Wikipedia:Peer review/USS Batfish (SS-310)/archive1

USS Batfish (SS-310)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Ive done some work on this subject and have added more information. And I would like another set of eyes to have a look to find anything and everything that needs to be fixed. My plan is to push this to Good Article status so anything can help.

Thanks, Dcheagle 00:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I often want to use military fansites of various ships and units myself; they're loaded with information, very accessible, and generally accurate. But "generally accurate" isn't the same thing as a reliable source, and I'm guessing batfish.com wouldn't be judged a reliable source for Wikipedia. That site references your Friedman source and also Alden's The Fleet Submarine in the U.S. Navy: A Design and Construction History; it would be better to get Alden, maybe through an interlibrary loan, and cite the original source.
DANFS is often quite good, and it's allowed, but battleship articles on Wikipedia are generally of a high enough quality that we don't need to be copying our text from someone else's webpage. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I heartily agree with Dank's comments above. I would also add that depending so heavily on a single source, in this case batfish.com, makes it difficult to avoid copyright violations and plagiarism. As a single case in point, the batfish.com subsection "Post-War History" begins: "After arriving in San Francisco on September 9, 1945, Batfish then went into the Mare Island Shipyard for 'inactive overhaul', to prepare her for peacetime service." The second sentence of the existing Wikipedia article's subsection "1946-1952" says: "After arriving in San Francisco the Batfish was sent to Mare Island Navy Yard for inactive overhaul to prepare the ship for her peacetime service." Although not exactly identical, the Wikipedia sentence too closely imitates the source. Just spot-checking, I see other sentences that either copy or come close to copying the sentences of the source. As you do more research and improve the article, please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to do a rewrite as soon as I have time and the batfish.com source will at some point be replaced as ive got other sources that back that info up I just dont have time write hints why i used the batfish one in the first place.--Dcheagle 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, questions, and suggestions:

I've given the article a copyedit. In particular, the museum ship sections were very heavy on wordiness and detail, so I've tried to cut a bit of the excessive detail out. Feel free to re-add important details I've inadvertantly deleted.
As a general rule, submarines are referred to as "boats", not "ships".
The lead section needs to be expanded to be a general overview of the article: a couple of paragraphs total covering the most important points (when was she built/enter service, highlights of her career, when did she decommission, how did she end up a museum ship...both the planning and execution, what is her current status)
It would be better to add the technical detail to the body of the article and cite it there (probably as part of the "Construction and commissioning" section), instead of citing it in the infobox. You could probably add a bit of background on the class here as well. See the "Design and construction" section of HMAS Otama for an idea of what I mean.
More detail on the submarine's operational history (in particular her WWII and Korea wartime operations) would be good, if possible. Have a look at the two Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships links in the "References" section, and use these as a starting point to expand and cite the article. A greater variety of sources overall (both online and dead-tree) is also something to investigate, particularly if you plan to take this article to a promotion venue like GA.
- Potential source: United States submarine operations in World War II by Theodore Roscoe and Richard G. Voge, published by Naval Institute Press.
- There's also Leader of the Pack by Mark W. Allen. Although this is published by vanity press iUniverse and probably may not be the best to cite from per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, the book may identify some other, more relaible sources that can be used.
Where was Batfish meant to be going in Orange that the strike disrupted?
For someone not familiar with the region, specifying what river(s) the submarine was towed up would be useful.
Where is "Lock-and-Dam No. 6" located?
The trench that had to be dug out, was that through land, or was it simply a dredging operation to deepen a channel?
More detail about the museum post-opening is required. Is it still open as of 2011, and what is its current status? Have there been any major events/incidents since the 1973 opening? Has Batfish required any major maintenance/overhauls/upgrades since opening? Has attendance consistently been "1000-ish per week" since opening (I imagine its fluctuated or changed over 30-odd years)?
A couple more images would be nice, particularly of the submarine when in commission. Some of the old US Navy photos at navsource.org may be of use.

Hopefully my comments and questions give you some ideas for improvement. -- saberwyn 13:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]