waited for orders from the Americans after seeing the conflict; her presence caused mild confusion at some points but there is no evidence of the Austrian vessel being fired on." - Two things: how is this relevant? Also, the Austrian vessel was named Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia, not Infanta Maria Theresa, and she was an armored cruiser, not a battleship.
- For a unique design, the technical description is severely lacking. Please review the current FAs of unique warships to see how much detail should be included.
- In addition, the technical description is all mixed up. The armament is discussed in parts of two different paragraphs, for example. Please arrange the information in coherent paragraphs.
- Iowa was never called BB-4. That was the hull number assigned to the ship.
- Why are the "Competing claims" and "Analysis" sections in this article? They would be better suited in the article about the battle, and neither seems particularly focused on Iowa.
- The long list of ship names in the first paragraph of the service history section - what types of ships are these?
- The prose has significant issues, such as:
- "a surface-going torpedo boat - as opposed to...?
- "A dangerous fire in Iowa's lower decks happened" - fires don't "happen", they break out, or something ignited something else.
- Why does the ship's launching deserve its own subheader but not the Battle of Santiago?
- Need a citation for the one note on the later Iowa.
- There are far, far too many pictures.
- For example, what value does File:USS Iowa BB-4 Sponsors of Battleship.jpg add to the article?
- "by the well known radio engineer," - we don't need to be told that he was "well known"
- "(Incidentally, Mississippi later endured a deadly on-board explosion accident which took the lives of 48 crew members.)" - This article is about Iowa, not random incidents on other warships.
- MOS issues, including but not limited to:
Oppose and recommend early closure I agree with Parsecboy's comments about the article being under-developed at present. It is currently probably not of GA standard, and falls well short of FA quality. In addition to Parsecboy's comments, I'd add the following:
- Sourcing is not satisfactory: the article is heavily dependent on DANFS (a non-independent and at best semi-reliable source given that its authors routinely excluded unattractive elements of ships' histories and made errors of fact in relation to campaigns and the like), and little use has been made of the various standard reference books on USN battleships. There seems to be no reason for such heavy use to have been placed on old stories from the NY Times (which are best though of as primary sources given their age).
- The article's structure is a bid odd, with one paragraph sections on minor aspects of the ship's history
- The lead is clearly inadequate
- All in all, I'd suggest developing this article through building it to GA and then A-class standards before returning for another FAC. The friendly editors at WP:OMT can provide advice and assistance with this. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comments -- I'll be archiving this nomination shortly so that improvements can be made outside the pressure of the FAC process. Pls take onboard the valuable comments above, particularly to discuss with the article's main editor(s) and to progress through GAN and MilHist ACR before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.