Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Asheville-class gunboat (1917)

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

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Asheville-class gunboat (1917)[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the standards for A class, or at least is close enough that it could meet them with help from others. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Maury Markowitz[edit]

Ok well right off the bat, "a group of two gunboats". What is a group? Do you mean a class?
Done
"first ship was named as Tulsa" - "the first ship was the USS Tulsa"... "The second was the USS Asheville"...
Done
As both ships have their own articles, the explanation of their names is not germane here.
Done
Don't you think the force they operated for should be mentioned in the lede?
Done

Let's stop there for the moment, getting the lede right should be a priority. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: I believe I have done all you have mentioned thus far. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Do you have anymore comments? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my appologies, I've been off for a bit. Looks good now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

Where are the design/development/characteristics sections? Class articles focus on the technical details of a group of ships, how the design was prepared, that sort of thing. For an example of what the article should look like, see Camäleon-class gunboat
Done? There isn't much I've been able to find on their design, other than that they were based upon the Sacramento.
What are the relevant construction dates? The best option would be to replace the line in the Construction section with a table like in the article linked above
Done
Prose issues identified at random (this is by no means meant to be exclusive:
- No "the" before ship names
  Done
- US topic, use US spellings
- Lots of "it"s and "she"s - standardize on one per WP:SHE4SHIPS
  Done
- "World War II", not "World War Two"
- Done
- "the Inshore Patrol, who guarded" - which guarded
  Done
- "Tulsa put up a spirited defense" - this is not encyclopedic language
  Done
Ditch the note for "show the flag" and link to wikt:show the flag instead. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done
@Parsecboy: I believe I've done everything, although the design section might need more work to mirror the Camaleon article standard. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A relevant source you're going to want to include is US Small Combatants by Friedman - that will get you the design history stuff. I also spy two "metres", by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  @Parsecboy: I have ordered the book, as I could not find it online; it should arrive within a week or two. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  @Parsecboy and The ed17: I have added all I could from the Friedman book. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a lot of material in Friedman that's elided here. I'd think more details are better than fewer, especially since this article is not so long. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy: I have re-read the two pages, and added all I could. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's more context that can be added. I don't have access to the book in the office, but I'll try to whip up and example of what I'm talking about tonight. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is the kind of thing I'm looking for. Parsecboy (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be technical information in Conway's 1906-1921 that could be added. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and added material from Conway's, but at this point I've done too much work on the article to be uninvolved. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:USS_Tulsa_(PG-22).png is tagged as lacking author info, and source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done

~~Comment~~ - made a bunch of copyedits. Open to supporting once Friedman is checked. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: Do you have anymore comments/concerns? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes navy.togetherweserved.com and Navsource reliable? I'm pretty sure the former isn't reliable, and the latter is borderline (I'd lean not). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: Both have been removed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: Do you have anymore concerns? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments by auntieruth[edit]

I've read this through. The article is very choppy, and I think the writing could be more conducive to drawing the reader in. The lead is especially choppy and short...It needs a seriously good copy-edit for style and readability. auntieruth (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, Ruth, I had a go at this myself in the interests of trying to get this review finalised. These are my edits: [1]. Please let me know if you think it needs more work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

suggest mentioning that the boilers were Thornycroft Bureau Modified steam boilers in the text (currently only mentioned in the infobox)

Done

suggest adding a second level 3 sub heading under the "Design" header to balance/off set the sub header used for Characteristics

Done

not sure about having a level three sub header for "Citations" nested directly under a level 2, when there is no other subsection. Suggest just going with a single level 2 header here based on the style you are attempting to employ

Done

the table in the Ships section needs inline citations for A-class

Done

"It was originally built to hold a crew of...": suggest changing "It" to a collective noun rather than a singular

Done

@AustralianRupert: I believe they've all been done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Looks like you've got a few comments outstanding. Any progress? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I haven't been on Wikipedia much as of late, since school has just started for me, but I should be back in the swing of things soon-ish. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes look good. Nice work, continuing the review below. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"File:USS Little 4 inch gun and crew 1918 h41705.jpg": this would be more visually appealing if cropped to remove the annotation at the top of the image
is there place of publication for Silverstone?
minor inconsistency in presentation: "Annapolis, Md" or just "Annapolis"? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed most of these myself. Happy to support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

What makes Hall of Valor RS?

It's borderline; its written by an editor for Military Times, and claims to have an indepednat vetting process for claims, i.e. consulting official databases. Its only used for the one citation, and as you pointed out DANFS has much the same, and the details aren't needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to find a more reliable source for the # of crewmen lost and surviving. What does DANFs say?

DANFS only mentions that only one person survived.

All the stuff about Brown is irrelevant here.

Done

Watch for rounding errors in your conversions.
The first two sentences in the lede could profitably be combined. And the bit about the battle stars needs to be linked and moved to the end of the lede.

Done

Bureu is misspelled in the main body?

I'm not able to find where Bureau is being misspelled. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the cities for which they are named.

Done

"Experience operating off Mexico" should be linked to United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution

Done

More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Just realized I forgot to ping you that I've done them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.