Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Iowa (BB-61)

Add links
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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [1].

USS Iowa (BB-61)

[edit]
Nominator(s): TomStar81 (Talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because from where I sit it still meets all FA-established criteria. I do know that there are a few things left that need addressing, but I think I can handle those without too much trouble. I wish to thank Cla68 (talk · contribs), he helped get the article concerning the turret explosion through FAC, and validated this article's sources on the explosion for this FAC attempt. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Links for ref 20 and 47 are dead. Several dabs require fixing. - Mailer Diablo 13:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links are fixed. Of the dabs I have fixed all but four; two (USS Iowa and Evasive action) are false positives, USS Iowa is a dab because established procedures at SHIPS demand a bad link for other ships sharing the same name, and evasive action links to abad page where the term is explained. The other two dabs (Thomas Hayward and Captain) I can not seem to locate, so I will try again later. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All dab links save the two execptions noted above are fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy there Hi Tomstar, nice read, but what's a TF 77 as in "was operating with TF 77,"? Also can we have more details on crew sizes, we have "Complement: 151 officers, 2637 enlisted" but not the year that statistic applied and how much that changed with the various refits. ϢereSpielChequers 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just this second gotten into the house, and we are about to leave for dinner, but I can answer your TF question: TF 77 is short for Task Force 77, a naval surface group that would have been composed of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, brigates, carriers, or some combination there of. On the other issues, yours included, I will begin looking into fixes this evening or tomorrow, circumstances permitting.
As it happens we have a page on Task Forces with a whole section devoted to the USN task force concept, so I have linked that term for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I have also dash copyedited the references. Cam (Chat) 02:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment Can you wikilink "Shakedown" to something that explains the term? Some non-military people (like me) have no idea what that term means. It is military jargon that should be either defined or replaced with another more encyclopedic term. NancyHeise talk 03:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can link shakedown for you, but since I am familiar enough with the jargon terminology I regret to inform that it doesn't register as needing a link unless someone points out the words in question. To compensate for this, I would offer to link or rplace all such words in the article if you would bring them to my attention here. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you linked it already, that's great and is enough for me and I'm striking my comment. I am sorry I have not been able to offer a more in-depth review, I have been a little busy this week but I will try to spend some more time on the article later this evening. NancyHeise talk 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, I myself am a collage student and am thus well aquantied with the word "busy". We do what we can when we can, and that is what matters :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this article, it is full of great facts but it needs some more work before I can support it for FA. Here is a list:
1)Prose. Many sentences are in need of punctuation corrections and rewordings to eliminate run-on sentences. I started to go through the article and have spent an hour making some corrections but it needs more work.
I am actualy famous for my various sp&g issues, so this does not suprise me. To be fair, insofar as prose is concerned, this is my weak spot; I depend on other to make sure all is well in an article. This is the one area that I am genuinely unable to assist in, but I will put in a request for a copyedit at the milhist special projects department, noting you concerns, and see if someone would be willing to look the article over. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2)Some facts are accurate but do not help make the article meet the "brilliant" criteria. For instance,

As flagship of Battleship Division 7, Iowa departed the United States 2 January 1944 for the Pacific Ocean, transiting the Panama Canal on 7 January in advance of her combat debut in the campaign for the Marshall Islands. From 29 January to 3 February, she supported carrier air strikes made by Rear Admiral Frederick C. Sherman's Task Group 38.3 against Kwajalein and Eniwetok Atolls

this information is long and boring and could be reduced to

In 1944, under the command of Rear Admiral Sherman's Task Group and as flagship of Battleship Division 7, Iowa supported carrier air strikes against Kwajalein and Eniwetok Atolls

I think it is necessary to take a more in-depth look at the article and see where these kinds of facts and sentences can be trimmed to improve readability. I can help with prose and rewordings if you would like my help but I can not offer that help in depth right now. NancyHeise talk 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repect your opinion on this particular manner, but I have never had a complaint of this nature before and would like to wait a few days to see if anyone else agrees with you analysis of the presentation of certain information is "long and boring." If others concur then I will see about rewording the article to address this concern, though I must confess that I am reluctant to do so since I pride myself on writing the articles to this technical degree. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, sometimes one person's personal opinions are just that and we have to remember that FAC criteria support brilliant prose which could be interpreted in different ways. For a military subject like this one, more detaild "militaristic" language might be preferred by most. I am not one to block an article's advancement to FAC based on one person's personal opinions. I will continue my copyedit of the article, please feel free to revert my edits if you disagree. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 16:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have finished a copy edit of the entire article. It looks good but there were a couple of uncited sections that you need to ref (see my last edit to the page today). NancyHeise talk 19:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice article and I am sure this should attain FA soon. I somewhat agree with NancyHeise, at least that the shakedown section seems a bit long and to have perhaps more blow-by-blow details than necessarily, though i don't feel strongly about it. But I like the mention of transiting the Panama Canal which Nancy's proposed edit would cut. If it stays at its current length, I think the shakedown section needs a summary, topic sentence to describe what the section will say, rather than proceeding step by step as it does. Some wording suggestions, perhaps ones of type that Nancy would like to have addressed:
    • Among the vessels escorting Iowa on this trip was the Fletcher-class destroyer USS William D. Porter (DD-579) which had already been involved in a major mishap the night before when her anchor tore the railing and lifeboat mounts off of a docked sister destroyer while backing up. Perhaps: "Among the vessels escorting Iowa on this trip was the Fletcher-class destroyer USS William D. Porter (DD-579). The night before joining Iowa, Porter had a major mishap: while backing up, her anchor tore the railing and lifeboat mounts off of a docked sister destroyer."
    • Fires occurred in three carriers when planes broke loose in their hangars and some 146 planes on various ships were lost or damaged beyond economical repair by fires, impact damage, or by being swept overboard. Did the planes breaking loose cause the fires? And split into at least 2 sentences, otherwise "when" is not clear. Perhaps: "Planes breaking loose caused fires in three carriers. In total, approximately 146 planes were lost overboard or damaged beyond economical repair by fires or by impact damage." Was reworded. --Doncram
    • Iowa continued to support fast carrier strikes until the cessation of hostilities on 15 August as a result of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There seemed to me to be a few too many sentences constructed like this with "as a result of" or other phrases extending a sentence when it could have just stopped. For this one, perhaps (though not necessarily better): "Iowa continued to support fast carrier strikes until the atomic bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to cessation of hostilities on August 15."
    • While in the bay she received a number of sailors from sister ship Missouri who were temporarily transferred to Iowa for the duration of the surrender ceremony aboard Missouri. Reword to avoid saying both that the sailors were received and also were transfered: it was one transfer. Was reworded. --Doncram
    • After serving as Admiral Halsey's flagship for the surrender ceremony on 2 September 1945, Iowa remained in the bay as part of the occupying force. As part of the ongoing Operation Magic Carpet, she received homeward bound GIs and liberated US POWs before departing Tokyo Bay on 20 September, bound for the United States.... I'd prefer avoiding "as part of" twice in a row.

Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every little bit helps :) I was just about to log off when i spotted this in the watchlist, I will look into it tommorow (I was up early this morning and am now struggling to stay awake). TomStar81 (Talk) 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Okay, good. Addendum: The intro sets up that there will be one combat tour in the Atlantic, but I don't find out which is that tour. Was that the anti-Tirpitz trip, or the presidential transport trip? And it didn't actually engage in any combat, as far as I see, so saying it was on a combat tour may be technically correct but seems a bit misleading. Perhaps explain along the lines of: "Although Iowa did not engage an enemy ship, this tour is regarded as a combat tour because it traversed a combat sector." doncram (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I see that the combat tour language has been dropped from the intro, resolving this. doncram (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Concern was raised during GA Review that the armament section is inappropriately sited in the construction section. I agree. The parent article Iowa class battleship has an excellent armament section that it would do well to link to in a summary style section. That there were adjustments to the armament could come either in the Armament section itself, or in some kind of Refitting section, it which all modifications done to the ship over the years could be placed. SilkTork *YES! 10:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is linked to via summary style: the article Armament of the Iowa class battleship, linked to at the top of the construction section, deals with the details of the gun and missile batteries in a vastly superior quantity. A discussion of the original guns is needed in the construction section because the battleship was constructed to use those guns before she put to sea. If need be I can cut the discussion of the '84 refit weaponry from the construction section and leave the description to the reactivation section. Would that be acceptable? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are various choices to be made about what goes in the construction section to be sure. I noticed in Iowa_class_battleship#Birth_of_the_Iowa_class that there is mention of it being built to a Panamax size. Also, as this was the lead ship of her class, some sense of the dimensions and general equipment would be useful, as the other ships in the class would be based on the Iowa template.
I notice that the Infobox has the date of the adjusted armament as 1982, yet it appears from the text that the guns were adjusted toward the end of the 1982-1984 refit.
I think it would be helpful to remove the details of the later guns from the construction section - though I still think that a distinct section on armament with a mention of the original guns and the changes would be useful.SilkTork *YES! 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On point 1: information concerning the class as a whole is located on the class page so that we can aviod as best as possible having to repeat the information in the articles themselves. This helps keep the individual battleship articles focused on each battleship's specific carreer. If you would like to add the panamax mention then I will do it, but try to come up with one or two other things that would be worth mentioning so I can create a paragraph rather than adding one ackward line.
Adjusted infobox date to read 1984.
Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make it clear that I am not opposing, and that my comments should not be seen as an objection to this article being an FA, but simply an observation. I came here via a GA comment, and felt it appropriate to raise the issue of the way the Construction section was written, as I agree with the concern. The feeling is that a section that is termed "construction" should be concerned with matters related to construction; at present the section is mostly about armament. It would seem more helpful to have matters related to armament put into a section called Armament. Having raised this as a comment rather than an objection, the matter is simply here as a matter of record, and it is the decision of those involved in writing and reviewing the article what to do about it - and that could include ignoring the concern. If Tom is having difficulty finding information related to the Construction to put into that section, then an option is simply dropping the Construction section and moving the bulk of the material to an Armament section. However, this has some details of the construction; a little more here and here, in which it mentions that asbestos was used in the construction - so it seems that there is material out there which can be found reasonably quickly and easily. The USS Iowa at War book appears to have some information on the construction with the tantalising phrase "The Iowa was a brand-new concept in battleship construction." I hope this is helpful, and is what Tom wanted. Regards SilkTork *YES! 11:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please google "use of however" and follow suggestions.[2] [Our overinclusive blacklist will not allow me to add the other cite, which is first in the results.} After a semicolon, "but" will do just fine in place of "however" (or change semicolon to full stop). Kablammo (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to address this particular issue just yet because this is as noted above the last article in what me and others hope will become an FT. Since you comment will likely have more merit on all of the articles rather than just this one article I wonder if you would mind me moving a copy of your comment to the FT "war room" so the others involved in the effort can add this to the FT todo list. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why this shouldn't be addressed in this article; perhaps Maralia worked on this during her ce? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just done an audit for 'howevers'. Maralia (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, no, you misunderstand: I am going to address this, but the means by which I was planning to address it are to go through all six of the articles at the same time to locate all instances and address the however issue raised above. I was planning to do handle the however issue in this manner because I am sure that if its a problem in this article it will be a problem in the other Iowa class battleship articles as well. I would rather not split the work up and force people to come back and fix the other three to five articles later when I could ask a few good editors to look at all the articles all at once and correct this problem in one single pass. That was my plan, anyway, but if it impedes the promotion of this article to FA class I am willing to revise this plan. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost ready to support I've given this a copyedit. I left a couple of inline comments that need to be addressed. There's one inconsistency in subsection levels: why is Post World War II 2nd level, but Post Korean War is 3rd level? Maralia (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/USS_Iowa_(BB-61)&oldid=1138474644"