Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/North Carolina class battleship/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2c[edit]

2c by Fifelfoo. pasted at Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2c related:
Your bibliography entry for "Garzke; Dulin, Robert O. (1976). Battleships: United States Battleships in World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0870210998. OCLC 2414211." is wrong, does Garzke only have one name?
Your short cites for "United States Battleships in World War II" are wrong, the full title from your bibliography is "Battleships: United States Battleships in World War II."
fn53 isn't very good at indicating a full cite is elsewhere? ^ "Marshall Islands Campaign, Jan.-Feb. 1944 – USS Washington and USS Indiana Collide, 1 February 1944"; ahhh, its a short cite of the bibliography item ""Marshall Islands Campaign, Jan.-Feb. 1944 – USS Washington and USS Indiana Collide, 1 February 1944". Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command. 6 October 2006. Retrieved 15 November 2009."... try using the publisher, to indicate that its not a hanging footnote without a full reference elsewhere? so ""Marshall Islands Campaign, Jan.-Feb. 1944 – USS Washington and USS Indiana Collide, 1 February 1944". Navy Department." for the short cite? or even "Marshall Islands Campaign." Navy Department.
Fixed, thanks—it was a typo in {{cite book}}
The "Battleships:" is there because it is part of series, all of which are prefaced by that. Do you still want me to add it?
Done, I believe.
Thanks for the comments; I can't believe you got here and commented just 15 minutes after the nomination. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I try to do 2c on any article I'm capable of, and 1c on those I'm capable of and have time for, I worked from the end of the list up :). Also I watch FAC, and Majestic Titan articles tend to be easier to review for 2c / 1c due to MilHist's quality as a project.
Check the title page for the correct book title, use that for the title field. For a book in series, if using cite book use |series=. For hand citations, write in non italics after the title, as such: Author, Firstname. Book title: subtitle. Series Title, Foo, Bar (Series ed.). etc... You can use [Series] when it would be unclear its a series title. So Rudd, Kevin. My election to Australian Parliament. Election of Australian Prime Ministers [Series] Windsor, Elizabeth (Series Editor). Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Press, 2007. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this (note that the last book is editon two of the book I've been using. It has virtually the same information on the North Carolinas; it mainly served as an update for the modernizations of the four Iowa class). for what I mean. I don't think that the series itself is named "Battleships", but it seemed pointless to add it in the article to the short cites. It's not a big deal if I have to put it in though. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive bibliographic searching (I went to Amazon and Worldcat) indicate the title is "Battleships : United States battleships, 1935-1992". So it is part of the title... urgh. So your shortcites must be Battleships (at least). I'd suggest that's ugly and stupid, so its one occasion where I'd suggest using the subtitle in a short cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have the book, it's Battleships: United States Battleships in World War II.[1] :-) The one you cite is a later version of the same book; basically, it included the same information on the North Carolina and South Dakota classes, but it had complete information on the modernizations of the Iowa class. So is what I have okay, or do I need to add "Battleships:" in front of my short cites? :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, yes. Silly author, next time title your book sensibly! Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so. Thanks for the support! Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image clearance[edit]

  • Oppose on criterion 3
  • File:16in Gun Turret.jpg - I don't see the following onthe source page: "These photos are arranged in chronological order and are believed to be all declassified official USN photos". Can you point me to it?
  • The site seems to have undergone some changes since I last looked at it... I think what we are looking for is here, but it is also unneeded. The original source is ""Naval Ordnance and Gunnery - 1952" Navpers 16116-B", which is/was a publication of the Navy's Bureau of Naval Personnel. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add the complete publication information for "Naval Ordnance and Gunnery" so that this is clear. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be. I've been in email correspondence with the NH&HC/NHC over this in the past; their reply was

As a matter of general policy, we take the view that images presented on the NHHC website are "to the best of our knowledge ... in the Public Domain". If the image is credited as "U.S. Navy Photograph", it would have that status because it originated with an official source. If it is credited as "U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph", the image is either old enough to have made its way into the Public Domain before the copyright laws were changed to eliminate the old 27 years + 27 years rule, or because the image appears to be an "orphan" where copyright is concerned, or appears to have originated with an official source but we can't be sure.

If those considerations do not provide you, your lawyers, or the Wikipedia contributors community with sufficient certainty, and you therefore wish to avoid whatever risks might be involved with using any of our images, you are certainly welcome to seek alternative pictures from other sources.

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: some checking revealed that this is an official U.S. Navy photograph. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this took much more hunting than I thought it would, but it appears to be from here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add the link to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


These should be easy to fix and I look forward to striking my oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/North_Carolina_class_battleship/archive1&oldid=1136060812"