Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Kentucky (BB-66)

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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

USS Kentucky (BB-66)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all established featured article criteria. Unlike my previous battleship FACs, this one is for a battleship that was never completed, therefore the material presented is a little short due to the lack of service history. This can be compensated for if you think of this article as the third in a series of three: the articles Iowa class battleship and Armament of the Iowa class battleship discuss in much more detail the history of the class design and construction and the weapons and combat systems installed aboard Kentucky respectively. This is a self nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I am currently in the middle of a college semester; if I seem slow to respond be patient; it is likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak object~~ The in fiction section section appear very short, and some of the history section should be re-worded and provided with explanation, for example what is "the treaty"? ~~The history section doesn't go into when the ship was sold off for scrapping either, which seems like a rather important detail to omit~~ --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed "the treaty" to show what the blue link there goes to. I don't follow your comments about the history section as the relevant sections are: 'Background', 'Construction', and 'Fate'. The fiction section does appear short because a canceled battleship doesn't have much of a reason to appear in fiction. That particular section has been removed previously, and I don't know if it belongs or not.-MBK004 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a 'fiction' section is justified, and I've removed it again. The Land 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The info in the fiction section should be on the main class page, thats where the generic discussion regard the battleship in fiction was moved to keep the short stub sections out of the article page. By 'when the ship was sold off' do you mean the date (31 October 1958) or something else? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Support ignore my last objection I misread the article. My concerns have been addressed and this article is very well written --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The recent addition on the (almost) rebuild as a missile ship helped the article a lot. The article still seems a bit short to me, but is well written. And no worries about a fiction section that no longer exists. Hellbus 03:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support While this article may be short compared to other Featured Articles related to it (i.e.: Iowa class battleship, Armament of the Iowa class battleship, USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64)), the quality of the information presented and the way it is presented scream Featured Article to me when considered as a natural addition to the series of articles on the Iowa class. Plus, since the ship was never fully completed, the amount of information logically will be less than the completed sister ships since the completed sisters have had such a long and distinguished career.-MBK004 03:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is one thing I'd like to see done. Fix the red link in the Fate section for the Sacramento class fast combat support ships. It looks like there are articles on the individual ships of the class, and on the type of ship, but not for the class itself.-MBK004 03:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, subject to a few suggestions:
- In the background section, you write "By late 1939, it had become apparent that the navy needed as many fast battleships as possible and it was decided that BB-65 and BB-66 would follow the same design as their sisters." Who decided this? The War Department? Congress? FDR?
- Under the Fate section, "It was during this time that several plans were proposed to complete Kentucky as a guided missile battleship (BBG) by removing the aft turret and installing a missile system." Again, who proposed this? Active voice makes things clearer.
- The bit at the end about being the highest-numbered battleship seems irrelevant. Is there some significance to the numbers, other than to identify the ship?
- All in all, a good article and worthy of FA-status. Coemgenus 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Respectively:
    - I always presumed from the wording that it was the USN's decision to build that last two battleship as "fast battleships", but you have raised an interesting point; I will look into nailing that down for you when I get home.
    - Again, I presume this to be the Navy's idea, and again, I will look into nailing that down for you when I get home.
    - There is some ambiguity as to which US Battleship was the last battleship; I put this in the article to inform people of that ambiguity so they could see why different ships could hold the title of the last US battleship. It was intended to resemble the note on the pages USS Constitution and HMS Victory which inform readers that both battleships hold a portion of the title of the oldest ship in commission. If it bothers you I can remove it, I just thought it might be of interest to the average reader. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, don't take it out on my account. I just wondered if it was relevant and, as you've demonstrated, it is, to someone. Coemgenus 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very good article which meets the FA criteria. As a note, these criteria don't require FA's to be long - they need to be comprehensive. --Nick Dowling 06:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.