Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/2008

2008 archive

USS Nevada (BB-36)

• Hello all!
• Even though this is featured, I would like to ensure that it gets on the Main Page on my target date, December 7th. So I'm listing here to ensure that it is perfect! :)
• While the referencing (should) be picturesque, please make a run-through of the prose, as I'm not sure that it is perfect (maybe FA quality, but not perfect =])......and thank you all for helping me out! Cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

It's a great idea to ask for a peer review before nominating a FA for the main page - nice work on doing this. I think that the article is generally great, and have only the following minor suggestions.

• "The new battleships of the Nevada class were the first two in the U.S. Navy to have triple gun turrets" - it'd suggest that you tweak the last bit of this sentence to something like "gun turrets with three guns" so it's a bit clearer.\
  •  Fixed
• It's stated that the Nevadas limited deck armour was a "possible design flaw" and then that it was actually a flaw. This is a bit confusing, and may be a bit unfair given that when the ships were designed aircraft posed nothing like the threat they did in 1941 - surely the flaw was a failure to increase the ships' armour as threats evolved?
  •  Doing...
    • Simply removed.—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Did this fix it? Or is it too confusing...? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• It seems a bit odd that almost a third of the ship's history is limited to the single sentence "Nevada served in the Pacific Fleet for the next eleven years" - is there nothing at all to say about her activities during the 1930s and the lead up to war in the Pacific?
  • Scarily, that is all I could find. Using OR, I would assume that she participated in the Fleet Problems somewhere, but everyone glosses over all of her inter-war years with the exception of the 1929 refit. Bonner on pg. 104 would be the only one who might explain, but that's one of the the "non-viewable" pages on Google Books... =/ Does anyone have that book...? (*Cross fingers and pray*) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 13:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• The 'Attack on Pearl Harbor' section needs an introduction explaining why the ship was at Pearl Harbor, where she was moored, her combat readiness, etc - it's a bit tabloid to start with a quick description of the start of the attack before going into these details.
• Did Spitfires and Seafires really fly from Nevada - I didn't know that there were float plane versions of these aircraft?
  • For what it's worth this website (which may or may not be a reliable source for FA purposes) says that VCS-7 flew from a base in southern Britain, and wasn't embarked on warships. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I simply removed it. :) It was reliable because the Spitfire site simply hosted a convenience copy. :D —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• "After Normandy, the Allies decided to invade Toulon in an operation that was codenamed Operation Dragoon" isn't correct as this operation was approved and planned well before the landing at Normandy, and was actually pushed back from the original plan for a simultaneous landing with the one at Normandy
• Operation Dragoon is linked a couple of times
  •  Fixed
• Which parts of Japan did Nevada bombard, and when did these bombardments occur? The current wording is a bit vauge.
  • Again, nothing was stated in any of the sources...=/ —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Nevada doesn't appear in the listing of battleships which bombarded targets in the Japanese home islands in both Samuel Eliot Morison's Victory and the Pacific or Richard B. Frank's Downfall. USS Alabama seems to have been the only non-fast battleship to have been used in these bombardments. All the battleships used in these bombardments were recently completed fast battleships. DANFS only says that Nevada came within gun range of the home islands, so she may not have conducted any bombardments. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Would you be able to add cites and page numbers for those books to the end of that sentence? I'll add a note explaining it, but that would be awesome. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately Nevada isn't mentioned by Morison after the chapters on Okinawa, so all I could provide is the pages where he lists the BBs which bombarded Japan - would this be helpful? Nick Dowling (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's what I wanted. :) I'll shove them in a note that explains that she did not hit Japan. ...like <ref group=A>"''Nevada'' did not hit..blah blah... . See: ________"</ref> —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
            • OK, I'll post the refs in a new section below. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• The description of the ship's armament in the infobox seems to be missing the various post-refit changes. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bombardment of Japan references

Samuel Elliot Morrison's Victory in the Pacific describes the three following BB bombardments of Japan. The edition is: Morison, Samuel Eliot (2002). Victory in the Pacific. reprint. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. pp. History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. ISBN 0252070658.. USS South Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, two CAs and nine DDs bombarded Kamaishi on 15 July 1945 (pp. 312-313). USS Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, two CLs and eight DDs bombarded Muroran on 16 July (pgs 313-314). On the night of 18 July USS Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Alabama and HMS King George V bombarded Hitachi (pgs 315-316). Richard B. Frank lists all these bombardments on pg 157 of Frank, Richard B. (1999). Downfall. The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 01410-01461. and adds a bombardment of Hamamatsu on the night of 29-30 July by USS South Dakota, Indiana and Massachusetts. Neither book mentions Nevada as operating with the 3rd Fleet, though neither provides a task list/order of battle so its quite possible that she was operating with the 3rd Fleet but was kept in reserve. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll add this in sometime today. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I promise that I will get to this! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done a few days ago. Thanks again! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dziban303

Minor nitpicks

• In the article is states "In particular, using oil gave the new class an engineering advantage over the earlier coal-fired plants," but it doesn't state why this is an advantage over coal-fired powerplants. I think some explanation of why oil is superior should be included.
  • Is this satisfactory?
• In "Attack on Pearl Harbor," it states "...but the other exploded within the ship near the gasoline tank." Perhaps adding something in about why the ship carried gasoline (for the scout aircraft and motor launches, I'm sure).
  • ...except that I don't know why—I don't have that book! I'm not the one that added that info...
• Speaking of scout aircraft, there's no mention of them in the article other than in the infobox. What kind did she carry? Considering the difference in the "as built" and "1942" references in the infobox, was this done after she was refit after the Pearl Harbor attack, or some time prior?
  • My bet is prior...either as built, or at the latest in the '29 refit...I'll look into it.
• The Bikini atomic experiments are linked twice in the article--once in the introduction and once in "Post War." I'm not totally opposed to linking twice if the links are that far apart, but I confess that I don't know if the policy allows it.
  • Yes it does. :) As long as they aren't overlinked!
• All around, an excellent article. Dziban303 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Looks like I've got some work to do. :D —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Captain class frigate

I think most of the issues raised in the 2008 review have been dealt however two tables do remain in the article as I feel they are the clearest way of presenting the data (but I'm willing to be proven wrong on this).

I am hoping for advice on how to further improve this article in the hope of eventually getting it up to A-class.--Thefrood (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

MV Iran Deyanat

Was originally given a start rating, but a fair bit more has been added, as the ship has been released. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I reassessed the article but it won't make a B until there is more about the ship itself. Right now everything focuses on the news event. --Brad (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

SS Mauna Loa

This article passed a GA review but I'm not sure how in-depth it's review was. I'd like to get a more formal review before pursuing any further more-formal reviews. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the strange GAR I think this article could be put up for A-class. I didn't find anything that needed correction. --Brad (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I read through it thoroughly but couldn't find anything wrong with it. Even though it was a thoroughly bizarre GAN which didn't use the instructions, you seem to have covered all the bases. Go to A-Class. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Maestrale class frigate

i cleaned up this article and feel that it is pretty good hornplayer2 (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Were you interested in expanding the article and taking it higher in class? Right now I would rate it a C-class. --Brad (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

i was just trying to clean it up. im not really sure how much i can expand it, based on my knowledge (zero) on this subject. hornplayer2 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case you should have put in an Assessment Request where a Peer review is more tuned towards editors seeking comments on how to improve the article to make A or FA class. --Brad (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This article is off to a good start, but at present it wouldn't quality for B-class. My suggestions for how you could further improve it are:

• The article is short and doesn't fully cover the topic. Iowa class battleship is a good example for the kinds of topics which could be covered.
• The article presently doesn't have any inline citations - lots of these are added so that all of its text is supported by a citation
• Some of the prose is a bit awkward, and the article would benefit from a copy-edit
• 'ONU' needs to be spelled out
• The 'Lupo vs Maestrale' section needs a new, more formal, title (eg, something like 'comparison with Lupo class'). The fact that the Maestrales are upgraded Lupos should be in one of the first paragraphs of the article rather than this section. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Borg_Sphere

This article seems to be OK, but needs quite a bit of work before it can make B or GA class.

• I've copy-edited it for you, it has lots of serious trouble with grammatical errors and formatting.
• The other main issue is that it is full of jargon, which I have not removed as I am not familiar enough with the modern naval weaponry. Abbreviations throughout need to be explained in detail and linked.
• The article still has a very informal tone, which I have not fixed due to time constraints.
• It needs many more citations. It has only two references, and no inlines anywhere. I've added some citation needed tags, but there are many more places which need to be fixed.
• Also, the article should talk briefly about the service history of each ship, see Nimitz class aircraft carrier for an example.

Overall it is a good start, but C-class at best, if that, and needs to have some serious time and effort put into it to have it become B/GA. Borg Sphere (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bulk carrier

I plan to list Bulk carrier for A-class review here at WP:SHIPS within a couple of days, and would really appreciate feedback prior to doing so. The article was listed as a GA a year ago and later failed at FAC. Since then, I've whittled down on the FAC feedback to the point that I think there are only a handful of remaining issues which I expect to resolve in the next couple of days. Also, Maralia has been kind enough to work her magic on the article, and has been invaluable in polishing it up. Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

I've only really read the lead, but;

• The "ever" in "and economic forces have driven these ships to become ever larger and more sophisticated." kinda threw me a bit (I thought it was typo at first, then it ruined my flow etc), might wanna consider just dropping the word.
  •  Done It was kind of archaic—I got rid of it.
• Is the comma after "efficiency," ok?
  • Putting a comma after the "B" in "A, B, and C" is apparently called using the serial comma and is more common in American English than British English.
    • OIC, how interesting, I thought it might be something like that. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe a link for Hold
  •  Done Good call!
• The "and wetting of cargo can all doom a ship" part reads a little funny, do we have to stick to "wetting of cargo"? Is it a proper term?
  •  Done I got a laugh out of that. For lack of a better idea, I changed it to "cargo saturation" for the time being.

Other than those minor things, great lead! In fact, really good lead. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! Cheers. Haus^Talk 17:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles class submarine

Looking to get some more eyes on this article. I would preferably like someone other than me to check it for B-class status and look for copy-edit and other mistakes. If editors have time, this article could use some attention from someone in possession of some of the book resources listed on the talk page. That is, of course, above and beyond, but given enough sources this article could easily get to GA status.

I gave it a copyedit and assessed it as B-class. I have three suggestions. First, the article could use some more citations. Second, there is some redundancy in the Notes and References sections. For example, since the Running Critical book is in the References section, footnote #5 could simply be <ref>Tyler 1986, p. 24, 56, 66-67.</ref> Finally, try to get as much information into your citations as possible— for example, footnote #9 is by John Pike and was written on 10-06-2006. Cheers. Haus^Talk 00:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific sections

Is there a way that the "in the press" section can be expanded? I'm not sure from memory how many times the class (rather than individual ships shows up in the popular press. That being said, it doesn't feel right leaving out the link the incidents nor does it look good with just that link in there.

Thanks! Protonk (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

SMS Von der Tann

I've recently rewritten and significantly expanded the article, and added nearly a dozen sources and quite a few citations. I'm working on tracking down suitable copyright-status photos to add to the article, although there are already a couple currently. I'm looking for some pointers or suggestions to continue to improve the article, with the aim of eventually reaching FA-quality. Thanks in advance for all comments. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

• Comments
  • The first thing you might consider doing is finding the conversion templates so those who can;t think in metric can get an idea of what the size, weight, gun calibure, and so forth are.
  • Link all dates with a day, month, and year.
  • If I spot anything else when I get home today I will let you know (reading for school, you see; we get our reading assignments on monday :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The figures should all have the conversion templates now, and I've linked most of the dates as you have suggested. Thanks for your comments so far, and I anticipate more suggestions later on. Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good. I spotted some instances of figures that still do not have metric/standard measurements in tandum, and I think the article needs some work with regards to WP:HYPHEN. If I recall correctly Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Epbr123 (talk · contribs) are pretty good at finding and fixing these two points; I would suggest leaving a message on either users talk page.

Ok, I think I've got all of the conversion templates in place now, let me know if you find one I've missed. I've also added in the – for the date ranges, as Climie.ca pointed out below. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• After two days of searching, I have finally relocated an article I think you can use as a blueprint of sorts for this battleship : HMAS Melbourne (R21). Melborne was an aircraft carrier, but like SMS Von der Tann was a unique vessel and as such contains a rather well developed section going into her background, construction, and equipment in addition to her service history. This may be useful for your effort to push the article to FAC by giving you a better idea of what you will need to do insofar as article building goes. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Brad101

Other than what Tom suggested I don't see any glaring issues with this article. I bumped it up to B class as it was certainly worthy of it. You may want to expand on the fate of the ship a bit further than two sentences however. You should run this through GA. What are the prospects for further expansion of the text for an A or FA run? --Brad (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some information about the desertion of crew members shortly before the end of the war, but further information relating to the scuttling and scrapping appears to be rather sketchy (in fact, information about the ship overall is pretty scarce; most of the books I've used are actually about the battles in which the ship participated; only Staff's book goes into any detail about the ships themselves.) The text can probably be expanded, but I wouldn't say dramatically. As I stated above, details are often few and far between. I'll see what further information I can scrounge up. Thanks for your comment. Parsecboy (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some additional details about the specific time line of events during the battle of Jutland, as well as some relatively minor fleet advances in 1916 before Jutland. I've also added some additional design information, relating to the ship's machinery and powerplant, etc. I'm skeptical that much more can be added with the sources I've currently got (and until I start speaking/reading German, I've probably exhausted the number of references available on the topic). Parsecboy (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did a second reading and caught one minor double wording issue which I fixed. I think you're looking good for GA after the image tag fix. Even the minor expansion on a few topics helped to make things read smoother. --Brad (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image:SMS von der Tann.jpg has an expired tag. That will be an issue for GA.

Yeah, I had intended on removing the non-linked instance of "raid on", but I must've gotten distracted before hitting the save button. Thanks for catching that. I've gone ahead and just removed the questionably licensed illustration for now, and left a note on the uploader's talk page on Commons; hopefully s/he can update it accordingly, and it can be re-added to the article. Thanks again for your comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cam

I think Tom & Brad have summed up most of the stuff. However, there are a few things that caught my eye:

• Would it be possible to expand the lead, as it is currently quite short?
• You use "AP" & "HE" as abbreviations in the section concerning the design of Von-Der-Tann; it should probably be the full word. Although you and I understand military jargon, an average reader probably won't.
• In several of the sections, you have two very-short paragraphs (some of two sentences or less). Would it be possible to combine these into a single paragraph, so as to not make it look so (for lack of a better term) "skimpy"?
• "causing Von der Tann to ship 600 tons of water" --> "causing Von der Tann to take in 600 tons of water", just for clarity
• For times, you shouldn't leave them as not having a ":". 1853 should be 18:53, etc.
• for date ranges, — should be used.
• In the "References" section, would it be possible to add the locations of the publishers?

Other than that, looks pretty good. All the best, Cam (Chat) 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the minor points, including the AP/HE, combining short paragraphs, "ship" -> "take in", colons for times (an old Army habit :) ), longer dashes for date ranges. I've added publishing location for the books I actually have, the others I found through google books, and they don't provide that specific bit of information. I'll see what I can do with the introduction. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also expanded the introduction, take a look now and let me know what you think. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye, mucho mejor señor (you can look that up on your own). That should do it. Excellent expansion in such a short time. Good luck in the future with this article. Cam (Chat) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is much better ;) Thanks for your help in getting it there. Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Land

Very nice! Always good to see another capital ship article better-developed.

• I agree the lead could be longer (would need to be for FA status, for instance)
• The design section could be more detailed. More on the design process would be nice. Also there is some technical vocabulary which needs to be explained or wikilinked (battle line, pivot mounts, staggered turrets).
• The article could do with a few more wikilinks throughout (dreadnought, steam turbine, for instance).
• Robert Massie is not a very good source. I don't think he is too bad for the statements where you rely on him, but I'd prefer it if a better account of the relevant incidents could be found.

Regards, The Land (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've indicated above, I've expanded the lead section, can you take a look and offer any suggestions? As for the design process, there just isn't much information on it in English, and I don't yet speak German. The only book that really goes into any kind of detail is Staff's book, which is fairly short, and nearly all of his bibliography is from German works, and the German archives.

I've added a bunch of links, do you think they're sufficient, or does the article need more? What's wrong with Massie? I was unaware that his works were considered sub-standard. I can tell you that the sailors who deserted prior to the mutiny isn't mentioned in any of the other books, and many of the specific details about the timelines of Heligoland, for example, aren't mentioned in the other books I've got. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead's better. Regarding the design section, the main question in my mind is how much the designers were influenced by the [[Invincible class battlecruiser], details of which were gradually becoming known to the Germans in 1906-8. Other things you could go into, if you have the information, might be the arrangements of big guns which were considered, or how much armour Tirpitz favoured...

Massie has a fair few of errors in detail. I only notice them in shipbuilding, because that's a subject where I have detailed sources to hand. However, it indicates that they might extend to other areas. I am fairly confident that if you get it to FA, someone will complain that Massie isn't a good enough source. The Land (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only major impact of knowledge of the Invincible class was the switch to larger caliber guns. Von der Tann seems to be more of an incremental outgrowth of Blucher; the ship is basically a slightly larger, slightly faster Blucher with bigger guns and thicker armor. This is essentially a result of the Kaiser getting his way, irt to the provision that VdT be able to fight in the line. On the other hand, had Tirpitz gotten his way, VdT most likely would've come out looking like German copies of the Invincibles. Of course, one could argue that Blucher herself was a response to the erroneous information the Germans had on Invincible, but by the time VdT was designed, the details of the Invincibles were already known. This, of course, is OR on my part. However, the only explicitly stated indication I've seen in the books I've got of influence from the British ships is again, the jump from 8.2" to 11" guns.

As for Massie, I didn't know he's known for having errors in his work. I'll see if I can find some other sources that have the same information. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found and added a source that corroborates the timeline for Heligoland Massie provides, in Strachan's The First World War, so I'll assume that it's fine to continue to use the cite from Massie at least for that paragraph. I'll continue looking for other sources to corroborate/correct what else I've got from Massie. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Harlsbottom

Nothing major at all. However, in an article about a German battle cruiser it would be nice to have more German quotes in it. The map from "Germany's High Sea Fleet in the World War" is a nice touch though.

• The contention that Von der Tann had three turrets in operation "before the end of the battle". Hipper in G.39 (after moving his flag from Lützow) sent a message to Scheer at 0305 on 1st June - by which time the battle was over - stating that Von der Tann had "only two heavy guns serviceable". (Tarrant. Jutland: The German Perspective. p. 318) --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 13:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some suitable quotes to add to the article. As for the question about turrets being repaired during the battle, I got the timeline from Staff's book, which uses mostly German sources for the information, but does not specifically cite it in a footnote. I have seen in other books that only two turrets were rendered operational by the end of the battle. Perhaps the explanation is that one of the three turrets that were repaired during the battle later failed/been damaged again, by the time Hipper had made his report to Scheer. I have not before seen the claim that only two guns were serviceable, only of there having been either two or three turrets having been repaired. Of course, none of the latter explicitly state that both guns in all turrets were in working order, but I would assume that to be the case, unless it had been otherwise stated. It would appear that further investigation is required to get to the bottom of these conflicting reports. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tarrant gets his info from a translation by the Admiralty Naval Intelligence Division of the more important signals passed between the Germans at Jutland; I can't think of any reason (for once!) to question its veracity. Of course, there could be subtle errors of omission here - the sources referring to turrets could well be correct - three turrets were working before the end of the battle, but only two of the guns out of six could be used, i.e. both views could be correct?

And something dear to my heart, have you checked Google books? I've just found in a preview of a biography of Hipper a quote from Von der Tann's captain at the Scarborough raid on the problems posed by poor coal, and then some sourced information on how the battle cruiser suffered quite badly in trying to keep fires lit at jutland. And that was just from typing "Von der Tann Jutland" into the search box, and was the first source I looked at (ignoring the usual run of the mill Indefatigable materiel). --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's along the lines of what I was thinking re: the guns/turrets discrepancy. Yes, the Tarrant cite doesn't seem to be questionable in its veracity, although I'm wondering if it's a possibility of a translation error on the Admiralty's part? I have seen the assertion that two turrets were later returned to working order by the end of the engagement. Again, it could be a simple miscommunication, as you suggest.

Yes, I am well familiar with Google Books; that's how I came across Scheer's book (and the nice illustration I lifted from it :). Can you provide the link to the book preview you mentioned? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks for your comments and contributions to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's something interesting; I was re-reading through Massie's book, and came across a mention of Von der Tann, stating that the guns were firing so fast that "the guns had become so hot that they jammed in their slides and would not return to firing positions" (p 604). I wonder if this is the discrepancy between the turrets being operational, but the guns being jammed. Parsecboy (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Try this link (it may work, it may not depending where you are); http://books.google.com/books?id=jlmkFfJDDKQC&pg=PA56&dq=von+der+tann+jutland&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U2ksvgBccUlHEaDeHW7AiQkta6Y-w

As to Massie, I assume he's referring to the run-out gear except he doesn't directly refer to it (I just checked). I may as well go on record as saying that I don't think Massie would be a good source on a FA run, because as The Land points out he gets things wrong in one area he'll get them wrong in another - and he has in multiple instances. Not that this applies to the sources in this article, but so many people read Castles of Steel then think they're an expert and then somehow misinterpret Massie even more than he managed to misinterpret the record in some cases. Tarrant has some more on Von der Tann which I'll add later. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 10:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The link didn't work; it said I had reached the limit of my page viewing. I have found some other books that I had somehow missed in earlier searches though.

Massie is most likely referring to the run out gear; Brooks, in Dreadnought Gunner and the Battle of Jutland mentions the run-out gear causing turret malfunctions, on page 256. (see if the\is link works for you 1). I'm slowly trying to find sources that can corroborate what Massie has, and then just substitute the sources. I have already found discrepancies between Massie and other sources, so the point that he can be unreliable is well taken. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed something interesting; Staff's book, for which I've relied mostly for the timeline at Jutland, seems to be written in UTC +1, I'm assuming owing to the fact that he uses primarily German sources. The British sources of course use UTC. Do you think the article should stick with what its got, or change it to UTC? Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to http://icanhide.com then plug the address I listed above in, and theoretically your "limit" should disappear. Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland I have - one of the best books on Jutland by a mile (and pretty unimpeachable too unless you think Jon Tetsuro Sumida is God and love Beatty).

I think the German time would be best - after all, most people reading the article would assume that German ships would not unnaturally use German time. It's only on things like the Battle of Jutland when you're actively trying to reconcile the different times when trouble begins. Maybe put a note in italics at the top of the article or the section concerned? That's my two cents anyway. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That worked perfectly, I'll have to bookmark that site. Yes, Brooks' book is quite good, from the snippets I've been reading online. I'll have to pick up a copy. Keeping the German time makes sense, I'll put a small note at the start of the Jutland section denoting the differing time from the main article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By George I think I've got it: on p188, in Tarrant's book, it states "But by 8:30, both midships turrets had been repaired, although breakdowns recurred later in the battle. The after turret was also made ready...The turret could, however, only be trained by hand." What is likely is that when Hipper made his report, both of the two amidships turrets had again failed, and the D turret was the only turret still in action, if even at a decreased capability. Parsecboy (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I already put in the bit about hand-working :p scant hours ago, but I got my details from a paraphrasing of the Der Krieg in der Nord See from the 1920s. I get the feeling Tarrant read the same article as I did! I'm somewhat perplexed at my not recalling p188 before!! --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 10:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed you snuck that in while I wasn't looking ;) I was about to add it, and happened to see it mentioned a few lines down, so I said to myself "well, who could've put that there?" so I checked through the history, and saw your name, damnit :p Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As some people are wont to say; lolololol. Back to business, while looking for information on German fire control (I'll add a bit on Von der Tann's when I have the chance) I came across a mention of the ship's gunnery officer. Since there's hardly reams of information available for the ship, and the gunnery of it was relatively exceptional, I think he warrants a mention when I can spare the time! --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. I just picked up a copy of "Große Kreuzer der Kaiserlichen Marine 1906-1918" (in German, of course, which I don't yet speak), which appears to have tons of information on the ship, and the rest of the German BCs. So, as I muddle through it with the aid of an online translator, I'll be able to add more to the article. It's got some pretty interesting alternate design proposals, including one that had three centerline twin turrets, and two staggered wing turrets that mounted one gun each. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

SMS Moltke (1910)

I've been working on this article for a little while now, and have got the prose pretty much knocked out. I'd like to get some advice/help as I steer the article towards higher assessment levels, ultimately to FA. I'm waiting on a couple of books that should give some more information about the ship's operations in the Baltic, and some sub-sections of the service history could use some more citations—I've got the books for that, just haven't had the time to comb through them yet. Thanks in advance for all comments. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence of article talks about another ship, not Moltke. When was Moltke raised and scrapped? Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a copy-paste error; the year info was correct, just forgot to change it to Moltke. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Jackyd101

Hi, a very nice article, well done. I've placed some comments below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• The lead could stand to be expanded further, mainly with some more information on actions in which Moltke was engaged in the First World War. The first two paragraphs should be merged together as well.
• According to its own article, Blohm + Voss was written as Blohm & Voss in 1909. Make this consistent throughout the text.
• Sources needed for: the visit to the United States, the summary of service in World War I (which could also be expanded)
• Instead of linking Kaiser, link it to the man (i.e. Wilhelm II of Germany)
• I'd merge the first two sections of the bombardments. If not, then the second section should just be named Bombardment of Hartlepool as that was where Moltke was. (These incidents also have their own articles, which should be linked to.
• "but struck one of the mines laid by Stralsund, and sank with great loss of life." - 23 odd men is tragic but not a great loss of life.
• "The Russian navy had captured code books" - when? was this on Madeburg? If so, say so.
• Numbers under ten should be written out rather than in numerals.
• Make sure all notes and references com after punctuation without a space.
• I think the heading levels should be reassessed, as the Jutland section is too long unbroken.
• Where there any casualties in the 23 April 1918 accident and torpedo strike?

Thanks for your comments. I've been planning on working over the lead section and expanding it a bit, but haven't had the time to do so. I've fixed the instances of "Blohm + Voss", the link to Wilhelm II, added links to the bombardments. I'm going to hold off on merging the section on the first bombardment of Yarmouth, as I may be able to turn up some more information about it. Re: the D5, I guess was looking at it ratio-wise; only a handful of men (5, I think) survived the sinking. I'll just use the exact number if I can find it. As for the numbers under ten, I was taught (way back when) that if you had several numbers in a sentence, you'd use numerals. If we do it differently now, that's fine, but it seems strange to me to have mixed usage, for example, "14 dreadnoughts and eight pre-dreadnoughts and a screening force of two armored cruisers, seven light cruisers, and 54 torpedo boats". As far as I can tell, there were no casualties as a result of the 23 April '18 accident and torpedo hit; Staff's book, which uses German sources, makes no mention of any casualties. The Jutland section is rather long, but I think the toc is long enough already. It'd be nice if I could find some suitably licensed images of the ship during the battle (I was hoping the 100k image donation would have one or two of the ship, but they either don't have any, or they aren't included in the donation. (There's about 9 million of the Goeben, of course) I'll have to see what I can find elsewhere; perhaps the IWM has some relevant images. Thanks again for your comments and pointers. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good improvements, and it seems you know where future improvements need to go. A very nice article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident

Reason for recommendation:

Article is a real mess as it tends to attract attention from a variety of POV pushers, fringe/conspiracy theories etc. I'd like to fix the article but would like some guidance as to where to start. Justin talk 20:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Narson

• I am involved with the article (indeed, I am accused of having a 'Personal stake' in it for some reason), but one thing that strikes me about the article is that it has developed into two seperate articles within the same one. Rather than present a point and rebuttle, we seperate out the two versions. I know this was done for NPOV reasons but the result is clunky and simply allows the stories to stand alone (Making selectic reading and thus undue weight very easy) --Narson ~ Talk • 23:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Narson. Also, the article has lots of unsourced material. I would consider demoting it to Start-class. -- Nudve (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Skinny87

• The lead seems filled with peacock words - 'neutral' vessel, for example
• The caption on the first article is similarly POV
• 'The attack on the Liberty' - This is a huge section. Might I suggest dividing it into 'Background' and 'Attack on the Liberty'?
• Lots of areas need citations - take this random example: 'Unfortunately, due to inadequate message handling and routing, the CPA change messages were not received until after the attack.'

That's about it - it's a huge article and obviously has POV issues, but good luck sorting it out! Skinny87 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• The USS Liberty cannot be both a "neutral" ship and a victim of "friendly fire" (ie an ally) in the same context. Either unlink "attack on the armed forces of a friendly nation" - the text is correct but not the link to "friendly fire" - or remove "neutral". (Recommend the former.)
• The link to "Israeli" in the first sentence links to "Israeli Air Force" but the motor torpedo boats belonged to the navy. Suggest "Israeli Defence Force (IDF)" instead.
• "The IDF air and naval forces, respectively, misidentified ". Delete "respectively".
• Link "CIA Director" and "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff"
• Is "technical research ship" weasel words for "spy ship"? Suggest spy ship in the intro.
• "Unfortunately, due to inadequate message handling and routing, the CPA change messages were not received until after the attack." Reference required here.
• "ibid" Change to a named reference, or move the previous reference.
• "As war broke out Captain William L. McGonagle of the Liberty immediately asked Vice Admiral William I. Martin at the U.S. 6th Fleet headquarters to send a destroyer to accompany the Liberty and serve as its armed escort and as an auxiliary communications center." Reference required.
• "United States Ambassador Goldberg" Link to Arthur Goldberg. I would insert "UN" before ambassador.
• There's a pile of "citations required" to be filled in.
• Can you move the page numbers into the footnotes? Gee, they're annoying.
• Change "Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd" to "Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Jr" (My first thought was "couldn't be.")
• The whole of the "American Government Investigations" and "NSA tapes and recent developments" sections need citations.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

This is a terrible article that fails to deal with the Reliable Sources available properly. While RSs are edit-warred out, sources of profoundly dubious character are used extensively. The latest abuse going on right now is the re-inclusion of a statement that is clearly a lie, over a consensus of a five six to two at the TalkPage a month ago. (This discussion has been pointlessly if not disruptively archived by a partisan). In addition to numerous such RS faults, the article is rife with unsupported statements sufficiently "surprising" to need citations. I counted 60 of these and tagged them (as others have done). Most of these tags were summararily removed (sometimes with threats, calling them disruptive), while no attempt has ever been made to fix the faults. (I've checked the entire TalkPage archives for any discussion of these statements or any suggestion that some could be allowed stand on their own, there seems to have been no such AGF interplay ever). Similar edit-warring conduct has been applied to the overall "This article has uncited statements" tag. I would be keen to expand on or correct any statement I've made here, but I'm pretty sure I've already added all the details of these incidents (and much more) to the TalkPage. PR^talk 15:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese World War II destroyers

I authored this article as one of a series to outline the development of these ships and to draw together the various class articles; it's not intended to include detailed info better sited elsewhere. Initial ratings varied between "start", "C" and "B" and, in an attempt to meet the comments, the article has expanded. There are disagreements on ratings and presentation. The peer review would involve a wider audience and, hopefully, lead to a consensus on expectations. Also, new sources and advice would be welcomed. Folks at 137 (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

LordAmeth

Going through the article, I notice a lot of small mistakes in capitalization, spelling, and translation. I've tried to catch and fix as many as I could, but I would suggest keeping an eye out for these kinds of mistakes.

• "Allies" or "Allied" should always be capitalized when referring to "the Allies", i.e. US, UK, USSR.
• IJN should always have "the" before it when it is used as a noun. For example "The IJN suffered one problem..."; when used as a descriptor, as in "IJN destroyers" or "IJN officers", the "the" is not necessary, of course, based on context.
• Macrons. Destroyers Yūgumo and Ōshio should never be written as "Yugumo" and "Oshio". I'm not sure how many others I missed.
• Translation. I fixed a number of these; for example, Matsu is written as 松 and means "pine tree", not "bamboo", which is written 竹 and pronounced take. Shiratsuyu, meaning "White Dew", is written as 白露。 It might be a good idea to take the time to doublecheck the kanji and translation for all of these.

Also, I feel that the opening paragraph is a little too "military history", that is, a bit too technical. It should introduce the topic in simple, layman's terms, and move on to details (such as talk about the Type 93 torpedo, which might mean something to military history buffs, but is a bit too technical to me) in the following paragraph, or later. If possible, it might also be good to somehow phrase the opening sentence such that the topic of the article can be put in bold, as it is in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles.

All of that said, this is a fantastic article, and reflects tons of hard work. It's well on its way, I think, to being a Good or even Featured Article. Good work! LordAmeth (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the above points have been resolved by me or others. The first three bullet points are done, the opening para has been tweaked and filled out (although style is always subjective). A few points arise, however. I'm always uncertain about the use of letter variations (such as macrons) that aren't "native" to English and I'd understood that these were to be avoided - as in major reference works such as "Whitley". I'm completely ignorant about Japanese characters, the ones in the article were copied from other wiki articles or elsewhere - I must rely on the educated. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

With the macrons and such, it's really just a matter of your approach, or your POV, I suppose. From the point of view of English-language American/Western history, general (world) WWII history, military history or whathaveyou, yeah, I'm sure that a book like Whitley's, a military history book rather than being a Japanese history book, would ignore the subtleties of correctly representing Japanese words in English. And that's fine for where he's coming from. But check out any book on the subject written by a historian of Japan, rather than a (US/Global/non-Japan-specialty) military historian, and you'll find that they'll put more effort into representing the words accurately. Just like how "pinata" is not a word (rather than piñata), so too is Oshio rather than Ōshio an incorrect reflection of the spelling of the word in the original language. In any case, I'd be happy to look over the macrons, the kanji, and translations for you. No need to worry about it. LordAmeth (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. I'm still uncertain about use of macrons as I think that it's "alien" to English language presentation and distances the text from its audience; which is odd as I don't feel the same about the use French or German special characters. It's not a cause for difference, however. Pleaase have a look at my comments, below, on name translations. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cla68

• Great start on the article, but shouldn't it be titled, "Imperial Japanese Navy World War II destroyers"? I'll try to provide more comments soon Cla68 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• The article needs more references. Some books that should be available at the local library or used online for cheap are:

• D'Albas, Andrieu (1965). Death of a Navy: Japanese Naval Action in World War II. Devin-Adair Pub. ISBN 0-8159-5302-X.
• Dull, Paul S. (1978) A Battle History of The Imperial Japanese Navy ISBN 0-85059-295-X
• Evans, David C & Peattie, Mark R. (1997) Kaigun: strategy, tactics, and technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941 Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland ISBN 0-87021-192-7
• Hara, Tameichi (1961). Japanese Destroyer Captain. New York & Toronto: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-27894-1.
• Jentschura, Hansgeorg; Dieter Jung; Peter Mickel (1977). Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN 0-87021-893-X.

• An "operational history" section or something like that should list the contributions by the destroyers throughout Japan's Pacific War campaigns, such as acting as plane guard destroyers for the kido butai (aircraft carrier task forces), making up the Tokyo Express, failing to adequately guard Japan's strategic sealanes for various reasons, torpedo tactics in various surface battles with Allied ships, etc. Cla68 (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the name is correct: it is about destroyers of a particular period and all Japanese warships of that time would've been of the IJN. The name also conforms to previous usage and standards. I've "cherry-picked" the mentioned actions - perhaps that needs to be stated - as this sort of article can't be comprehensive. I selected purely destroyer actions, particularly where they demonstrate the tactical strengths and weaknesses of Japanese usage. I've added a mention of the convoy escort issue, but it could be emphasised more. I'll keep a lookout for the books you mention, but my family already mutters at the width and weight of bookshelves! Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand running out of space for more books, I have the same problem. It's just that each book gives a different perspective on the subject. Hara's book, for example, tells about how he wrote and proposed a new doctrine for torpedo attacks by destroyers, and about how it was accepted and had a significant impact on Japanese destroyer torpedo tactics during WWII. He also explains how IJN officers who specialized in destroyer operations were generally shut-out of top leadership positions in favor of "battleship" officers. Cla68 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

djwilms

I wonder whether you could consider providing an English translation in brackets after the names of the Japanese destroyers you mention in the table towards the end of the article. You include a tantalising sentence about how they were named after weather phenomena, and it would be nice if you can follow through on this. It would help to personalize them for readers who don't read Japanese. John Keegan did this very effectively in his book The Price of Admiralty for the Japanese ships engaged at the Battle of Midway.

Djwilms (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've thrown in the kanji and translation. LordAmeth (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That was quick work! I have just scrolled through them with great interest. Now I suppose I shall have to return the compliment with the names of all the Chinese ships I mention in my articles on the Sino-French War ...

Djwilms (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The translations are interesting and add colour to the subject, I already attempted to include info on class names. I'm uncertain, however, whether it's just adding "clutter" to add translations to what is just a subset. I would argue that these should be added to comprehensive lists such as List of ships of the Japanese Navy and/or List of Japanese Navy ships and war vessels in World War II. Links would then be added to this article. The point of the table was as a quick list of survivors, rather than scatter the names around the classes. Not a matter to quarrel over, more a matter of opinion. Should we be adding translations every time we use a Japanese (or Chinese, etc) name? There maybe scope for a general article on warship names - now there's a project!!! Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. Even as I was adding the kanji & translations, I was noticing how many lists of ships are scattered across different articles (not a bad thing, just the way it is), and wondering why I should be adding this information here and not elsewhere (as well/instead). Maybe I'll play around with it a bit more; remove the translations here, as you're right to say it's not the best place for it, just a quick list of survivors, not a comprehensive list of ships by any means, and add the kanji & translations elsewhere... LordAmeth (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

This article has been worked on with an aim of improving it to Featured Article status. Changes in content and layout have been done but I know that more is needed.Shinerunner (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Brad101

• Did a quick look and the obvious things would be more inline citations, there are several paragraphs without any.
• The article sections need to be redone so that they follow an order of first event to last event of the ship. And then the analytic sections should follow. There might be some sections that should be split off into articles of their own.
• Make sure all photos have valid and complete permissions.
• Trim down external links and see also sections. In a perfect world, an FA should not have any see also section.
• Trivia or pop culture sections are magnets for a never ending supply of trash being inserted into the article. Try to work trivia mentions into the main article where they apply.
• Recommend that you set your sights on GA first and go from there. The GA to A to FA helps shake out bugs along the way. --Brad (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tribal class destroyer (1936)

I'm currently working on this article for a while, trying to improve the article, but I can use some pointers as to how to proceed next. The article in my opinion does not qualify to be a B-class article but it is getting there. ThePointblank (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

the_ed17

This is a quick run-through before I go to bed:

• The lead is too short per WP:LEAD...make it a summary of the entire article.

I've expanded the lead somewhat, but it is a work in progress. ThePointblank (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSIMAGE, text should not be sandwiched between two images ("1941" section)
  •  Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Combine some of the 194_ sections, as one sentence sections are too short. (1943, 1944, Post-war)
• "The ships today" section is almost hidden under all of those tables...
  •  Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• If you want it to have a chance at B-class, many more in-line citations are needed everywhere...(including the tables)...if you want, tomorrow I'll take a gander through the article and add {{fact}} tags where cites are needed.
• Is U-boat.net reliable?

I have found it reliable; I have used the source multiple times in university papers, and none of my history professors have made any comments that the source was not reliable. But as a precaution, I have posted a request at WP:RSN to double check, and will have a result. ThePointblank (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the source is deemed reliable enough, as the facts are not controversial enough, but it would be nice to gain access to their sources. ThePointblank (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe shoot them an e-mail? I dunno... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Anyway, I hope that this helped! Drop me a line on my talk page if you want me to add the {{fact}} tags...cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and be as critical as you can be. I can really use the feedback. ThePointblank (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has to have in-line citations to even approach B-class...that's going to be the complaint of every other person who comes here. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to know where so I can add them in, so be as critical as you can. ThePointblank (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you meant now. I have class tomorrow, so I'm going to bed right after this (=]) but I'll run through it at some point tomorrow to add the tags. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, unless you really want me to litter the article with those tags, I'll go off of what Saberwyn said: try to cite everything, as it will help you get through those higher levels if you cite everything you add now.

Try these things that have helped me with my articles:

• • • • • • Google Books, use the "Only limited and full preview" option though. Basically, with that option, you can read books online for free! :D :D :D
          • If you could get your hands on Naval Weapons of World War Two by John Campbell... [(1985), Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-87021-459-4]... (is this on Google Books?)
          • Talk to User:Trekphiler about this book—Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. (1978). Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare, Volume 1. London: Phoebus.
          • Conway's

Anyway, hope that these help. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, as evidenced on the USS Nevada (BB-36)'s FAC, Hazegray (current ref#2) is not reliable... very unfortunately. Nevada got through A-class with it becuase it was borderline, but I had to get rid of it during the FAC. It's your choice to replace it or not, but if you find a different source that says the same thing, you may as well replace it. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Also, don't do what I did on Nevada! When using {{cite web}}, use the "non-linked retrieval date" i.e.

{{cite web |url= |title= |accessmonthday=October 30 |accessyear=2008 |last= |first= |date= |work= |publisher= }}

Why? Because the people at FAC will make you go through and change every ref so that the dates are not linked... Easier to format them right when you add them in! =/ (I got lucky—Maralia did it for me. =]) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Done ThePointblank (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, try Global Security too. :) —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 07:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Saberwyn

One drive-by observation: I'm really uncomfortable with the section "The ships today", both as a heading an as a section (as it currently only contains two dot points. One idea might be to expand this out to a "Fates" (or other heading) section, which deals with what happened to the class as a whole (I know its listed in the ship tables above, but having that information in some nice, meaty paragraphs is also good). In this section, you could cover how many were lost to enemy action (and highlight any particularly noteworthy losses), how many were scrapped and any decisions influencing the scrapping (i.e. is there a reason three Canadian ships were scrapped in the same year? Why were Canadian and Australian ships kept in service longer than their Britsh counterparts? etc. - no panic if there isn't actually a reason for these), what classes replaced the Tribals in the various navies, as well as the current information on one museum ship and one dive site.

As for the citation issue raised by the ed_17 above, when I work on articles I attempt to cite everything, in order to head off issues like challenged facts or unverifiability (I personally believe that every fact can be challenged, and this can bog down any future attempts at A-class, Good Article, and/or Featured Article status). I prefer books to websites, and citations should include the specific page number the statement was derived from.

In other news, I'd personally like to see

a little more content in the "Service" section

a reduction in the wikilinks to really common terms (things like dates, countries, and measurements - see WP:MOSDATE and WP:OVERLINK)

 Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Spell out measurements and terms... non-maritime people do not have an idea what an o/a is, and non-Imperial-measurement people will be confused by references to "4.7^{quote mark} guns".

 Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Could use a text copyedit, but then again, what article couldn't benefit from one?

Hit me on my talk page if you need any help or clarification. -- saberwyn 07:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314

A bit of advice re; the lead. Copy this page's lead. Furthering what Saberwyn said; Survivors is another good one. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See earlier comment ThePointblank (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, there is only one survivor, which is why I rolled it in with "Fates". An entire section in the class article for one ship seems excessive. -- saberwyn 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you guys whether you deem it necessary or not, I agree that "Survivors" may not be appropriate then. However the word "Fates" sounds very peculiar. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, how do you guys think just Fate sounds? The article is about the class after all, and this is "the fate of the class". Ryan4314 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL spent an hour rewriting the "fates" section today, and now it's been completely rewritten. I admit the new version is better, just wish Saberwyn had rewrote the section before I did, could've done something else with that hour :( Ryan4314 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Progress As of [1]

So how do you guys think of the progress so far? I want to expand the introduction some more (aiming for 2 paragraphs), and I will finish citing and expanding the subsections 1942, 1944, and Post-War sections (I may just dump the Post-War section and merge it with the "Fates" section (I might rename it to Post-War or something else). ThePointblank (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking MUCH better! Your plan is good too, as the lead is still too short. Again, consider merging some of the years (i.e. 1940–1941 etc, making sure to use an endash) and it would be a good idea to merge Post-war and Fates, as they talk about (mostly) the same things. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, how about the current page as is? I've done the merge of the two sections, and finished the citations and minor expansions of the service part. ThePointblank (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead still needs expanding, a lot, it would be ideal to make it look similar to the one here. As the author of an FA class warship article, I'd recommend just copying it and changing the relevant information. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, try copying and combining the intros from Iowa class battleship and Alaska class battlecruiser. (These are class articles =]) —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 17:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

An even better idea, although don't forget the Iowa article is FA. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Progressing quite nicely. I've done a bit of a copyedit and thrown some {{fact}} tags down where I think you really need a supporting citation, but overall it is starting to take shape. -- saberwyn 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress As of November 26 2008

I've done some more work citing the article, and making modifications as I felt necessary. One question however; for a article on a class of ships, does the picture in the infobox has to be one of the lead ship, as I have located another picture in a different article that I feel is of better quality. ThePointblank (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the top pic should be one that best illustrates the ship. If this is not the class lead, so be it. -- saberwyn 05:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

However, use of the museum ship Haida poses a slight problem, as a different photo from almost the same angle is used to illustrate the "Post-war" section. I suggest replacing this second image with something showing a different view of Haida. -- saberwyn 06:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done ThePointblank (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also done more expansion of the service history of the class; most of the service data for the British and Canadian ships are largely done for the World War II period, while I still need to work on the Australian history as well. I would also need more information on the post war service for both the Australian and Canadian Tribals to continue to flesh out the article. ThePointblank (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)