Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Kentucky (BB-66)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 03:19, 6 November 2011 [1].

---

USS Kentucky (BB-66)

Review commentary

Notified: Top three editors by edit count: TomStar81, Hellbus, MBK004. Projects: Ships, Military history, Kentucky, United States, Operation Majestic Titan.

Promoted in 2007 there have been outstanding maintenance tags since October 2009. Talk page notice given June 2011.

• 1c Multiple citation needed tags dated from October 2009 and two citations that don't back up what they're citing. There are three books listed in the bibliography that are not cited in the article. Sources are not meeting "High-quality and reliable" such as:
  • The 10 Greatest Fighting Ships in Military History. The Discover Channel.
  • http://www.navysite.de/bb/bb63.htm
  • http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_wwii.htm
• MOS Photos need ALT text; see WP:ALT. Brad (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Alt text done. Brad (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Alt text is not a FAQ requirement. Unless something has changed in the last month or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It is. It falls under criteria two which requires articles to meet all style guidelines. Since alternative text is required in the manual of style, it needs to be in an article for it to be a featured article. - EdoDodo ^talk 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, no it doesn't. While it's technically true that it falls under the MOS, in reality it is not enforced at FAC - a large percentage, if not a majority, of the articles promoted have no alt text. Because of this, it is not required for articles at FAR. A discussion at FAC on whether or not it's technically and in practice required would probably be beneficial, but at this point, since it is not required in practice at FAC, it is not required in practice at FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
        • It may not be required at FAC, but as a matter of pride it is something we usually require editors to add when an article undergoes an A-class review for milhist, which will be the next stop for this article when and if it gets to FARC. FWIW, I am counting the days until school starts so I can get my UTEP library privileges restored so I can start up on fixing the seven articles of this class which at this point desperately need the updating. Also, as long as I am here, I wanted to ask a question: supposing I wanted to get away from DANFS as a primary source for the updating of the ships, would citing books that relate to the battles the ships fought in be acceptable for inclusion in the articles as primary sources from an WP:RS standpoint as it related to WP:FA criteria? I have this crazy idea that I could pull information from books like Halsey's Typhoon to help ween the articles Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri & Wisconsin off their net reliant sources, but before going through the trouble I thought I'd ask here first. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
          • • Inserted: to the best of my knowledge, ALT text isn't required for A-class promotion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
              • Can't help but point out that all of the effort expended here arguing over alt text could have been applied to adding the alt text and moving on and actually expending less effort in doing so. There were after all only two pics that needed it. Brad (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't know what you mean by "primary sources" (those would clearly be secondary sources), but that would certainly be fine. I do it all the time; not many sources will focus only on the ship, but many will focus on the different actions that the ships took part in. (also, we haven't done ALT at A-class in quite awhile...) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've just added alt text. This article seems perfectly savable as a FA, and there are no reasons at all to convert it to a redirect. The page Tom found is a reliable source, and I've used it to remove one of the citation needed tags (I've changed the date the she was floated to just 'June'). Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The information on the background to this ship's construction is confusing. I've had a go at moving it around so it flows better, but I think it needs a more substantive intervention:
  • A central problem is the confusion over the ship's class. As written, the article argues that USS Kentucky was basically a given, and that her design was changed. This isn't accurate; it would be better to restructure this material to make it clear that a) the hull number and name Kentucky were originally assigned to one of the units of the Montana class b) this order and ship was cancelled and c) instead an additional Iowa class battleship was ordered and named Kentucky and assigned the same hull number. Text like "As a result, Kentucky was reordered as an Iowa-class battleship midway through the war. This allowed her to gain eight knots in speed, the ability to transit the locks of the Panama Canal, and increased the number of anti-aircraft guns." is basically wrong - she didn't 'gain' anything as she didn't exist.
  • "Kentucky was one of the "fast battleship" designs planned in 1938 by the Preliminary Design Branch at the Bureau of Construction and Repair." - no she wasn't; she wasn't ordered until 1940 and used an existing design rather than being a unique ship.
  • "Concept artwork of the proposed missile conversion for Kentucky shows her aft end fitted with a pair of RIM-2 Terrier missile launchers." - does this have any official credence? It's presently unsourced and the artwork is a drawing by 'artbywayne.com'. I'd suggest removing this and the painting unless a source can be provided.
  • Whitley states that the proposal for the ship to be converted to a missile battleship would have included her being fitted with Polaris ballistic missiles.
  • I don't think that the USN normally 'calls upon' sailors with unique skills - it 'posts' them to where they're needed
  • "and holds the title of being the highest numbered battleship hull to have been under construction but not completed for the United States Navy. USS Wisconsin (BB-64) is numerically the highest numbered US battleship built, although she was actually completed before Missouri, making Missouri the last completed US battleship" - this seems like trivia Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I've just removed the trivia and uncited claims. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

• Nick's last point about trivia is correct but it's also original research by comparing sources and coming to a conclusion.
• When the class article was revamped it was discovered that all of the ships in the class were considered for conversion to BBG; not just Kentucky.
• There are problems with the Rodgers source in that his cites are used to back up material not in his document. Wherever possible I moved the Rodgers cites to what he backs up and placed cn tags on what he doesn't back up. Brad (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

TomStar81

For the Record: It has been suggested that this article and USS Illinois (BB-65) be redirected to the class page and the blurbs there expanded to better cover these two battleships. Nothing has come of this (yet), but if interest in this proposal does pick up I am leaving fair warning here only to avoid claims that may arise concerning the timing of a merger in light of this FAR, and perhaps in time FARC. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like this, but I don't think it's my call. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

All in all this article is actually not in that bad of shape, IMO, but I do concede that there is work to be done here.

• Do photo captions not count as WP:RS? I see someone tagged citation 7 as "not in citation", yet if you take the time to scroll to down to the first photo the caption clearly states "Photo #: NH 96327 Kentucky (BB-66) Bottom structure is prepared for launching, at the Norfolk Navy Yard, Virginia, 10 June 1942. It was launched to clear the shipway for landing ship tank (LST) construction. Work was not resumed on Kentucky's hull for nearly thirty more months. Copied from History of the Norfolk Navy Yard in World War II, page 157, in the collections of the Navy Department Library, 1987. U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph." I do not know how much more clearly one can provide a citation, but in the interest of WP:AFG I'm going to wait until I see some replies here before I remove this tag. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko

I fixed a couple of the problems and I agree with the assessment above that the article is savable. It took me about 5 minutes to fix a couple of them. As for merging the article with the class article I personally would prefer to keep them separate. I think we have more than enough information available for the articles so I think keeping them separate is appropriate. If we had limited info that would be a different story. --Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Where were the books in the bibliography published? More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - It looks like a lot of people have comments here, but also that a lot of people have been doing at least some work on them. At this point, does everyone think that this needs to move to FARC, or can it be kept without that step? Dana boomer (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that the article needs work to remain at FA level, but FARC might be premature. The article isn't FA class at the moment, but I don't think that it would require a substantial amount of work to get there. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • It's been a couple of weeks since the above comment, and not much has been done on the article. Can we get an update on how work is going/what the expected timeframe is? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped I would fine more written material concerning the ship somewhere in the UTEP Library, however that hasn't happened. I know there are still issues outstanding, and I am looking into alternatives, but if you want move this to FARC then by all means do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're still working on the article, then it's fine for it to remain here. I was just checking to make sure there were still people interested in it! It would be great if you could post updates every once in a while, though, on how your work on the remaining issues is going. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So far my updates are as follows: After checking for written material on the citations in question I've got nothing. Checks of Barns and Noble have turned up no useful books, and of course the short time for the ships existence automatically excludes battle books. So far the only material I've been able to cite to books is stuff that is currently not under contention, ergo I am disappointed and frustrated with my attempts at improvement. thus far. Further bulliten as events warrant. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Discussion in the review section focused largely on referencing. While some work has been done on this article, not much has happened recently, so this article is being moved in the hopes that it will spur more editing and comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Demote I failed again. Not that it's really a surprise, but I couldn't find anything worthwhile to add to keep the article at FA. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delist Nick-D went through the article more thoroughly than I had and the major issues are 1a, 1b, 1c. Brad (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delist regretfully. I think that this article's FA status is savable, but this review has lasted long enough and the article still isn't up to standard. Nick-D (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Demote, though I don't see the consensus of whether or not to redirect to the class page. This is probably going to attract a lot of focus from OMT to keep the Iowa topic at it's current level, but if it's redirected, than there's no rush. Any consensus on this? Buggie111 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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