Wikipedia:Peer review/USS West Virginia (BB-48)/archive1

USS West Virginia (BB-48)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I've expanded this article significantly. Lede was rewritten and added a description section. I have tried to shorten the article to a reasonable size (35–40 KB). I need some more comments on some other issues to the article.

Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments: just a couple of quick observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• the displacement in the infobox (33,590 tons) doesn't seem to match that which is written in the body; Done
• at five paragraphs, the lead is too long (four paragraphs is considered ideal, I believe); Done
• this is inconsistent: "The conning tower had 11 in (280 mm) thick sides" (in the body of the article) v "Conning tower: 11.5 in (292 mm)" (in the infobox); Done
• this is inconsistent: " She was launched and commissioned on 19 November 1921" (in the body of the article) v "Commissioned: 1 December 1923" (in the infobox). Done Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• The lead is far too long. Three paragraphs would be sufficient, four is great if there is sufficient information, but five is too much. The first thing I would ditch from the lead is the information about being 'sponsored by Miss Alice Wright' - hardly noteworthy for the lead since Alice Wright isn't notable enough to have her own wiki article.  Done
• Why is "rudder problems" in quotes in the lead? Especially since that is not put in quote marks in the body. I think you should just leave that entire sentence out, as this will help shorten the lead which you need to do anyway. Done
• "She had a crew of 1,407 officers and enlisted men". When did she have a crew of 1407? I assume it wasn't always exactly 1407. Give a time frame or consider rewording to 'had a crew of around 1400 men'. Done
• There's a distinct lack of inline citations for the 'Interwar period' section Done
  • Going to add a fewTomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• I might provide more comments from the 'World War II' section onwards once these and the suggestion from AustralianRupert are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• "(In his battle report Ricketts claimed to have witnessed the flooding of one compartment, which may have been already flooded or withheld from flooding.)" I'm not seeing any point to the brackets around this stand alone sentence. Done
• Up to you, but i'm not liking the wording "so great was the damage on the battleship's port side". It sounds a bit too dramatic, more like what you'd expect to hear in a documentary than an encyclopaedia. I'd reword to something like "due to the extensive damage on the battleship's port side". Done
• Emerging from the extensive modernization, the battleship that had risen from the destruction at Pearl Harbor", same here. Less dramatic wording like "West Virginia's appearance changed significantly following her extensive modernisation" would be preferred Done
• "damaging three of her four screws" - as I am unfamiliar with navy terms, I don't know what a screw is in this context. If there is an appropriate wikilink you could add that would be appreciated. Done
• I'm not sure if there is a policy on this, but listing the legacy section as bullet points doesn't look right to me. I think the section should be written in paragraph format. Done
• That's all from me. Freikorp (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde93

• I would amend the first sentence to read "...in honor of the country's 35th state." The current version could sound a trifle odd to readers outside the U.S. Done
• Second sentence is not currently a sentence; "was laid down on 12 April 1920 at Newport News, Virginia, She was launched on 19 November 1921 and commissioned on 1 December 1923," should probably read "She was laid down on 12 April 1920 at Newport News, Virginia, She was launched on 19 November 1921, and commissioned on 1 December 1923."  Done
• Lead generally needs substantial overhauling IMO; will return to this later.
• I believe MOS states that the "Miss" prefix to a name is not required. Done
• If this information were available, it would be interesting to learn why a civilian (?) sponsored the building of a naval ship, and how she was able to foot the bill
  • I'm sure this is unecessary, check other battleship articles (like USS Maine (BB-10) or USS Utah (BB-31))
    • Well, yes, but those articles don't seem to mention where the funding came from at all. Since you do mention it, I think a little more detail would make it seem less like a random factoid. Of course, this peer review is a non-binding thing, you in no way obligated to make the change, and no hard feelings if you choose not to do so.
• A little more detail on the concept of a super-dreadnought would be helpful, IMO. Done
• There needs to be a little more clarity on the number of torpedo hits. The article says seven, then five, then six. If the latter two figures are discounting the one that failed to detonate, fine, but this needs to be clarified. Done
• There are enough minor corrections/tweaks necessary that I would suggest adding a request at the guild of copy-editors.
• In the Leyte gulf section, I would suggest clarifying right at the beginning that the first two paragraphs refer to the Japanese fleet. Done
• The last paragraph of the Leyte gulf battle reads a trifle too lyrical for me; I think the language should be made a little more plain. This is a bit of an intangible, but I think good examples of things that should be tweaked are "unleashed" and "thus avenging her own scuttling." Also there are some odd apostrophes there. Done
• "Again, Japanese positions felt the force of the fire from the invasion fleet." should be tweaked to something more neutral; "Japanese positions experienced heavy bombardment from the invading US fleet" or some such. Done
• "super-battleship" does not link to anything, and I don't think it ever will, Yamato class battleship is an FA; should possibly link there. Done
• 'On 12 August, Pennsylvania was torpedoed. She sent over.." should be "On 12 August, Pennsylvania was torpedoed. The West Virginia sent over..." Done