Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Nevada (BB-36)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

USS Nevada (BB-36)

I am nominating this because I've worked on it for a lot of hours over the last few days and got it through a GA-review, and I think that it is a good enough article to pass A-class as well. Happy reviewing and cheers, the_ed17 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I'm thrilled to see this moving up the assessment ladder, but I do have a few questions:
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • http://spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2008/01/spitfires-in-us-navy.htm
      • It isn't, but the magazine article that is on this particular page of this website is...should I just cite the article instead using {{cite journal}}? (It says on the bottom of the page that "This article was first published in Naval Aviation News, May-June 1994") the_ed17
        • Replaced with Ref #16 from USS Texas (BB-35).
    • http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/uss_nevada_bb36_data.htmremoved —the_ed17— 01:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if it is (obviously meaning that it probably isn't.). However, I'm going to leave it there until MBK004 replies to a question I asked him about what those source; if he has a book that I can use to source those instead, I will use the book. the_ed17
        • I'll reply here. I've found a replacement online source that will stand for the info about the sinking, but nothing yet about the re-gunning. The replacement is the Naval Vessel Register: [1], which also needs to be accompanied by the following template, {{NVR}} just like {{DANFS}}. Also, Tom the Iowa participated. Perhaps something for that article? -MBK₀₀₄ 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
          • She killed her own brethren?!?!? =D Thanks MBK004!!! the_ed17 02:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
            • There's precedent for the fratricide: New York and Texas sank Washington in 1924. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Our government at work. =) Cheers, the_ed17 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Indeed :) I think that we can work in a mention of this "friendly" fire incident in the Iowa article, but I think its going to have a wait just a little while longer becuase I have to do anymore thinking in the next 60 minutes my brain in going to spring a leak and then I am not going to remeber anything I studied or read today for callage.
  • Consider removing the header "Service life"; as the entire article is essentially just that there really isn't any reason to have that as the lead header.
    • 'Service Life' is there to distinguish her life from her 'Design and Construction' section...should I remove it anyway and bump up the header levels for the rest? the_ed17
      • What I am getting at is that 90% of your article is service life, so it would IMO be better to remove that header and instead rely on the other headers in the article for sectional seperation. This was suggested at an FAR on USS Wisconsin (BB-64), the argument was that if the entire article was serivice history it would be better to have the WWII, Korean War, and Gulf war headings as main heading rather than being subordinate to a mast "service life" heading. Incidentally, this format has also been adopted by Brad during his continual update of the frigate USS Constitution. I bring it up here becuase I figure that it will be an FA issue, so its something I wanted you to think about before getting to the FAC page.
        • Alright then,  Done. Thanks for the clarification! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! the_ed17 00:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: I believe that all copy & pasted DANFS text has been modified now...per this debate here. the_ed17 02:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support.
  • I would consider renaming the "Between the Wars" section to something like "Interwar period," that sounds more encyclopedic.
    •  Done
  • "The overhaul took about a year; after, the battleship looked like a South Dakota-class battleship.[21]" That sentence sounds rather awkward, might it be better to have afterwords instead of after?
    • Does this sound better? "The overhaul took about a year and made the old battleship look similar in appearance to a South Dakota-class battleship.[21]"
      • Yeah, that looks good.
  • Link "the invasion of Southern France" in at the beginning of that section to Operation Dragoon.
    •  Done
  • Throughout that section there were a variety of grammatical errors and awkward phrases, which I've attempted to fix.
  • Thanks!
• Other than those issues, it looks great. Good job and good luck at FA. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason for the amount of awkwardness is/was due to me trying to not use copy-and-pasted DANFS text anywhere...I had a few complaints about it from doncram.... Thank you for reviewing the article! the_ed17 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • ...that incidentally was the reason I tried to rely less on DANFS while rewriting USS Iowa (BB-61). I figure this is the best premptive stike against any formal recognition of the plagerism piece. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I know...but I understand where they are coming from! Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Its a good article, but I am still a little concerned about those two sources. That doesn't bother me enough to oppose, but I would recommend asking about them at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or removing them from the article before heading for FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Left message at the noticeboard. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 22:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Replaced one of those two sources with Ref #16 from USS Texas (BB-35)...and I have MBK004 hunting for an alternate source for the other...if he can't find it, I'll remove it. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support now. I strongly suggest it needs a copyedit before an FAC. Other than that, my comments have been met. The images all seem to be licensed correctly, seems comprehensive, is well-sourced. Meets the criteria in my opinion. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, mainly prose problems.

Woody's resolved prose problems

{{{2}}}

• Date formats: having recently audited the dates of many US battleship articles and a smaller number of US military aircraft articles, I can safely say that nearly all of them (> 95%) use international DF. Until the whole autoformatting thing came up at MOSNUM, I hadn't realised that the US military uses international DF. It's written into the current proposals for new guidelines on the selection of DF. Tony (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, thank you very much for the help! Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The sectioning still needs work. There should not be a main section == immediately followed by a subsection === The design section really doesn't need 3 subsections in that short of space. The references section is also a mess. --Brad (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that? Regardless, though, I changed it.  Done
  •  Done
  • What, exactly, is wrong with it??? Saying that it's "a mess" does not help me fix it! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 13:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I took a try at it? Probably easier than trying to explain. --Brad (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead. =) Thanks! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. What you think now? --Brad (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, but I added the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" section again—every other 'slice' of WWII has its own heading, so Pearl deserves one too. If this violates a guideline that is buried somewhere in the MoS, then I'm gonna go and cite WP:IAR.... =) Sorry. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your referencing is a bit heavy on the danfs article. Any possible way to reduce the cites to danfs by about half? What is the idea with all the "Quotes" throughout the article? And in the last sentence of the article "As of 2008" automatically makes your article obsolete. --Brad (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really...as with most U.S. warship articles, DANFS is the primary source, but I can't use one cite for an entire paragraph because all of the paras have more than one source (with the exception of the "Okinawa and Japan" section)!

Third party references are not found at the DANFS article. They would be first party references. Would serve ok as secondary references but not primary. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean the quotes like "huge engineering advantage"? I put them there because they are borderline POV, and quoting the source directly removes that problem.

Removed. =) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The article meets the term {{Quotefarm}} in its present state. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed a few of the quotes; does it look better now? ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondarily, using the disambig finder Third Fleet and bulkhead are used in the article...but I can't seem to find them! Can anyone help? (F.y.i. USS Nevada doesn't count because that is from the {{Otherships}} template.) Thanks, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I found them all. Quotes look better as well. --Brad (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment the footnotes satisfy MOS. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.