Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Indiana (BB-1)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Promoted. EyeSerenetalk 07:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USS Indiana (BB-1)[edit]

Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has just passed GA nomination and this is the next step on it's way to FA status. It is the first ship article I have done and I have tried to incorporate feedback from the still ongoing A class review of Indiana class battleship as much as possible. My goal is to make the Indiana class into a featured topic eventually, so feedback from this review will also be used for her two sister ships. Yoenit (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - this article is lacking mention of the actual construction in prose, and the relevant dates are only listed in the infobox. The prose itself jumps from drawing-board to commissioning. I would expect that there would at least be a paragraph like I have done in USS Texas (BB-35). -MBK004 03:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I will get to work on it later today Yoenit (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a a few lines on the place of construction, laying down of the keel and launching, is this enough to address your concern about the lack of construction information and show the connection with WP:pennsylvania? Yoenit (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there anything on construction or commissioning in The New York Times' archive search? (use the 'advanced' searching to set specific dates) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is, but I am unsure if it should be included. From MBK's lack of response I gather the section still needs more expansion, so see below for the things covered in the NYT. Bolded text is going to be included in the next rewrite somewhere the next few days.
          • During actual construction there is only a single useful mention and that just says Harvey armor is being ordered. After constructing was completed in April/May 1894 there is some more info: Some testing of the armorplates (which are better covered in Reilly & Scheina, but not specific to Indiana), a minor shitstorm about the ship being docked in Canada for cleaning and some excitement about her trial trip in October. There are also loads of articles about her being commissioned, but they all boil to down to Indiana will be/is/was commissioned with Captain X in command, though I might use the commissioning location from that. Most interesting is actually a mention in 1907 that the shipyard lost a case for the supreme court, where they claimed money because the government was responsible for delaying Indiana's construction for two years. Yoenit (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm, it seems I should learn to search properly. I have found several more NYT articles now, covering the launching, reasons for the delay and preliminary trial trip. The section has been significantly expanded and now has references to six NYT articles. Further expansion is possible, but I am afraid of diving into trivia and WP:undue. Please comment. Yoenit (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Since this is an article about Indiana I don't see the point in mentioning the other ships of the class. Right now the construction reads like how a class article would be written. Brad (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My lack of response did not indicate that I thought the section needed any other action, my sister is graduating from school and I've been understandably busy and unable to devote more than an hour or two a night to wikipedia, for the next day or so. Accordingly I've struck my oppose since the information I asked for was added, but I do have to agree with Brad above that the section should only mention Indiana and that the section does read more like how the class article should be than an article on an individual ship. Please see USS Connecticut (BB-18) for how an article on a US pre-dreadnought which should be laid out (assuming the ship was a member of a class and not unique). You've placed too much emphasis on the technical/design in the section than what is appropriate for this article as opposed to the class article. After I comprehensively review this article in a few days, this may be a major sticking point in my eventual !vote... -MBK004 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would probably be because the information in that section is mostly literally from the Indiana class battleship article, converting it to just talk about the Indiana is no problem, nor is removing the technical/design stuff (if I compare the article to the connecticut that would just mean deletion of the last three paragraphs of the design and construction section). I will probably get around to it somewhere this weekend. Yoenit (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my issues have been resolved and I've also fixed a ship name issue in the post-Spanish American war since USS Texas (1892) was renamed San Marcos in 1911 to free that name for USS Texas (BB-35). -MBK004 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • There are no dab links, the external links all check out, all images have alt text and the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required);
    • Citation style is inconsistent in one place - footnote # 8 (Chesneau et al) appears to be a long citation while in other footnotes you have (correctly) used a variation of the short footnote style (with the full citation in the Bibliography);
    • The first sentence in the 'Early career' section should be reworked ("Indiana was commissioned on 20 November 1895 under the command of Captain Robley D. Evans, nicknamed "Fighting Bob Evans") as it seems choppy;
    • I would like to see the article copy edited in some places as there are a few other examples of similar prose;
      • Once I again it seems like Dank is already doing just that. Yoenit (talk)
    • Lastly, would it be possible to code the citation templates so they are linear with no spaces between each cell, rather than vertical? Its a minor nitpick I know but it makes editing the article quite difficult.

For example:

{{Cite book
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title =
| publisher =
| date =
| location =
| pages =
| url =
| doi =
| id =
| isbn = }}

Becomes:

{{Cite book|last=|first=|authorlink=|coauthors=|title=|publisher=|date=|location=|pages=|url=|doi=|id=isbn=}} Anotherclown (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers for that, actually there is also a large number of these templates used through out the body of the article and they were primarily the ones I was referring to. If these could also receive similar treatment that would be fantastic. Anotherclown (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Anyone feel like tackling the copyediting? I got the first 3 paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nevermind, I got it, per the usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am gonna glance it over right now, but I don't really count. Many thanks Dank, have I told you you are awesome? Yoenit (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • One sentence in the lead seemed awkward now so I tried to fix it, no other comments on your copyediting. Yoenit (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Top effort fellas, it reads quite well now. All my concerns have been satisfied so striking all and moving to support. Overall, IMO this article is a well written piece about a very interesting topic. Anotherclown (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, for your review, your copy-editing, your support and your compliment Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Overall looks fine, just a couple of nitpicks from me:
    • Citation # 4 (Bryan BC) seems a bit strange, there is a full stop after 2010 and then also a comma and a clause which ends without a full stop. Can you please check the punctuation with this citation? Perhaps it makes sense to put the comment about "rounded average calculated from the experimental data in this paper, with BB-1 and BB-2 lumped together" in a Footnote rather than a citation?
    • the title in Citation # 8 (Conways) needs to be capitalised as it is in the References, i.e. "Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1860–1905" as opposed to "Conway's all the worlds fighting ships, 1860–1905". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I see no need to explain freeboard as well as linking to it, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/USS_Indiana_(BB-1)&oldid=1138359577"