Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Nevada (BB-36)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 [1].

USS Nevada (BB-36)[edit]

Nominator(s): —the_ed17—


I'm nominating this article to be featured because it recently passed an A-class review and I feel that it is ready/almost ready. I'm not entirely sure about the quality of the prose, as I added chunks of info from different sources at different times... Basically, I fear that I am too close to the article and I missed some prose issues. =) Hopefully, there are none... Cheers! :D —the_ed17— 18:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • References check out with the link checker, though the fourth external link is dead.
    • removed
  • What makes http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_dr.htm#nev-cl a reliable source?
    • I believe so. All of the WP:MILHIST reviewers didn't have a problem with it in its A-class review.
      • See below about how to show something is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could almost copy and paste TomStar's second sentence below right here; "The information contained on the cite has been repeatedly check by me against second and third party sources, and has always agreed with the source checks, so I regard the site as reliable, if that means anything." Hazegray has always been accurate when compared with other sources; in fact, I believe that most of the citations that Hazegray provides make statements double-cited (double sure!). Does it really cite contentious information? I'd rather leave it in because it's the only citation I found that said it was in refit for all of 1942...otherwise it wouldn't be a problem... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm is reliable, but another opinion would be appreciated.
    • Iowa class battleship's ref #49 uses this site too, and that article is featured. (And recently went through a FAR)
      • I'll just note that the site was still unstruck at the end of the FAR, no rationale for why it's a reliable site has yet been put forward. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The page herein is sited to the Iowa clas battleship preservation society, a group that is dedicated to preserving information on the Iowas. The information conatined on the cite has been repeatedly check by me against second and third party sources, and has always agreed with the source checks, so I regard the site as reliable, if that means anything. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Was I the only one to notice that I did exactly what that dispatch said not to do? (The dispatch: "Saying "It's used in 15 other featured articles": OtherStuffExists isn't a valid argument." What did I do? "[This article] uses that ref too") ...sorry! =/ —the_ed17— 05:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/36a.htm ditto with above.
    • I'm not sure if it is reliable, but the info is from the New York Times and only repeated on that site.
      • Maybe pull that info from the NYT itself then? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ....the other shoe drops: it's the NYT from 1915...how in heck do I find an article that old?? —the_ed17— 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A newspaper archive? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Specifically here. The wonderful thing about the NYT is that they have put up a good chunk of their archives... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Holy mother of pearl...that is a lot of articles, and the source doesn't mention what day the caption is from... I'll go hunting, but I won't have time for that hunting until this afternoon/possibly tommorrow. —the_ed17— 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Late, late notice, but I found the article (I think it's the same one; regardless, the articles same the same thing methinks). Thank you very, very much for the link, as I got three sources outta that!!! Cheers, —the_ed17— 15:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is http://www.acepilots.com/ships/nevada.html reliable?
    • It's not—but the image that appears on the site is an official U.S. Navy paper, and that is what I'm using from the page.
      • Is it possible to get the information from the Navy paper, instead? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How would I cite it? The image is in the article, by the way, if you want ot look at it; it is the very last one, I believe...) —the_ed17— 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again: http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/usn/BB-36.html
    • Hmmm I really don't know. Any other opinions? (The info it has isn't controversial, by the way, I believe that it only references that the wreck of the ship has never been found...)
  • Otherwise, sources look good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some issues I noticed in a quick glance:

  • The order in which you present the sourcing subsections—Bibliography, Notes, References—is strange to me for a couple reasons. First, these sections are usually presented in descending order of relevance to the article text (Notes, References, Bibliography using your section headers). Secondly, the order you used dissociates the References from the Bibliography.
    • Go Sandy! (she changed it)
  • 'See also' sections are for internal links to relevant articles. Your See also section lists other books on the topic; the best name for this would be Further reading (since you have already used 'Bibliography' in its other meaning).
    • Go Sandy!
  • Please tweak the Bibliography to consistently list authors by last name, first name (since that's the format you use in the References).
    • Go Sandy!
  • Some of your references have wikilinked accessdates. You can achieve unlinked accessdates in most citation templates by replacing the accessdate= parameter with accessyear= and accessdaymonth=.
    • =( I'll go through and change them.
      • Doing this changes the refs to "01-09 2008", which I don't like at all. Wouldn't it be simpler to change the {{cite web}} template so that it doesn't link the dates?
  • Formatting of page citations needs minor attention for consistency in punctuation (Bonner, 105. vs Wallin, 212–213). Note that dashes in page ranges should be endashes.
    • Will do.
      • Done and done.
  • Most, if not all, of the image captions are nominal groups—not complete sentences. These should not have ending punctuation.
    • Done.
  • Inch or the abbreviation 'in' should be used with the figures in the armor thickness section of the infobox. Additionally, when giving a range, the unit of measure should only be given once (not 13.5"–8", but rather 13.5–8 in).
    • Will do also!
      • Done.

These are all minor formatting issues; I'll try to get back for a full read of the article soon. Maralia (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, shoulda read here first :-) When I take my first look at new FACs, I almost always correct ACCESS and LAYOUT issues :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. =) —the_ed17— 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments'

  • I've had to learn to live with "she" for ships, but there are an awful lot in the lead. Can you vary it a little? ("the Nevada"? "the ship"?). I see you use just Nevada further down; wouldn't it take "the" before it?
    • Any other opinions on "the"? I believe that you are not supposed to use it..I think that the ship is thought of almost as a person, and therefore has no "the". Am I right? (I've been wrong before...) —the_ed[[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|17]— 13:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • En dash for year ranges.
    • Will hunt these down.
      • Dumb question...where? (I put one in the Bibliography, put I think that I overlooked what you are talking about...)
  • Ellipsis dots are ... spaced. See MOS.

Looks good. Tony (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: with information I just added, I compare Nevada to Oregon, Connecticut and Delaware. However, do I use "BB-3", "BB-18" and "BB-26"? These designations did not start until 1920...and I'm in the pre-1915 part of the article (Design and construction). Any military history buffs want to help? (I'll post this on the WP:MILHIST talk page too.) —the_ed17— 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The are a few things I have questions about.

  • First, in the opening paragraph, you have the sentence "Nevada served in both World Wars: in World War I, she was attached to the British Grand Fleet until the end of the war; in World War II, she was one of the battleships moored in Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked it." The "it" at the end is Peral Harbor, but in this case it may be better state that rather than imply that becuase it could be construed as meaning Nevada, and that would put your article at odds with naming conventions since ships need to be all "she/her" or all "it".
    • Changed to: "Nevada served in both World Wars: in World War I, she was attached to the British Grand Fleet until the end of the war; in World War II, she was one of the battleships that was sunk when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor." Is that better?
  • In the first section, you have the lines "Their tonnage was almost three times larger than the USS Oregon (BB-3) and almost twice as large as the USS Connecticut (BB-18). Also, the class was 8,000 tons heavier than one of the original American dreadnoughts, the USS Delaware (BB-28).[9]" Here the problem is plurality, we have two or more of one thing; which suggests that we are dealing with a class of ships, but the wording implies that we are only talking about one ship in a class (if there is a class, some of these lower battlewagons don't have a class). This needs to be resolved.
    • Changed to:

The Nevada class marked "another graduated step in the rapidly evolving American battleship".[10] When Nevada was originally built, The New York Times remarked that the new warship was "the greatest [battleship] afloat"[9] because her tonnage was nearly three times larger than the USS Oregon (BB-3) and almost twice as large as the USS Connecticut (BB-18). In addition, Nevada was 8,000 tons heavier than one of the original American dreadnoughts, the USS Delaware (BB-28).[9]

  • In the interwar year, the last sentence is "Nevada then served in the Pacific Fleet for the next eleven years." Do we know what she was doing? I don't expect anything too important, but it might be nice to see if anything pops up in her history during this time. I will not hold this against you if you can not find any information, this is merely an "I am curious" question.
    • A guess is that Bonner has that on Page 104, but Google Books won't let me view that page, (I don't own the book!) DANFS is where the "eleven years" statement came from, and Battleships in the U.S. Navy is a general overview of battleships and does not have that info.
  • Attack on pearl harbor, first sentence: "During the attack on Pearl Harbor, Nevada was not moored side-by-side with another battleship off Ford Island, and therefore was able to maneuver, an ability that was denied to the other eight battleships that were present." There are two problems with this statement: first, there were a total of eight battleships present, but this phrasing suggests that there were actually nine, eight other battleships and USS Nevada, not eight battleships including USS Nevada. This should be easy to fix. The other problem deals with manuvering: it is technically correct to note that the other battleships could not move, but IMO it should be noted of of the other seven battleships six were anchored at Ford Island; the seventh, USS Pennsylvania, had been drydocked before the attack and thus was not anchored at Ford Island during the air raid.

Otherwise it looks good. Well Done!

    • I can not believe that I overlooked that...-_- Did you like the note I added? (Note:A6) Thanks for the comments Tom! —the_ed17— 23:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The "A6"mentioned note was a great addition :) It looks good, and as such now has my support. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone help me a bit with the Pearl Harbor map I added? It's huge because the key doesn't fit if it isn't huge!! -_-
  • need to re-word this sentence, 'cos I have too many "first"s....how?
    • "The class marked many firsts for U.S. Navy battleships: they were the first to have triple gun turrets,[11] to have a single funnel,[12] to have anti-aircraft guns,[13] and the first to be fired with oil instead of coal,[13][14] which gave them an engineering advantage.[8]" Thanks for the help, —the_ed17— 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could move this to the class page and that would solve your problem. If you needed it reworded, how about "The class was the first to have triple gun turrets, a single funnel, anti-aircraft guns, and introduced oil fired power plants which would give them an engineering advantage over earlier coal fired plants." TomStar81 (Talk) 03:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remind me aagain: who says that you suck at grammar? —the_ed17—
    • Also, with regard to images: the commons linker is there for a reason; if the people complain about the absence of images you can always tell them that the article's images are set and that there are additional images at the commons. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to get rid of the key, I think, because it has no bearing on this article...then I can get the map smaller. Thanks! —the_ed17— 03:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's nothing wrong with Tom's grammar—it's his spelling that makes me weep :) You should, though, add an 'and' in that sentence to complete the list ("gun turrets, a single funnel, and anti-aircraft guns, and introduced"). Regarding that map: I would make sure the key is linked on the map image page, but I wouldn't include the key on this article, as the gradient between most of the colors is so vanishingly small that it's not very helpful. Maralia (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • D 'And' is being added now. I will add the link now to the key in too...and the key is already out of the article :).
  • Support—I just commented before. But please note that supports carry only minor weight here. More important is the addressing of critical comments. Range en dash: I can't find it either. Just one substantive matter: the real value of the dollar amounts in 1912 was HUGE. When I looked at the $5M cost, I though, nah, that can't be right. It is very misleading. I wonder whether you might locate the table with dollar equivalents and insert the 2008 estimate. Anyone know where it is? There's a $50K amount, too. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't we abolish inflation so I don't have to do this? :D Serious now: where would I find the conversion table? Is there a template somewhere? I looked through the inflation article and couldn't find anything...so you mean Inflation adjustment? Thanks, —the_ed17— 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Brian's articles on the polar exploration has this sort of thing converted, use the site he uses. Check any of his antarctic or artic ones. (I don't have the site bookmarked because it doesn't go back to medieval money, unfortunately) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...who is Brian...? (Am I searching Wikipedia or the entire web?) —the_ed17— 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Southern Cross Expedition is one of his articles. Brian is User:Brianboulton. The website is Measuring Worth. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Does Brian's site account for the various specialty items? I adjusted for the cost of the Iowas in their class articles on the Consumer Price Index and left a note with the adjusted cost that the new cost did not take into account specialty items; if Brians's site does, then I may exchange his my site for his. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No clue, I've only ever used it on stallion articles for adjusting race purse sizes, total lifetime earnings, and stud fees, all of which, while certainly a niche type item, don't qualify as "specialty". Suggest reading the site to see... they offer like three or four different types of adjustment ratios. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Added in as notes A4 and A5. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 01:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Err... please take a closer look at the Measuring Worth site. The adjustment method you've used is the Consumer Price Index, which only works well with a broad basket of consumer goods. It's not the best method to use for a heavy industrial project like constructing a battleship. Majoreditor (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, I went off of the "it can be interpreted as how much money you would need today to buy an item in the year in question if its price had changed the same percentage as the average price change", but I'll remove it if someone else concurs with you (and I think that someone will :D). Cheers! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I copyedited the lead, made some MOS fixes, changed accessdate parameters in references (to remove linking on dates), and added a couple dates in the infobox from NVR. I will continue a copyedit later (headed out to run errands now), but it would help if you take a look at the changes I just made and carry on with fixing the accessdate formatting. One source comment:

  • The Abraitis source needs to be replaced. The author's site is indeed hosted at princeton.edu, but that doesn't mean he's a professor, nor would his being a professor mean he was an expert in a relevant field, nor would his being a professor in a relevant field mean that his website was necessarily a reliable source with appropriate fact-checking and publication controls. (Sorry if that comes across as condescending - just trying to explain where bad assumptions can trip you up when assessing a source's reliability.) In fact, at [2] Abraitis lists his occupation as "employed as a computer programmer by a "Prestigious Ivy League" institution".

Back for more copyediting later. Maralia (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I liked that copy-edit!! Thank you!
    • Plehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.................that's where assuming something comes back to get me. I'll stay with the NYT source then, which says "a little less than 600,000 gallons". —the_ed17— 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finished my copyedit. I left one hidden comment/question in the text. Are you still working on replacing some of the less-reliable sources? I haven't gone over the references in detail yet. Maralia (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh my goodness! Thank you! I saw the hidden comment, and tomorrow I'll leave a message for the guy who added that info in (Thewellman, I think? I'll check the history). References should be alright; Hazegray's info is reliable and none of the MILHIST A-class reviewers had a problem with it. The only non-RS is the Pacific wrecks.com one (the very last ref). I believe that it cites non-contentious information, but if the ref is seen as a problem, I'll remove it immediately. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 04:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments, mostly on references:

  • HyperWar is not an ideal source; the author lists a bibliography, but it's site-wide (not page-specific). I would consider it a tertiary source at best, since he cites both secondary and primary sources in his bibliography. HyperWar is used to support the commission date in the article text, and some portion of the armament section in the infobox. The commission date is sourced in the infobox to DANFS; let's use the same source for the citation in the article text. For the armament, there are so many sources cited at the end of the section that I can't tell which source supports which data, but I would prefer to try finding a more reliable source to substitute for HyperWar there.
    • ...it provides sources though! Per Ealdgyth above "...or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods". Here they are! Yes, they are site-wide, but it is sourced...
  • On a related note: I have a really hard time making sense of the armament section. There's so much information there, and almost nothing is linked (and 1920s should not be); it's just impossible to look up what guns she had at a given time. I'm sure I can come up with a better way to organize it, but this will just make it more necessary to break out the sources to clearly indicate which source supports which part of the armament text.
    • Have I improved it to your satisfaction?
  • I notice that Ealdgyth questioned whether battleship.org (the Iowa Class Preservation Society's site) is a RS, and Tom explained why he feels it is reliable. I have a simpler question: why not drop this citation as it is the least reliable source of the four sources cited for the same sentence?
    • Done :)
  • Please add the parameter |format=PDF to any cite x templates for references that link to PDFs (the NYT links are all PDFs).
    • Done.

Maralia (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Maralia I'm comfortable with the sourcing now. I gave the formatting a thorough going-over this morning:

  • Tweaked the armament section for similar formatting to rest of infobox
  • Removed HyperWar cite in armament as there were three other cites for the same fact
    • There was a reasone for that...sources conflict as to whether there were 2 or 4 torpedo tubes. I'm going with 2, and Hyperwar said that...
      • Hmph. So you say HyperWar, Hazegray, and The Battleship in the United States Navy say two, while Fitzsimons says 4. Well, DANFS says both Nevada and Oklahoma had 4 (4 21” tt). There's enough question that I would suggest you elaborate on this in a Note. For a defining tie-breaker, suggest trying to get your hands on Norman Friedman's U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History (check for a local copy here). Maralia (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Using Google Books, I found the book. It says 2 torpedo tubes as well. ([3] [Pg. 438])
          • That page indeed says 2, but Friedman explicitly says 4 elsewhere in the book, too. His books are incredibly accurate, but maddeningly difficult to wade through for one specific fact, as he tends to describe (and chart) specs throughout every step of the design process. I'll post more when I have some specific quotes. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced HyperWar cite on commission date with DANFS cite
  • Removed 'christened by' from infobox as the infobox is a mile long, the info is already in the main text, and we rarely put this (low importance) item in infoboxes anyway. Also moved the citation for it to the main text (which had a different cite)
  • Replaced templates on some New York Times citations; not sure why you used {{cite journal}} instead of {{cite news}}
  • Fixed date formatting in publication dates for NYT citations (they were using monthdayyear format but the rest of article uses daymonthyear)
  • Straightened out a weird problem where the converted draft figure (in meters) was listed under the Decks parameter
  • Added link to the NVR page into the {{NVR}} template
  • Removed a citation for an image as unnecessary
  • For the weird citation regarding her resembling the South Dakotas, I added the name of the book that the specs image was published in (Naval Recognition Manual) and the publication year (1943)
    • Thanks! I had no idea where the image was from...

Thanks for an interesting article. Apropos of nothing, may I ask why you picked this particular ship? Maralia (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! But that is a good question...I really don't know. For some reason that I can't remember, I've kinda "idolized" not the exact word I want, but w/e the ship since I became interested in Military History...so then I came here and I was like "Hmmm, I could improve this!"......so I did, and then it snowballed past the GA stage. =) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please address the non-reliable sources: I'm concerned about the sourcing that is getting past MilHist A-class lately. Also, pls see Wikipedia:Signature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I really don't know why you had to bold that.... And what does "streamlining" mean....I made the sig smaller with <small>, and the "vote" thing that I was doing for fun is on my talk page now. Is that what you wanted? —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More notes: There is a mixture in both the article and the citations of US-style and international-style dates, even within one sentence, which is it:
  • Her keel was laid down on 4 November 1912, and by August 12, 1914, the ship was 72.4% complete.
  • Both citations and the article need to have a consistent date style.
    • I believe that this is done.
  • Can you address the text squeezed between images in the first section, "Design"? I'm not sure how to fix it, since these ever increasing infoboxes are taking over almost the entire lengths of articles.
    • Not really....the images are really only relevant to that section, so they can't be moved down...
  • I don't know what's happening in the infobox: some of the "×" are spaced, some aren't. Please see what WP:MOS says or aim for consistency:
  • 10 × 14-inch (356 mm)/45-caliber guns (2×3, 2×2 ...
  • Done.
  • 30% to 40% of what? With this new armor scheme, the protection tonnage was increased from 30% (in the New York class) to 40%. Total tonnage? And what is "protection tonnage"? Please watch the WP:JARGON; in fact, a jargon check throughout would be helpful: why isn't Dreadnought linked in the first sentence ?
    • I think that "protection tonnage" is the total amount of tonnage in a ship devoted to armor. I re-worded the sentence. The source used 30% of the New York's tonnage--but then in the next section it remarked that armor was 40% of the Nevada's displacement. I'm not sure, but I think that these (tonnage & displacement) are different, so I changed the sentence to only remark upon the latter.
    • Done.
  • What makes Hyperwar a reliable source, per WP:SPS and WP:V? http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/about.html
    • Would you like me to change ref #49 to reference the actual communique and then use HyperWar as a convenience copy..?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/USS_Nevada_(BB-36)&oldid=1159448040"