Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

[edit]

More and more this article is starting to look as though it may be eligable for featured status; however, before I create a Featured Article Canidate for this page I would like to have some feedback on what could be improved. Bear in mind that this article is largly historical, and that details on things like this ships engines and main armorement are discussed at length in the article Iowa class battleship. TomStar81 20:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got a great article here; lots of info, great pics, nice infobox. Well done! I do have a few points to make, but really, I think you have a great potential FA there. So:

  • Needs a real lead section. The lead section currently seems to be simply the first part of the article — ie. her early history. It's supposed to be a short summary of the entire article (see WP:LS). The early history should be moved to a named section.
  • Maybe info on why she was built, but I guess that's just WW2. Maybe something like "... as part of the Iowa battleship program to build X battleships for Y...".
  • "... named in honor of the 30th state" — I think the lead section should aim to be as clear as possible, so I would just say "the state of Wisconsin". The fact that it's "30th" (which to a Brit like me means very little) really belongs in the Wisconsin article.
  • You could note that she was one of the widest ships ever to transit the Panama Canal — max. beam today is 107 ft. On one hand it's not much of a deal, on the other Panama Canal is my baby I mean it was a really tight fit. ;-)
  • The table breaks her armament down by her three major versions — you could do the same for radar etc., or at least note which version they relate to.
  • Wikilink SRBOC, barbette, ...
  • I like the detailed wartime history, but I think it's a bit too general — I think it should be cut down to focus more on Wisconsin, and read less like a general history of the Pacific war. For example: "As a result, they shot down 322 enemy planes ..., all this damage to the enemy had cost the American Navy only 49 planes." This is more about the carriers than Wisconsin. Ditto the two following paragraphs. That other material is great, but belongs in the appropriate article.
  • The post-Korea history seems a bit too detailed. "Took part in 2 springboard exercises in 1955" might be a more appropriate level of detail for what seems to me to be pretty routine peacetime operations.
  • "just had she had done in Korea some forty years ago" — should be "40 years previously".
  • Some paragraphs could be broken up, eg. "Both Wisconsin and Missouri passed the million-pound mark of ordnance delivered on Iraqi targets" needs to start a new paragraph.
  • I think the sections are a bit big, and could be broken up; eg. the recomissioning, Gulf War, and decomissioning could be separate sections.
  • According to the box, she was refitted in 1968. Is this an error, or is there a chunk of history (between 1958 and 1986) missing? Or what triggered that refit?
  • Right now, the article basically consists of one section, History. Maybe you could break "History" into three sections for each of her three major incarnations, and then break each of those into subsections.
  • "Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ..." HUH??? Dates are wacky!
  • Do the decorations belong in a separate section? More detail for each decoration?
  • I feel uneasy about the level of referencing; seems like a lot of facts with very few inline source citations. But I guess you got it all from those books...
  • The inline source citations which are present use an inconsistent style. The preferred style for FAs seems to be to use {{ref|name}} for the reference, linking to a {{note|name}} in the References section; the entry in the References section then links to the off-site source, if any. See eg. U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program.

OK, I'm done! — Johantheghost 20:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alrighty then, lets take a look here:
  • Needs a real lead section
    • I rewrote the lead to reflect on the ships entire history. Hows this?
  • Maybe info on why she was built...
    • To be frank I don't know why she was built; however, an educated guess would be that Wisconsin was built as a symbol of power. At the time she was laid down we (meaning the US) were not at war, and this was before the rise of the aircraft carrier. I will do some digging to see if I can tighten that up some.
  • "... named in honor of the 30th state"
    • Reworded to reflect on which state.
  • You could note that she was one of the widest ships ever to transit the Panama Canal
    • Actually, this is noted on the page Iowa class battleship, and the USS Missouri (BB-63) article also happens to include a nice picture of Missouri in the canal as an illistration (Mr. Panama Canal Man ;).
  • The table breaks her armament down by her three major versions — you could do the same for radar etc., or at least note which version they relate to.
    • Those were originally taken from the USS Missouri article; they were added by User:Durin while Missouri was a featured article canidate. I will drop a note on his talk page and see if he knows what year(s) the equipment is from.
  • Wikilink SRBOC, barbette
    • Done.
  • I think it should be cut down to focus more on Wisconsin, and read less like a general history of the Pacific war.
    • I can do that, but it can get tricky. Ships of the South Dakota-class and Iowa-class could steam on or around 32 knots, meaning they could keep up with the aircraft carriers of the day, so these battleships spent a lot of thier time as floating anti-aircraft platforms for the carriers. No promises, but I will see what I can do.
  • The post-Korea history seems a bit too detailed.
    • Ohh, but you can never have to many details, especially in an encyclopedia! Seriously though, thats a six year span of history, so the length seems aproriet for the time spent in commission, although I suppose I could see about trimming out some excess information.
  • "just had she had done in Korea some forty years ago" — should be "40 years previously".
    • Duly noted
  • Some paragraphs could be broken up, eg. "Both Wisconsin and Missouri passed the million-pound mark of ordnance delivered on Iraqi targets" needs to start a new paragraph.
    • Broken up per your suggestion.
  • I think the sections are a bit big, and could be broken up; eg. the recomissioning, Gulf War, and decomissioning could be separate sections
    • This orginization is patterned after the layout on the page USS Missouri (BB-63), which has already achived featured status. My philosophy on such matters is not to mess with a winning hand unless I absolutly have to, but I will take you suggestion under advisement.
  • According to the box, she was refitted in 1968. Is this an error, or is there a chunk of history (between 1958 and 1986) missing? Or what triggered that refit?
    • Ooops, I forgot to change that. There was no 1968 refit, that would have been for USS New Jersey for her Vietnam war action. M'bad.
  • Right now, the article basically consists of one section, History. Maybe you could break "History" into three sections for each of her three major incarnations, and then break each of those into subsections.
    • Again, Wisconsins orginization is patterned after the layout on the USS Missouri (BB-63) page, which has already achived featured status. My philosophy on such matters, as noted above, is not to mess with a winning hand unless I absolutly have to, but as before I will take you suggestion under advisement.
  • "Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ..."
    • I can’t find this typo (probably because this darn cold is messing with my eyes)(and nose)(and throat)(and...well, you get the idea).
  • Do the decorations belong in a separate section? More detail for each decoration?
    • A)No, decorations are usually listed just above the line advising people to see USS Whatever-the-name-of-the-ship-is for a complete list of ships by that name. B)The decorations are wikilinked to pages where the award is explained in more detail. In short, battlestars are for action against an enemy and the Naval Unit Citation is for outstanding performance not suffecient to justify the Presidential Unit Citation. I'm not sure what Wisconsin recieved her NUC for exactly, but I will look into it.
  • I feel uneasy about the level of referencing; seems like a lot of facts with very few inline source citations. But I guess you got it all from those books...
    • Actually, this was largly a copy/paste from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The other books include detailed information on Wisconsins war particiaption in the gulf. Some of that information also comes from the websites included in the external links section. In short, don't worry to much about it.
  • The inline source citations which are present use an inconsistent style...

OK, to answer your questions:

  • Needs a real lead section
    • I rewrote the lead to reflect on the ships entire history. Hows this?
      • Excellent!
  • Maybe info on why she was built...
    • To be frank I don't know why she was built; ...
      • What I mean is, if I look at USS Missouri (BB-63), I see "She was one of the Iowa-class "fast battleship" designs planned in 1938 by the Preliminary Design Branch at the Bureau of Construction and Repair." Ie. a little about what department ordered her, or the act of congress that authorised it, etc. Not a big deal though.
  • You could note that she was one of the widest ships ever to transit the Panama Canal
  • The post-Korea history seems a bit too detailed.
    • Ohh, but you can never have to many details, especially in an encyclopedia! Seriously though, thats a six year span of history, so the length seems aproriet for the time spent in commission, although I suppose I could see about trimming out some excess information.
      • I agree that it's nice to have the info preserved; but I just think it could be a bit more compact. It reads rather dry right now.
  • I think the sections are a bit big, and could be broken up; eg. the recomissioning, Gulf War, and decomissioning could be separate sections
    • This orginization is patterned after the layout on the page USS Missouri (BB-63), which has already achived featured status. My philosophy on such matters is not to mess with a winning hand unless I absolutly have to, but I will take you suggestion under advisement.
      • I would make the same comment about Missouri, actually; I do think that, for example, the "Gulf War" bit contains three pretty separate topics -- refit, Gulf War, and mothballing.
  • "Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ..."
    • I can’t find this typo (probably because this darn cold is messing with my eyes)(and nose)(and throat)(and...well, you get the idea).
      • Towards the end of "Post Korean War".

Looking better, anyway. — Johantheghost 12:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I think that the article is pretty good, and is one of the better written Wikipedia articles I've read. My suggestions for how it could be improved are:

  • The lead paragraphs should be more neutral in tone. For instance, given the limited role the BBs played during the 1991 Gulf War I think that 'served with distinction' is over-stating things somewhat.
  • The WW2 section needs sub-headings. At the moment it's too big a lump of text to be easily readable.
  • Much of the WW2 section seems to cover the forces the ship operated with, and not the Wisconsin herself. While it is, of course, difficult to separate the two, I think that this section could be pruned back a little.

--Nick Dowling 07:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I am currently playing around with some of the sections in my sandbox to try and condense the text some; the problem here is that one has to take out just the right amount, you know? I hope to have the condensing done this year, but it may not be finished until next year. I will see what I can do with the intro paragraph as well. TomStar81 20:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a lot better. A few comments:
  • Just as the lead needs to summarise the entire article, the article itself needs to be complete. I've had a go at adding a Construction section to cover the first part of her history, using some detail moved from the lead. Feel free to hack on it.
  • I've copy-edited a little bit (a few minor typos).
  • Towards the end of "Post-Korean war", it still says
"Wisconsin reached Valencia, Spain, on 10 May ... Departing Valencia on 17 April, ...".
Maybe the dates are back to front?
  • Moved her decorations out from "Museum Ship (1992-present)" to a new section.
Keep up the good work! — Johantheghost 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headers, and a date question

[edit]

I took the liberty of inserting three subeaders into Wisconsin's WWII history. However, major issue: "The battleship continued naval gunfire support duties on the "bombline," shelling enemy bunkers, command posts, artillery positions, and trench systems through 14 December. She departed the "bombline" on that day to render special gunfire support duties in the Kojo area blasting coastal targets in support of United Nations (UN) troops ashore. That same day, she returned to the Kasong-Kosong area. On 15 December, she disembarked Admiral Thurber by helicopter. The next day, Wisconsin departed Korean waters, heading for Sasebo to rearm.

Returning to the combat zone on 17 December, Wisconsin embarked United States Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan on 18 December. That day, the battleship supported the 11th ROK invasion with night illumination fire that enabled the ROK troops to repulse a communist assault with heavy enemy casualties. Departing the "bombline" on 19 December, the battleship later that day transferred her distinguished passenger, Senator Ferguson, by helicopter to the carrier Valley Forge (CV-45)."

The Wisconsin rearmed in 24 hours? Well done! Or am I misunderstanding the dates? Guapovia 08:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The dates are correct. The vast majority of the text up until Wisconsin’s 1986 reactivation is essentially a text dump from the public domain, specifically from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Every website reporting on the history of the battleship has it written the same way. Two things that should be noted when reading this: 1) "returning to the combat zone" does not mean the ship is instantly engaged in combat. Rather, it merely denotes that the ship was ready for combat should the need arise. 2) Most of the WWII logistical support lessons were being applied in Korea; these logistical support lines could supply any ship with fuel, food, ammo, mail, VIPs, and so on. Sesbo is not that far from Korea; at 33 knots the ship could probably make it no time.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/USS_Wisconsin_(BB-64)/archive1&oldid=192654262"