Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS New Jersey (BB-62)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:39, 13 June 2007.

[edit] USS New Jersey (BB-62)

I have been working on this article in an effort to bring it up to Featured Status for some time now, I final got the break through I neded last month when I located sources allowing me to expand the articles poorly written latter half. I have not recieved any comments on the peer review page for the last ten days, so I am moving the article here to put it in the running for featured article status. This is a self nomination, I have retooled the entire article to include citations and have rewritten a substantial part of the mid and lower half to better include coverage of the topic. Note that I am in the middle of summer school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond here have patients; it is likely that school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Excellent effort Tom, but I think there needs to be a wider range of sources as too many parts are cited to footnote #2 at the moment. And since it's a web source, there might be disputes over the accuracy and credibility of it. You might want to check newspaper/magazine/journal archives and libraries to find a wider range of more reliable sources. — Wackymacs 16:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DANFS is not just a web source; it is a publication of the US Navy and is thus pretty accurate and credible. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wackymacs, I understand your concern over the large amount of sourcing that goes to DANFS; however, DANFS is a canonical work on the life of the batleship USS New Jersey and internet sources all site DANFS when discussing the battleship (or any other ship, for that matter). The only alternative I would have to DANFS as far as citing is concerned would be to go door to door and collect information from the crewmen who served aboard the battleship back in the day. The issue of mass citing to DANFS came up loudly during the Featured Article Review for Wisconsin, when members of the community were taken back by the amount of citation to DANFS. During that review Kirill Lokshin, the lead cooridnator for the military history Wikiproject, made the following comment:

"But the point being made is that it's not (necessarily) a problem! There are any number of good reasons for having a limited number of sources; the chief ones are (1) that there simply aren't any other (useful) sources or (2) that the sources already used are the canonical works on the topic, and that any others are merely derivatitive or redundant." (TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

• Support. Rlevse 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, lots of reliable references. Meets the FA Criteria. — Wackymacs 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support I can find nothing at all objectionable about this article. A fine job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Balloonman 05:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I may not be very good at grammar, but I find using "she" to refer to the ship a bit odd. CG 07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

'She' to refer to a ship is correct. — Wackymacs 08:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• This has come up before on the talk pages of both Missouri and Wisconsin. The consensus is that Wikipedia should hold no differnce between the use of "she" and the use of "it"; however, the article in question should not alternate between "she" and "it". Given that DANFS material is already in she format, it is easier for me to use she the whole way through. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Can't find anything wrong with it, I might suggest a cite or two in the lead paragraphs, alternating the images from left to right for asthetic reasons and a cite for where you got all the information in the infobox re:weapons and so on? The last one I'm not sure about, because I don't know the guidelines regarding ship infoboxes, so if that kind of citation isn't done then don't worry about my third point. SGGH ^speak! 21:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.