Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montana class battleship

Oppose - Prose/citation problems.

• Problems with the prose, there are many instances of comma misuse, grammatical errors, long sentences, and signs of reorganization needed (some short paragraphs).
• Needs a copyedit by editor new to text. Please see Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members for lists of editors you can contact for help.
• Some citations with a URL are missing an access date, such as current refs 18, 20, 22 and 26.
• "Engineering plant" section is short and does not flow with the rest of the article.
• I am nitpicking, but you repeat many links in the citations. For example, "Naval Vessel Register." is linked again and again in several citations. Only really needs to be linked on the first instance, same goes for other linked publisher names.
• Looks like the Further reading link should be in External links, if it should be linked at all.
• What makes the following sources reliable? (they look like unverifiable personal sites/web pages)
  • http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana.htm
  • http://www.navybuddies.com/bb/bb67class.htm
  • http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/usa/montana.html

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Respectively:
  • Alright then, I presume you wisha stict adherence to the rule that commas ought to appear only for combined sentences and only if the woirds "and" "or" "but" are present, or if the sentence in question uses a three list thing that needs to be seperated using commas. I'll make a dry pass through and see if I can spot and fix any instances, but the best thing, as you noted in point 2, would be to bring it up with one of the three copyeditting departments: the peer review group, the league of copyediters, or the MILHIST logistics dept.
  • as per above
  • Please locate all such examples for me if you would, at this point I miss such things if they are not explicitly poiinted out to me. Sorry for forcing that on you, but as I am sure you can related one's mind tends to read whats should be there and not what is actually there.
    • As it happens, in these specific cases, the access date was already provided. I had messpelled the word code as "accessesdate", thats why they were not showing. Good catch though :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I noticed ref 10 is missing publisher info. There might be others, so please go through all the references and look for any missing information. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • By citiations, do you mean the notes section? And if so the reason for the repeated linking is to limit the amount of scrolling new readers to the article have to do to find the relevent links. I think its helpfull, but if consensus from others suggests otherwise I will fix the problem.
    • Yes, see WP:MOS, which explains overlinking. I generally think it is best to avoid linking too much whenever possible. I'm not sure about you, but the entire References section fits on my screen with only very little scrolling required to see the last bit of it. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The MoS directive as it pertains to overlinking: "The same link multiple times, because redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article, but there is hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; in general each row of a table should be able to stand on its own)." I have usually interpreted this to mean that section exclusive terms or terminology that was repeated before but may have been skipped ought to be relinked every time a new section crops up (by new section, I mean a header with two equal signs on each side). This is a hold over from the Iowa class battleship article, as I instituted the policy there becuase the article continues to grow, and it can be mighty difficult to locate one linked term near the start of an article whose entire space is, as of this righting, 96kbs. Now, I grant that the Iowa class battleships are the exception and not the rule, but by the same token they are the only featured class article for ships, so we are trailblazing here since this is untouched territory, but I still think the article could grow and am thus reluctent to unlink terms now only to have to relink them later on (if, I grant you, the need to do so does in fact arise). The key issue now is how you interpret the guideline and whether or not your interpretation follows mine. How do feel about the issue? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm hesitant to put words into another editor's mouth, but I think Wackymacs meant in the case of the "Ships" section with multiple refs to DANFS and the NVR, all linked, all one after the other. I think I've addressed this for that section, with only the first instance to each source linked and the others plain text. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How exactly do mean? Obviously short speaks for itself, but if you were me what would you like to see done with the section?
    • I would try to merge the shorter section with the longer ones by changing the general layout/section header names. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I suppose we could merge the information there into the design section, it wouldn;t be hard to do. Alternatively, I could omit/delete the section altogather. Would those be acceptable solutions? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I suppose I could agree with that, though truth be told I like to see them seperated. Its just a me thing, asthetics and such; I dislike changing formating too much (this same format is used on the page Iowa class battleship, and hasn't drawn any compliants...yet).
  • With regard to the sources you brought up: pages from navweapons.com include at the bottom a list of sources used in the creation of the articles, and nearly all are from well recognized names like the US Bureoa of Ordinance. That ought to make the site's information reliable. Information from the site navybuddies.com is almost always pulled directly out of the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, and the infomration provided on the site corrosponds almost letter for letter with the US Navy's description of the Montna class. That doesn't suprise me since the site is billed as an unofficial US navy site, if others were to build such a site they would naturally turn to DANFS and other similarly open public sources to create the pages needed. Lastly, the site www.warships1.com/US/BB61stats/index-BB1-GAO4.htm is directed toward a report generated by the United States General Accounting Office, the official investigative arm of the United States Congress. The names and information cited there in are directly taken from the GAO's investigation into the United States Navy's plan for replacing battleships with the Zumwalt class destroyer. Of all the sources questioned above, this one should be the most obvious in terms of officialiness. The last two sources are www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana.htm and www.voodoo.cz/battleships/usa/montana.html, and these are, as you surmized, closer to personal websites than the others here to for adressed, however, when dealing with ships and thier classes I need to note right now that most of the information provided for such sites originates from official sources and is merely copied by all other websites, official and unofficial. These two here were included becuase the information they provided during the initial brainstorm phase help the development of the armement sections and (to a degree) the engineering plant section. These two can be removed or better still replaced should the need to do so arise, however the instructions such as I interpret them are to include all the sources used, regardless of how small or irrelevent the source. Thats why they are still in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It is always best when you have access to the original sources themselves. Sure, US Bureoa of Ordinance is reliable, but navweapons is not. There needs to be some sort of recognition or reputation for a source to be classed as 'reliable' - can that be said for all those sites which simply grab information from places like United States General Accounting Office and so on. And then comes the issue of copyright violation - do these sites have permission to copy from those sources? Replace them with the original sources, as I am sure they are accessible. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright then, I will go digging for the original sources (or alternate sources, if that ends up being the case). As fair warning though, this could take a while, switching out sources or adding/confirming new ones will take at least few days (best case scenario), so make sure to check back regularly to see if any progress has been made. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To respond to the question about the reliability of the http://www.navweaps.com/ website: The page cited in Montana class battleship, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm, has a list of sources consulted at the bottom of that page. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• The long caption on the last image is obstructing the 2 column references list at higher resolutions (I'm on 1440 x 900)
  • I added the {{-}} template to the end of the paragraph, this should fix the problem.

• No references given for "By the time of the Two Ocean Navy bill, the Navy realized that the ship designs could no longer be limited by the Panama Canal and thus approved the Montana-class knowing that the ships would be unable to clear the locks."
  • The result of copyeditting, I'm afraid. I make use of per paragraph citations since it is easier to write individual ship pages with this methode, and as such usually cite the relevent information at the end of a paragraph unless I have a pressing reason to cite in the paragraph. This has been corrected.

• No references given for these two sentences:"In June 1942, the US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics requested industry proposals for a new seaplane to replace the Kingfisher and Curtiss SO3C Seamew. The new aircraft was required to be able to use landing gear as well as floats."
  • The result of copyeditting, I'm afraid. I make use of per paragraph citations since it is easier to write individual ship pages with this methode, and as such usuall cite the relevent information at the end of a paragraph unless I have a pressing reason to cite in the paragraph. This has been corrected.

• What makes the following sources reliable? (they look like unverifiable personal sites/web pages)
  • http://www.navweaps.com/
  • http://www.warships1.com/US/BB61stats/index-BB1-GAO4.htm
    • It is the opinion of the cooridinators at MILHIST that navweapons.com is a reliable source, and the as stated above the warships1.com reference is not cited to a personal site or hobby page, it is cited to an investigation conduct by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and as such meets all established reliable sources critiera.
      • I have replaced the warships1 GAO reference with the report as it appears on the GAO website; however this has resulted in a shift from html to pdf, so the new version may or may not be easier for people to access.
        • Regarding navweaps.com: At the bottom it says "This Website is Owned and Operated by Tony DiGiulian " - it's just a personal/hobby site. I still think this is not a reliable source, certainly not suitable for an encyclopedia. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The 'Aircraft' section seems like an afterthought - is there any way to expand it, or possibly merge it with another section?
  • I will look into it after lunch.
    • I've looked at this problem from a number of different perspectives and come to the conclusion that it can't really be helped. Expanding the section would only add information to a plane that already has its own article on Wikipedia, so summary style comes in to play here, and the material is short so as to keep the uneeded words and phrase out of the prose. It could be expanded, but I doubt that any expanded material would be useful or would withstand any prose trimming within this article itself. On the issue of merging, the material could be merged, but that developes problems with MoS sectioning since information on different subjects is normally split out through the use of section headers which allow for prescion carving of an article to adress major points. From where I sit, the best I could do with merging would be to lose the subsections for the type of aircraft and simply discuss of the aircraft under the heading of aircraft. I am open to suggestions though if you have better idea for merging or for expanding the article.

• No references given for this paragraph: "The Montana class would have used aircraft for reconnaissance and for gunnery spotting. The type of aircraft used would have depended on when exactly the battleships would have been commissioned, but in all probability they would have used either the Kingfisher or the Seahawk. The aircraft would have been floatplanes launched from catapults on the ship's fantail. They would have landed on the water, taxied to the stern of the ship, and would have been lifted by a crane back to the catapult."
  • I will look into adding references for this after lunch then.
    • Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you on these points, I have been otherwise engaged with preparations for my upcoming time in summer school, and have of nessicity cut back a little on Wikipedia time as a result. As of this reply I have been unable to locate any sources that explicitly state the Montana class was to use aircraft, but the image in the section makes this fact very clear by showing the tail section configured with the crane and model planes which are being stored on the aft deck. Under the circumstances, it may be nessicary for me to switch sources and go looking for the airplane specs and like material rather than relying on USN sources.
      • I think it's dodgy having a paragraph making that sort of statement without a source. Have you had a chance to look for "the airplane specs and like material rather than relying on USN sources. "? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Got it; it was in the article had originally used to rewrite the erlier history section. Two cites are now in the article for the aircraft. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - Leaning to support, just the prose polish needed.

• I think the prose needs some work in places. I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • You need to be more specific; I can't adress obtuse comments like this unless I have some idea what you want to see done.
    • I am simply suggesting that you contact one or two people on those lists (perfectly actionable). They will fix redundancy, styling, misuse of commas and other grammatical issues. It is best if you don't do all the editing work yourself, since most of the writing is yours, getting someone new to the text means they will notice problems that you didn't. Copyeditors here usually do a fine job of polishing an article in preparation for the FA standard. A good example is my recent FAC nomination (which was quickly promoted to FA status) - copyedits were made by four editors (five if you include me) and each of them found different things to improve. The same sort of thing here would help greatly, though one full copyedit by one editor new to the text will probably be enough. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I have left messages with three people -two from peer review and one from the league of extrodinary copyediters- to look at the page. I am going to hold off adressing the remaining complaints for the next 24 hours so as to allow the members to copyedit and rearrange, then adress the complaints. No sense in diving in the content's going to change, ya know? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Still waiting on the copyedit, not sure why it is taking them so long to get on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
          • No rush-I'll keep waiting. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

;Dhatfield

Good work, well cited, but I think references need to include cited works. A quick skim gave me these two points:

1. The prose is long winded. Example: "They would have been the only US Navy battleship class to have come close to equaling the Empire of Japan's Yamato-class battleships in terms of armor, armament, and tonnage." the phrase 'have come close to equaling' can be replaced by one word: 'rival'. I know from personal experience that this is a pain (I rewrote Tank from 60kB to 37kB) but examine each word and phrase and try and think of a better one. Another example of prose that can be improved: "By July 1943, it was clear that the battleship was no longer the dominant element of sea power and the Montana-class was canceled." can be improved to "By July 1943, it was clear that the battleship had been replaced by the aircraft carrier as the dominant element of sea power and the Montana-class was canceled." By the addition of three words you have increased the number of pieces of information in the sentence from 2 to 3. Even better, "By July 1943, it was clear that the superior capability of the aircraft aircraft carrier to strike at ranges in excess of 30km had rendered the battleship obsolete and the Montana-class was canceled." (Note that the stated range is a guess) Four pieces of information: What supplanted the battleship, why, the battleship was obsolete, the Montana-class was canceled. I recommend reading Tony's Style Guide.

   The information has been trimmed by several people who have read through the article, and I am currently waiting for the editers I contacted to attempt a copyedit which I believe will reduce the prose even further.

   Much improved, but "Design" needs work. For example: "By returning the Montana-class to the slower 28-knot (52 km/h) maximum speed of the North Carolina and South Dakota classes, naval architects were able to include more desirable traits for the Montanas which had been engineered out of the earlier two classes of US battleships." Desirable - POV. I'd put the 25% better... spec up front (clearly the key design criterion), explain how it was to be achieved, then explain what compromises would have to be made in speed due to engines & weight. You may want to point out the importance of matching the speed of other designs (fleet movement) Dhatfield (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Roger, wilco :) Thanks for returning, I apreciate the added comments. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   I rearranged the two paragraphs so that the design traits are discussed before the speed. Is this better?

2. Inconsistent use of 'would have' and 'could be'. Pick a tense and stick to it. Dhatfield (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

   I believe I have caught and corrected all instance of this, so it should no longer be an issue.

   Done Dhatfield (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

* What makes the following reliable sources?

• • http://www.bismarck-class.dk/
    • This one, if clicked on as it was included in the article, shows images taken by submersible of the battleship Bismark without her turrets, and is intended to show the empty barbetts to which the guns would have been installed. The images there are of questionable copyright status, and I am therefore reluctant to upload them to WIkipedia since our fair use policy has gotten a hell of a lot stricter as of late. If it would make you feel better, I could try locating information on this subject from somewhere else, but if you want me to do that I need to have a clear answer here.

Hm, if we think that site might be a copyright violation, we shouldn't be linking to it. Probably better to find another source. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The disclaimer on the cited page from the http://www.bismarck-class.dk/ website reads as follows:

These photographs have been exclusively loaned for display here on the Bismarck & Tirpitz website, and are not to be downloaded or republished elsewhere. © All photos are the property of James Cameron, Earthship TV and Discovery Channel.

Also, by a quick look at the website, it seems the website owner/publisher, Jon Asmussen, was a participant in the Cameron/Discovery expedition. From both the disclaimer and the participation in the expedition, I would infer that that website is not in violation of any copyrights as to the photos. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to make it clear here that I am citing the images, not the text, so the copyright violation such as it were would be the use of fair use images in an otherwise public domain imaged article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving this one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the web reference and provided a book reference in its place.

So did it get replaced entirely? (It's been a LONG day, my brain cells aren't working that hot, sorry if I'm being dense...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has been removed in its entirety. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Probably should have a source for the data in footnote 12, the names of the 17 planned ships.
  • Not all of those ships were planned, all the ships up to USS Illinois were completed, Illinois and Kentucky were under construction but not completed, and all five of the Montanas were planned but cancelled. I will see about sourcing this, but me thinks the source may evlove into sources since I think more than one source will be needed.
    • Two sources have been provided for the ships, and the reference itself retooled to include a date from which to start the count. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.factplace.com/index.html
    • This has been removed as a source from the article.
  • http://www.de220.com/index.html
    • This has been removed as a source from the article
• Current ref 3 (CV-59 FORRESTAL class) is lacking a publisher, and shouldn't be in all capitals.
  • This one is fixed, also. (Forgot to note when updating last evening.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Is Sea Classics a journal? Who publishes them?
  • Information added — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Is http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/american&military_history/World's%20Fastest%20Battleships.pdf a journal article? or a dissertation?
  • I believe this is a journal article, as dissertations as I have seen them tend to be much longer (although as collage student I suspect my idea of dissertation and yours may very)
• Current ref 28 (USS Wisconsin is numerically the highest...) has two bald URL links in the sourcing. Should be formatted with title, publisher, etc.
  • Both now fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 29 is lacking a publisher.
  • Author, work, and publisher added. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the questioned sources, so while it now has a publisher, (and thus I've struck the note here) it's still not proven as a reliable source Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 32 (Underwater photos of the Bismark ...) has just a bare url link in the ref. Needs a title and a publisher and a last access date
  • Better information added. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that the source itself is still being questioned above. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 39 "Ammunition data is taken from ... " should have a page number and other bibliographic information
  • Added proper book citation information. Page numbers still need to be added. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current refs 48 and 49 should probably have sources.
  • These I beleive have been removed in there entirety.

#I agree with the above comments about references. Hobbyist sites are well, hobbyist sites and though I know they can be very accurate most of the time, anyone could put up a site about the Montana class and make reference to some "official papers" they used.

1. All such sites have been removed.

2. In the Design section you make reference to 18" guns being a part of the Montana class yet in the Armament section you claim that 16" guns were to be used. Are these the guns from the Iowa class or did I miss the explanation about why the 18" guns were no longer planned? Most of the Armament section seems to be speculation about what might have been there had the class actually been built by listing Iowa class weapons.
   • No, actually, I make reference that they were a part of the yamato class design. And the Iowa armement and the Montana armement are identical in all important respects, the only major dofference is that the secondary battery on the former was 5"/38 guns, while the latter had 5"/54 guns. Therefore, would it not stand to reason that a battleship whose main armament would be used for the follup class should share its information?

   Ummm ok. I must have had the crack pipe going.

3. Again in the Design section, 4th paragraph you explain the differences of the Panama canal sizing but repeat the entire paragraph under the Armor section.

   The former has been removed in favor of the latter.

4. In the Fate section, in the first sentence you use maxed out. Why was it maxed out? Are you trying to say "reached maximum limits" ? I'm confused. --Brad101 (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yes I am, The wording has been changed accordingly.

   Eighteen inch guns were for a while concerned for installation on the Iowa class battleships, but there are no indications that the 18" guns were to be installed on the Montanas. I will fix that forthright. Good catch. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

5. Note 3 is referenced to Navsource but you've mixed in United State Navy and DANFS of which Navsource is neither.

   Actually, Navsource is pulling material from DANFS (or so I interpreted the message on the page to mean that). I will fix it up.

   I think I have adressed this.

*COMMENT I have at this point gotten the message that selected websites here are of questionable value. To simplify the process of which websites need what kind of attention, I ask that those commenting on the questionable websites provide the link below, the problem with it, and your proposed solution to fix the problem (in that order). This will make it easier for me to adress everyones concerns, and in the long run will (hopefully) help other editers who may wish to assist with the FAC. Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

• http://www.warships1.com/US/BB61stats/index-BB1-GAO4.htm
  • Cites a report generated by the United States Government Accountability Office regarding the USN's compliance with the Strom Thurmand National Defense Authorization Act of 1999. The report itself in entirely independent of the website warships1.com (consider checking GOA.gov for clearer link [note infomration may not be present])
• http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana.htm
  • Removed all instances of appearence in the article and cited all relevent information to alternative sources.
• http://www.navybuddies.com/bb/bb67class.htm
  • Removed all instances of appearence in the article and cited all relevent information to alternative sources.
• http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/usa/montana.html
  • Removed all instances of apperence from the article.
• http://www.navweaps.com/
  • All information on site is from official publications on the weapon design; and reliability has been establish through its use in FACs proir to this one.
• http://www.factplace.com/index.html
  • Removed all instance of appearence from article and recited all revelent information to more reliable sources.
• http://www.bismarck-class.dk/
  • Replaced with a book reference.
• http://www.de220.com/index.html
  • Replaced with a book reference discussing the computer in question.
• Problems with the prose, there are many instances of comma misuse, grammatical errors, long sentences, and signs of reorganization needed (some short paragraphs).
  • Should have been adressed with copyedit from both Roger Davies and Bellhalla.
• Needs a copyedit by editor new to text. Please see Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members for lists of editors you can contact for help.
  • Should have been adressed with copyedit from both Roger Davies and Bellhalla.
• Some citations with a URL are missing an access date, such as current refs 18, 20, 22 and 26.
  • Handled myself.
• "Engineering plant" section is short and does not flow with the rest of the article.
  • Merged after 48 hour suggestion with no return comments
• I am nitpicking, but you repeat many links in the citations. For example, "Naval Vessel Register." is linked again and again in several citations. Only really needs to be linked on the first instance, same goes for other linked publisher names.
  • Beleived to have been adressed by Bellhalla
• Looks like the Further reading link should be in External links, if it should be linked at all.
  • Handeled myself.
• Inconsistent use of 'would have' and 'could be'.
  • Adressed
• Current ref 3 (CV-59 FORRESTAL class) is lacking a publisher, and shouldn't be in all capitals.
  • This one is fixed, also. (Forgot to note when updating last evening.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Is Sea Classics a journal? Who publishes them?
  • Information added — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Is http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/american&military_history/World's%20Fastest%20Battleships.pdf a journal article? or a dissertation?
  • The host site for the article is the Missouri University of Science and Technology, and the paper (to me) reads like a jornal article more that a dissertation (I do believe dissertations are much longer). The author of the paper is a USNR intelligence officer at the University who was MS in enigineering, so either way the paper should meet the criteria for a reliable source.
• Current ref 28 (USS Wisconsin is numerically the highest...) has two bald URL links in the sourcing. Should be formatted with title, publisher, etc.
  • Both now fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 29 is lacking a publisher.
  • Author, work, and publisher added. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 32 (Underwater photos of the Bismark ...) has just a bare url link in the ref. Needs a title and a publisher and a last access date
  • Better information added. — Bellhalla (talk)

03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Removed as per referencing concerns.
• Current ref 39 "Ammunition data is taken from ... " should have a page number and other bibliographic information
  • Added proper book citation information. Page numbers still need to be added. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current refs 48 and 49 should probably have sources.
  • Section mereged, suggestion implemented
• In the Design section you make reference to 18" guns being a part of the Montana class
  • No I don't, I said Yamato class. It is true that the USN considered using 18in gins, but nothing ever came of these plans.
• In the Design section, 4th paragraph you explain the differences of the Panama canal sizing but repeat the entire paragraph under the Armor section.
  • Handled myself
• In the Fate section, in the first sentence you use maxed out. (clarification)
  • Reworded for clarity
• Lead, 2nd para: should that really be "tonnages" or should it instead be "displacement"?
  • Got it.
• Lead, 3rd para: I rephrased last sentence to show that it applied to the four completed Iowa-class ships. If you feel the "of six" needs to be back in there, please restore.
  • Its good.
• Design, 1st para: De-linked Yamato gun. If the gun was, in fact, rumored to be that exact, specific type of gun, a link is appropriate; otherwise, leave it for the Yamato article.
  • Gotcha.
• Fate, 1st para: Tonnage? Again, should it be displacement?
  • Believed to have been adressed, will need to check to be sure.
• Fate, 2nd para: The "unfortunately" comment is a virtual repeat of a sentence in History, 4th para. Probably best to have it only once.
  • Done and done.
• Ships: All were authorized on the same date and all canceled on the same date, right? Maybe pull that data and place it at the top instead of repeating it five times
  • Complied after no comments were made tot he contrary.
• Armor, 2nd para: Repeats info given previously. Just remind the reader of the discussion: "Because the US Navy previously limited battleships to fit the Panama Canal…"
  • Handeled myself.
• Aircraft, 1st para: Does this need a cite?
  • It shouldn't, the Iowa class page doesn't have one, but if you think it right I can add one I suppose (awaiting further input).
    • It now has a cite.
• Engineering plant: I'm not all that up on the details of ship mechanical systems, but would it really be "four sets of shafts" or just "four shafts"?
  • Elected to merge this into the article body further up until such time as more info becomes avaliable.
• Probably should have a source for the data in footnote 12, the names of the 17 planned ships.
  • I will see what I can do.
    • Done
• The prose is long winded
  • Possibly adressed via the copyedit, further feed back needed
    • Assuming that this has been addressed via copyedit, so striking and moving to the adressed column
• Remove the spaces before the refs
  • Done
• en dashes required for certain things
  • Working on it, or possbly addressed? (did maralia get this? she may have...)
    • She must've got it, becuase its a hidden comment now.
• History, 3rd para: Does the last sentence need a cite? Might be questioned at FAC.
  • Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• doublecheck the use of WP:HYPHEN (suspect missing hyphenation on things like: Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft guns)
• missing publishers on the citations
• The citations also need a lot of minor but irritating elbow-grease clean up work.
  • HTML does not need to be included in a citation; it's the default.
  • Some citations have p., others don't (need to be consistent).
  • Some of your page ranges (multiple pages) have pp., others have just p. (need to be consistent).
  • There are punctuation issues, sample: " (pdf).
    • All thought to have been adressed by Epbr123's check of the article

* remove spaces before refs; i.e. "920 ft 6 in (280.6 m) [2]", "121 ft 0 in (36.9 m) [2]", "36 ft 1 in (11.0 m) [2]", per WP:FOOTNOTE

• • I presume by this you mean non-breaking spaces ( )?
    • Never mind, I see what you are driving at: there were spaces in the table between the figures cited and the actual citations. I have fixed these as per your comment, and checked to see that there were no other instances in the article. I did not catch any, but I have been staring at the same material for about seven monthes so I am at this point reading what I wrote instead of whats there, therefore if you spot any other expamples of this problem feel free to bring them to my attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• en dashes required for certain things, per WP:DASH; examples: "p. 102-106", "10-40 ×", "3-4 ×", "period (1906-1946) not "
  • Right. I will get on this immediately.

Gary King (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Replies inserted above. Good catches. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have just copyedited the lead and first two sections, but have to run some errands before it gets too hot to be outside; Tom, please do bug me if I forget to finish tonight. Maralia (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished copyediting. Tom, a couple notes for future reference:

• The form "x-class" (with the hyphen) is an adjectival construct and should never stand alone; conversely, "x class" without the hyphen is a noun.

• the Tom class would have been awesome;
• the Tom-class design was the best ever;
• the Tom-class battleships were never built.

• This article was strewn with the words 'United States Navy' and 'US Navy'. I think it was probably the result of writing it piecemeal, but just something to be aware of next time: the context is the US Navy, so you needn't specify it every single time the Navy is mentioned.

Some remaining issues:

• "The exact design and placement of the armor, factors inextricably linked with the ship's stability and performance, is a complex science honed over decades." - this needs tweaking: either it's a plural subject (design and placement...factors), or it's a singular subject (design and placement...is).
  • Changed to the latter suggestion.
• in the rquote, "it's not just the weight of the shell, its the weight of the shell" - The second 'its' should be 'it's'; I didn't change this as I was unclear whether this is your transcription of a verbal comment (in which case we can just fix it) or if the source was written (in which case we should go with it[']s).
  • Changed per your suggestion
• You have used the R. L. Minks article in Sea Classics as a reference twice, but the second mention has inferior formatting and less information; please make it as good as the first Minks footnote.
  • I assume you are refering to the link for the comment regarding the Essex class carriers, if so, then this has been changed, if not, please give a number so I can change it.