Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS New York (BB-34)

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

USS New York (BB-34)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)

USS New York (BB-34) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hello all! I sincerely regret having sort of disappeared suddenly, and for my lame-duck stint as coord. Some unexpected life events happened in late 2013 that essentially eliminated my ability to edit with quantity or consistency. That said I wanted to push up the articles I had improved at the time but hadn't had the chance to put through FAC and ACR, starting with my contribution to the battleships project, here. —Ed!(talk) 22:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Ed, nice work. I have a few observations/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • a couple of the external links appear to be 404/dead now: [1]
  • Several terms appear to be overlinked: 14"/45 caliber gun; Babcock and Wilcox; Hugh Rodman; United States Atlantic Fleet; 5"/51 caliber gun;
  • in the Sources; the Beigel work appears to be out of alphabetical order and is inconsistently formatted when compared to the others;
  • in the Sources is there an OCLC or ISBN for the Joes work?
  • I wonder if a couple of the images could be cropped to remove the borders. For instance, the two images in the Design and construction section;
  • inconsistent date: in the infobox "Commissioned: 15 April 1914", but in the body "commissioned on 15 May 1914"
  • inconsistent: "beam of 95 feet 6 inches (29.11 m)" (in the body of the article) v. "Beam: 95.2 ft (29.0 m)"
  • inconsistent: "draft of 28 feet 6 inches (8.69 m)" v. "Draft: 28.5 ft (8.7 m)"
    • Not sure how the rounding algorithm is affecting this or how to correct, but those are the same measurements. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • typo? " 1926-26"
  • inconsistent: "maximum speed of 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph" v. "Speed: 20 kn (23 mph; 37 km/h)"
  • "1940–1941" should be "1940–41" per WP:DATERANGE
  • "carried 21 5 inch 51 cal" --> "carried twenty-one 5 inch 51 cal" to avoid confusion caused by the two numbers appearing close together
  • "1925-6" --> probably should be "1925-26" for consistency
  • inconsistent: "upper casemate had 6 inches (150 mm) of armor" v. "Upper casemate: 6.5 in (165 mm)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe most of my comments have been addressed. I will likely not be around much over the next couple of weeks to a month, so I will add my support now, so as to not hold the article up. Good luck taking it further and thank you for your hard work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • I see some use of tonnes, as a US ship everything should be in English units, not metric.
  • Measurements should only be converted on first use.
    • So, remove all convert templates after the first use of each? —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but only ones that have been converted once already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several ways to present ship stats for those that had multiple upgrades. Including the specs after every single upgrade greatly expands the infobox length and can be confusing to readers not generally familiar with ships. I believe that no more than two sets of stats should be presented in the infobox (as built and the most significant upgrade) and prefer to display them in separate infoboxes with the lower one only containing specs that changed since completion as can be seen at Japanese battleship Yamashiro. Everything else can be covered in the main body.
    • So would it be best to move stats into a second infobox? —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think so, but only the changed stats. There's no requirement to do so if you prefer not to, but regardless you should only have two sets of stats in the infobox(es)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split out the engine horsepower and boilers into a new |ship power= line in the infobox.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not entirely. Boilers need to be added to the power line and the ihp figure needs to be converted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a naval defense mine, as opposed to a normal mine?
  • Use single quotation marks around the single letters of the turret names and tell the reader that the names ran from bow to stern.
  • Two inches of armor on the turret sides seems awfully thin, doublecheck that figure against Friedman.
    • That's the number I've seen. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairly certain that the German edition of Breyer in your bibliography is just a reprint of the 1970 original, just like the English translation.
  • AFAIK dissertations don't get ISBNs, so fix Jones.
  • Be sure to put all titles in your references in title case.
  • The ISBN that you give for Macintyre goes to the index for the Naval Institute Proceedings, which is irrelevant. You need to provide the ISSN for the magazine, even though this is before ISSNs were invented.
    • Do you happen to know which magazine? —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Naval Institute Proceedings, but remember that magazines use an ISSN, not an ISBN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of consistency, add |lastauthoramp=1 to Gardiner and Gray to get the ampersand to display in the bibliography as well.
  • Cannon is both singular and plural so no 's'.
  • Don't capitalize radar.
  • You'll need to link to Wikitionary to tell readers what an overhaul is.
  • She was fitted with anti-torpedo bulges, though these made maneuvering harder at low speeds and she rolled badly, and her gunfire accuracy was reduced in rough seas. This is awkward and might need to be split into two sentences.
  • conducting training and fleet problems until 1937 Probably best to say that she participated in fleet problems. And link fleet problems.
  • After arriving in the United States, the ship was overhauled. The secondary battery was reduced to sixteen 5"/51 caliber guns. Combine these two sentences.
  • see an American ship comparable to a dreadnought up close Rephrase this, NY was a dreadnought.
  • Missing a lot of hyphens for compound adjectives like 5-inch, 51-caliber, etc.
  • Sorry these are all kind random, but I was scanning it and noting whatever caught my eye. I'll do a more thorough review in a few days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I don't know that the stuff on the earlier New York (or at least the fate of the ship) is all that relevant to this article.
    • Stuck that there because the Navy history makes such a big deal of the number of ship to bear the name. Thought it might be worth a mention to avoid confusion with other ships. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link caliber to caliber (artillery) (or add a footnote explaining the difference, as most readers will mistake 45-caliber for .45 caliber
  • On the excess conversion issue Sturm mentioned above - the armor paragraph is a good example of where these should be trimmed.
  • The squadrons of the Grand Fleet began escorting convoys to Norway due to German raids with cruisers and destroyers in late 1917, which culminated in an abortive sortie by the High Seas Fleet in April 1918 - the Grand Fleet also put to sea, but too late to catch the Germans - I seem to recall from Massie (Castles of Steel) that the American BBs were involved in the convoy escort duty - I'd add a bit on this (basically as in HMS Emperor of India), since this did mark a significant change in how the fleet was being used.
    • Do you have a ref? I've been having a hard time finding anything on this. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll check Massie tomorrow and see if my memory is correct. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Obsolescent" is probably a better word than "obsolete" in the second para of the interwar section
  • What type of ship is Leary?
  • Check for missing hyphens - for instance, the link to the St. Louis class cruisers should be rendered with the hyphen.
  • It would be worthwhile to add a bit of context to the neutrality patrol para - sure, many readers will know this is during WWII, but there are probably a fair number who will not.
  • Probably better to link directly to Invasion_of_Iceland#United_States_occupation_force
  • I'd not link Imperial Japan in the sentence about the attack on Pearl Harbor - especially since the way it's worded seems a little WP:EGGy to me - I expected it to link to the Imperial Japanese Navy article, for instance.
  • "attacked Safi harbor, supporting landings by the U.S. 47th Infantry Division in the harbor" - "harbor" twice in one sentence seems a little repetitive - I might change it to "landings by the U.S. 47th Infantry Division there." - you might even omit everything after Division, since it should be obvious from context.
  • "a total of 60 14-inch (360 mm) rounds." - this should be "sixty 14-inch" per the 4th bullet in WP:NUMNOTES
  • "breaking down at least once along the way and losing an observation plane in bad weather along the way" - "on the way" twice in one sentence is repetitive.
  • Any more details available on the effects of the Able and Baker tests? See Japanese battleship Nagato, German cruiser Prinz Eugen, or USS Nevada (BB-36) for the level of detail I'd like to see. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Most of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions looks fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • "...and provided artillery support for...", would "naval gunfire support" be a more appropriate term? (suggestion only)
    • The language here seems a little redundant: "Armor on New York consisted of belt armor..." (armor consisted of armor), perhaps reword (suggestion only)
    • I did a copy edit, tweaked a ref template, and made some MOS changes, pls see here [2].
    • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • all ACR toolchecks ok
  • only U.S. ship to have sunk one suggest adding "in World War I"
  • sixteen 5"/51-caliber guns? I thought MOS required "5-inch"?
  • the reduction to 16 5-inch guns seems to be repeated. Suggest moving the sentence beginning After arriving in the United States... down to the interwar period section and removing the repetition
  • suggest three additional 3-inch (76 mm) AA guns were added, bringing the total to five.
  • suggest limiting the infobox to her specs "as built", which seems to be the standard practice
  • suggest adding ship types when you introduce ship names, Arizona, Pennsylvania etc
  • and Queen Elizabeth, New York sailed please have a look at this sentence, it doesn't read well
  • suggest New York saw her first major action during
  • Attached to the Southern Attack Group tasked with attacking "attack/attacking" seems repetitive
  • defended the transports?
  • just watch the convert templates, 14-inch is variously converted to 360 mm and 356 mm, same with 5-inch
  • Further attempts at attacking the landing force with shore batteries were destroyed is clunky, suggest Further shore batteries were destroyed
  • New York remained on station off the coast?
  • some grouped citations are not in numerical order (36,35) for example
  • at least once along the way and losing an observation plane in bad weather along the way "along the way" is repetitive
  • they arrived at Iwo Jima on 16 February
  • She stopped by Leyte on 14 June
    • I had a go at fixing a few of these, although I wasn't able to get everything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2015 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/USS_New_York_(BB-34)&oldid=1136064589"