Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Massachusetts (BB-2)/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 18:48, 7 September 2010 [1].

USS Massachusetts (BB-2)

Featured article candidates/USS Massachusetts (BB-2)/archive1

Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I am attempting to create a featured topic about the US first battleship class. Massachusetts was the US's second "real" battleship and received neither the attention of USS Indiana (BB-1), nor the glory of USS Oregon (BB-3), making her probably most notable for her bad luck. Many thanks to everybody who reviews (or otherwise improves) the article.Yoenit (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: No dead external links, no dab links. Assuming good faith on the Jacobsen painting, both images are in the public domain. Imzadi 1979 → 09:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, why would you need to assume good faith on the Jacobsen painting? Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - US copyright law works off date of publication, not date of creation. If the painting was not first published in a book or first displayed someplace until after 1923, it could still be under copyright, even though the creator has been dead long enough. The source of the image does not list a date for the painting, but we're probably safe, even if I'm a little cautious in my image checking. Imzadi 1979 → 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments leaning support

I know nothing about MILHIST standard practices—is the redlink at 3-inch/50 caliber correct (it may be)?

Hi Iridescent, thanks for reviewing. The thinking is that "3-inch (76 mm)/50 caliber" doesn't look right to anybody; people who are familiar with guns know these as 3-inch guns, not 76 mm guns, in any country, and the "(76 mm)/55" part has to look strange to people who aren't familiar with guns, as if we're dividing 76 by 50. We're not united on how to handle this ... and if you have a good idea, please tell me ... I like to link it. We have a semi-recent change to WP:MOSNUM that says that we don't put a converted unit inside the link, on the theory that you can find the conversion if you follow the link. But not in this case, not yet. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking into this red link all day since our weaponry articles usually encompass multiple varieties of a single weapon; as a result, it is sometimes possible to have an article on the gun, missile, torpedo, or other weapon already on site and yet not be included as a blue link in the article on technical grounds. In this particular case, I suspect that the gun being referenced here is the 3"/50 caliber gun, specifically a Mark 2, 3, 5, 6 or 8 variant said to have been in service with the United States Navy as early 1900. This gun already has an article here, but the article we have disagrees with some of the information presented on the Massachusetts page - arguably the biggest being that the date given for the introduction of this 3"/50 gun here on Wikipedia is 1915. Before adding this to the article though you should get a second opinion since I have been known to make mistakes before on matters of this nature. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found that article before, but thought that as it only mentioned the later models a redlink was probably better, as they are practically a different gun. I see now the article does indeed mention the early models, but completely skips over the fact that they were standard on US ships from 1900-1920. I get the idea somebody wrote an article about the later gun and somebody else put in a paragraph about the early gun without looking at the rest of the article. My teacher told me to never trust anything you read on wikipedia! Will correct the gun article later today. Yoenit (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "reduced commission" mean?

It is basically reserve status, which was not officially adapted until 1912. Officially in commission, but probably just moored somewhere with a skeleton crew on board. Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a "see also" to Battleship Illinois (replica) but not to other ships of this type?

The other battleships of the class are linked in the text and in the template at the bottom of the page. "See also" is for connected articles which are not linked elsewhere. Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says "She was intended and used for coastal defense, since her decks were not safe from high waves on the open ocean", but the description of her service history doesn't seem to bear this out—from the body text, there seem to be far more offensive operations and bombardments than defensive operations. Is this intentional, as to me (a complete outsider) it appears a bit contradictory? – iridescent 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was designed for coast defense, but not really used in that capacity. Will change the sentence to reflect that. Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: All sources look good. The names of a couple of the co-authors need arranging properly: " Schley, Winfield S." not "Winfield S., Schley" and "Scheina, Robert L." not " Robert L., Scheina". Otherwise no issues, Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of my issues were dealt with during the ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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