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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:37, 13 June 2008 [1].


Montana class battleship[edit]

Self Nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all established FA criteria and has passed both the Good Article review process and the Military History Wikiproject's A-class review process with no major complaints. At this point, there is no place left to go but up to FA-class, and so here I here am. This is most decidedly a self nom, and for once I am not in school, so I should be able to adress complaints raised in a timely manner. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Prose/citation problems.

Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

))

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 can be improved to "By July 1943, it was clear that the battleship had been replaced by the aircraft carrier as the dominant element of sea power and the Montana-class was canceled."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)[reply]
    Roger, wilco :) Thanks for returning, I apreciate the added comments. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

))

Comments

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm leaving this one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, it has been removed in its entirety. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I note that the source itself is still being questioned above. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

))

I share the concerns mentioned above about sources by Wackymacs. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All questionable external links have been removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC) )[reply]
  1. 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.
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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.))
  1. You're going to need articles on Second Vinson Act, Battleship Design Advisory Board, and Two Ocean Navy. They seem important to the subject of this article. Otherwise you should determine a way to explain Second Vinson Act, Battleship Design Advisory Board, and Two Ocean Navy if there isn't enough information available to start articles.
    As I stated above, I am in the process of looking into reciting the links or varifying the links provided to be accurate. Also, me and MBK004 have been trying for a while now to locate information on the Second Vinson Act and the Two Ocean Navy links you have provided, and so far neither one fo us has managed to find anything about the group (incidentally, this can also be said of Battleship Division 7). I have done some very very preliminary work into finding material for the Battleship Design Advisory Board, but so far nothing has turned up, and I fear this may be another one fo those links that the net can't provided any information on and the library won;t have any records on. Nonetheless, I will try to get something togather for you on these three articles, or failing that, will take you up on your suggestion to better explain the links in the articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I look into this by reading Carl Vinson and then even trying the Library of Congress online, you've actually explained the Second Vinson Act better than what I could find. You might make use of [2] and [3] to supplement the explanation. If you could find the House Resolution number to the bill, ie: HR. xxxx, rather than the name it may help. There was also a Third Vinson Act. Sam Nunn was related to Carl Vinson; try that.
    Those references are currently in the article. I think the problem may be that the terminology is from pop history and may not reflect the actual name of the legislation. I will continue to investigate.
    Got one: we apparently have an article on the Two-Ocean Navy Act, so I just need articles for the first two now.
    In this reference there is a good explanation of what the Second Vinson Act was all about and it's note 10 in the references. Not enough for an article of course but it would help if you expanded the explanation in this article. SVA was in 1938; not 1939; I corrected it. --Brad (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh.. this just gets better by the minute, Your noted source above states: Conservative sentiment and Republican Congressman Carl Vinson when in fact Vinson was a Democrat. I'm going to question that whole pdf as a source since the author couldn't even get his basic facts straight. --Brad (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright then, I need to know - now - if this is an official questioning of the source or if this is one of those questioned sources that people are willing to let slide. If its the former, then I will get to work on checking the other guys sources for independent varification of the facts presented.
    I have reservations about the source but I'm not going to hold up the promotion over it. The fact if Vinson was a Democrat or a Republican is irrelevant to this article but the facts in that source should be compared to others and if they primarily agree with each other then fine. --Brad (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

))



Comments

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

)) Gary King (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Some remaining issues:

  • Which number are you refering to? I can't seem to find this one, and cannot comment on it unless I can read it.
  • Currently it's footnote 12. Presuming you are referring to the actual documents in their archives, suggest something like:
Bureau of Ships. "Battleship Preliminary Design Drawings". Spring Styles, 3, 1939–1941. Naval Historical Center archives, lot # S-511.
  • "American components, Russian components, all of them made in Tiawan!" --Russian Cosmonaut, Aremageddon :) Beleive me, I too was caught by suprise. Since I can't seem to get these fields filled in correctly, Ill supply the info in its entirety, and you can tell me where to plug it in (or do it yourself, whichever you find to by easier):
The Navy
Rear Admiral W. J. Holland, Jr., USN
Editor-in-Chief
Barnes & Noble Books New York
Naval Historical Foundation
1306 Dahlgren Avanue, S.E.
Washington Navy Yard, D.C. 20374-5055
Phone# (omited)
Fax # (omited)
email (omited)
http://www.navyhistory.org
Copyright 2000 Naval Historical Foundation
This Edition Published by Barnes and Noble, Inc., by arrangement with Hugh Lauter Levin Associates, Inc.
2004 Barnes and Noble Books
M 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ISBN 0-7607-6218-X
Printed in China
Design: Lori S. Malkin
Project Editer: James O. Muschett
http://www.HLLA.com
  • Okay, I've fixed this book (China doesn't matter, by the way - that's the print location, not the publishing location). Now I need more info on the Visual Encyclopedia. For that ISBN, Amazon lists Collins & Brown (September 1, 2000). Is that the right edition? Maralia (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maralia (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't actually read through that site, and I'm really unqualified to judge it; if you feel it's worth keeping, I won't argue. I would, however, like the piped text for the link to be improved – give the reader some indication of what they'll get (and from whom) if they click the link. Maralia (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll cruise through it again just to be safe, if I can't find anything relating to the article I will remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talkcontribs)
Lastly, on the issue of copyediting: this article has been copyedited till the cows come home by a number of different people, and at this point I am having a very hard time convincing myself that another copyedit is in order. Personell from MILHIST and SHIPS have copyeditted the article, Ebpr123 has checked the article and not found anything questionable, SandyGeorgia didn't raise the issue of a copyedit when she commented, and Wackymacs (a copyediters) has review and supported the current version, as have the others who were insistant on having the article copyeditted. Exactly why do feel another copyedit is in order? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my list of sample problems is why I feel a copy-edit is in order. That's why reviewers make the lists. I do empathize, and I see that several editors have come by and make edits, but I don't think the prose meets criterion 1a at all. If I find that many problems just in the lead, I am going to say the article isn't ready to be featured. This, of course, is just my opinion, and the article may be featured regardless. --Laser brain (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tired of reading requests for copyediting, including my own, I had another go at it. Dhatfield (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My logic says that basic terminology should be covered in the battleship article and by the time someone is reading about ships that were never constructed, they'd be quite clued up, but I suppose each article must stand on its own. I'm too tired to find all appropriate links (refs are a killer for copyeditors - ironically, so are links), but here's a list: armor, firepower, gun, anti-aircraft capability, heavily-armed (specifically armed), Panama Canal, ammunition, main (primary) guns and secondary armament / guns, caliber, breech, recoil, air resistance, rangekeeper, radar, fire control, hardened steel, reinforced concrete, shore bombardment, impact, detonation, defoliate, nuclear deterrence, Cold War, nuclear bombs & shells, kilotons, turret, island of the battleship, starboard, port, fleet, gas blow-back recoil system, automatic guns, logistics, hydraulic couple drives (or just hydraulic), gunnery spotting, catapult, taxi, crane, operating ceiling, fall of shot, radio, floatplanes, ditch, landing gear, floats, search and rescue. I know many of these (or similar) are available, I used them in Tank. Dhatfield (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My policy is to re-use links further down in new sections for particularly unfamiliar or important concepts (battleship would be a favourite also recoil is mentioned in many separate places), but that's up to you. If necessary link different phrases to the same article - it's a way to tell the reader they're the same thing (specifically main / primary / secondary guns / armament). Dhatfield (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for your tireless efforts and persistence in improving this article. Dhatfield (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.