Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Navy/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Navy

[edit]

I first came upon this article a few weeks ago and was impressed by its comprehensiveness, accuracy, and prose. After some copyediting today, I feel that the article is up to standards. Referenced and inline cited, along with descriptive and illustrative charts and pictures, this article epitomizes the magnificent work of Wikipedia. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/grammatical question - I know that "United States Navy" is the way that the organization refers to itself, but isn't this somewhat grammatically incorrect? You wouldn't, for instance, say "Canada Navy" or "India Navy" or "Japan Navy." You would say "Canadian/Indian/Japanese Navy." So why is it "United States Navy" and not "American Navy"? User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC) (P.S. - I'll give the article a read and see what I think.)[reply]
I've responded to this below; the official title is "United States Navy", and per the Manual of Style, that's where the article should be. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments -
  • The "History of the Navy" section focusses extensively on the Revolutionary period of American history, and on WWII onward, but there's very little in between. Did the Navy do nothing for the 19th century? Compare one small paragraph on the 19th century to two extensive paragraphs on the last three decades of the 18th century.
    I'll see what I can do to expand the section. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The section has been expanded now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people don't like red links in FAs. (United States 4th Fleet). I personally don't have a problem with it, but it's likely a concern that will be brought up.
    I don't see a problem with red links, as long as there are not a great number of them. In addition, I've placed the article on requested articles in the hidden queue in the RC header, so it should be created soon. Alternatively, I could create a stub right now but would prefer someone more knowledgeable in the field write it. If not, I'm willing to do some research and write a basic article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, a lot of people dislike lists. Could the "Fleets" section and the "Major naval bases" section be converted to "compelling, even brilliant prose"? Or spun off to List of Fleets of the United States Navy and List of major United States naval bases? I'm sure that "Historically Significant Vessels" can be converted to prose as well.
    The fleet section isn't really a list, as it comprises more prose rather than straight numerical/ordinate listing. I'll see what I can do, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some claims need to be cited. For instance:
    • Aircraft carriers are considered the most important and most powerful warships in the United States Navy. - By whom? Is this position unanimous? Ditto for Aircraft are a critical component of the United States Navy’s fighting capacity.
    • The entire sections on Amphibious Assault Ships, Amphibious Transport Docks, Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, Dock Landing Ships, Historically Significant Vessels, Shipboard Systems, Aircraft Systems, Coastal Warfare, Personnel, Uniforms, Naval Culture, and Notable U.S. Navy People are uncited.
      Will take a look and see what I can do. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, there's a lot of solid information in this article. Focus on making it less list-heavy and citing your sources; before you do this, I don't think it could be promoted to FA. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not bad, the following minor issues should be addressed though:
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • Comment - Hi all, I've been the major contributor to this article since March. About the comments raised by DiscoKing:
    • I thought long and hard about making lists, particularly the Fleets, major naval bases, and historical vessels sections, and eventually came to the conclusion that a list with details accompanying it was the best way to present the information. If, however, someone out there can write prose well enough (i.e. better than I) so that the info is easy to find and understand, then by all means knock yourself out.
    • I'll add a sentence or two on the U.S. Navy after the War of 1812 and before the Civil War, but it did not do a whole lot that was particularly notable.
    • I'm going to delete the whole reference to 4th fleet. That part has bothered me as well. I think the emphasis should be on active fleets and the fact that many incorrectly believe that 1st fleet is the Coast Guard.
    • I'll look over the article and add inline references where they are needed.Arcimpulse 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the responses, and thanks for your efforts, Arcimpulse. The article is under "United States Navy" because that is the name of the organization; many such names may be considered not grammatically correct, but the article's fine where it is. I'll also take another look at the history section and see if I can expand it, and will also see what I can do in regards to the cites. I don't see a problem with the red link - occasional red links (and that's only one of two red links in the article) are okay, and I've already placed the link in requested articles (right now in the hidden queue) in the RC header. The article should be written sometime soon. Thanks for the other suggestions as well; I'll do what I can right now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nicely written and a great overview. A few notes:
  1. 19th century activities need to be written into the lead section (currently it jumps from 1790's to 20th century).
  2. I would be interested in knowing the names of some notable detractors and supporters of Navy formation.
  3. The command structure flowchart is rather oversize.
  4. I wonder if the order of sections should be rearranged -- command structure, then people, then bases, then ships. After all, a navy is only as good as its sailors. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Very nice article. I do have some concerns with the writting style, however, in that it makes frequent use of very large, very dense paragraphs which can be difficult to read. The history section is the primary example of this, although the problem exists to some extent throughout. In most cases, these large paragraphs are in fact grammatically correct, but even if technically correct as such in structure, usage does make them difficult to read. I would request a little rewritting to enable these very large paragraphs to be split into multiple smaller ones. Fieari 05:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; poorly written. It needs several hours' work by a skilled copy-editor to satisfy Criterion 2a. Here are examples from the lead.
    • "The United States Navy (USN) is the branch of the United States armed forces responsible for conducting naval operations around the globe." Why abbreviate the title of the organisation and then fail to use the abbreviation throughout the article? I'd get rid of the USN at the top, and use a consistent term for the organisation, not the hotch-potch of terms that are scattered through the text. With respect to the remainder of this opening sentence, is the USN's major stated role to conduct operations "around the globe"? Many of us wish that it would keep its bib out of everywhere else and just concentrate on defending the US. This assertion is not explicit in the mission statement that follows.
      • I've removed that phrase. However, I disagree with your opinion on the inclusion of USN. It's an accepted style to have alternate names or abbreviations that have come to be accepted of the subject in bold as well, even if they aren't used throughout the article. For example, see Xiangqi - even though the phrase "Chinese Chess" is never used except in the lead, it's still included. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "over 4,000"—most US style manuals insist on "more than" rather than "over".
    • Does "Currently" serve a purpose at the start of the third para?
    • There's lots of redundancy: "in the year 1790"—why "the year"? There's a redundant "also" and "In addition".
    • "... U.S. navy. The U.S. Navy"—avoid close repetition.
      • The first case refers to the creation of a general navy for the United States, not referring to the specific U.S. Navy the article discusses. The second term (capitalized) refers to the U.S. Navy. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was a part of the conflict from the very beginning of American involvement to the very end of the war and proved to be a vital element in the success of the Allies." Can you avoid "very" twice here? Replace "proved to be" with just "was".
    • "it participated in Vietnam War operations"—Why not just "it participated in the Vietnam War"?
    • The Navy "roamed the seas"? Ships may do that, but it's awkward to say it of a whole navy; reword. And it did this "in support of allies"? US taxpayers might hope that before this, the roaming was to protect their own country. The wording doesn't suggest this. The final comma brings into question whether it was just the submarines that suppported allies.
    • "Its ability to project force is considered a key asset for U.S. leaders." Yes, throwing its weight around is a political tool for garnering votes, but I don't think you mean to say that here. It's fine if you retain this statement, but it will bring smiles to many readers.
    • "the number of ships and personnel"—Should that be "numbers", or are the ships each operated by a single person?
    • "... the Navy has ... a high degree of spending relative to other nations." Having spending is awkward—reword. False comparison: insert "that of" before "other".

These are basic technical matters that pervade the article. I suspect that some readers will sniff POV, too. Tony 08:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions! I've replied to each point individually. Can you point out where you feel the article is POV, or places that require more improvement? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The captions in this article have been reviewed and meet the criteria for good captions. - Epolk 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC) - (Writing Captions WikiProject)[reply]

  • Comments -- It needs to be summarised, it has a huge ToC which needs to be cut down, the gallery causes a horizontal scrollbar to appear in standard web resolution (800x600) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not completely. The subsections in the history can be eliminated, the NCO table still spills out, (the last column is faulty), the naval bases could do with a map of the locations, =Ships= could do with an additional summary as a lot of information is about the ships themselves and less on the navy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I fiddled around some more with the tables and I think I fixed the problem (it doesn't go off the screen when I set my own resolution to 800x600). I'll remove the headings in the history, and the map sounds like a great idea. Regarding the Ships section, the whole purpose of the section is to describe the capabilities that a ship gives to the navy and and show how that all fits into U.S. naval strategy as a whole. I'll read over it to try to eliminate some sentences that deviate from this. Arcimpulse 07:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hate to do this on an article that I work on, but until the personnel section is improved, the article won't be ready for primetime. Arcimpulse 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everywhere I look there are problems in the prose. And you say that you've fixed the redundant "also" and "in addition" in the lead, but they're still sitting around lazily. The last sentence in the lead is a bombsite:
    • the U.S. Navy remains the world’s largest navy with a tonnage greater than that of the next 17 largest navies combined.[3] In addition, the Navy has focused on developing advanced technological capabilities, spending a high amount of funds relative to the spending of other nations.

Remove the second and third occurrences of "navy" and insert a comma after first "largest". Why not something more useful thatn "in addition"? Perhaps "Over the past three decades"? "Amount of funds" is awkward, if not ungrammatical. Try "spending more than any other nation"?

Then I stray down into the opening of the first section (History) and I see "heavily discussed"; this is not idiomatic English.

I haven't got time to go through the whole article, but it needs a copy-editor to give it a thorough massage. Someone who's distant from the text is required. Convince me then that it passes the stringent demands of 2a. Tony 16:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/United_States_Navy/archive1&oldid=1080989598"