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.

Promoted — MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ohio class submarines[edit]

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think the article has sufficient information and is well-written enough to take the next step. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "of the Russian Navy. The class replaces the Benjamin Franklin- and Lafayette-class SSBNs." - isn't cited and 'replaces' should be, um, replaced with 'replaced' given that this transition was completed ages ago.
  • "The remaining four had been converted from their initial roles as SSBNs to cruise-missile carriers (SSGN)." - 'had' should be replaced with 'have'.
  • "The Ohio-class was designed in the 1970s concurrently with, and to carry, the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, of which there are two variants—the UGM-96 Trident I and the UGM-133 Trident II." - there's a bit too much going on in this sentence. I'd suggest having one sentence about the boats and another about the missiles
  • What was the "government red tape"? This isn't mentioned in the article on the class or the sub. 'Red tape' is also a rather vague and non-neutral term (eg, no-one is for 'red tape' that holds up a project, but everyone agrees that strict adherence to 'careful paperwork' is important for anything involving a nuclear reactor).
  • "The total cost to refit the four boats is just under US$700 million per vessel." - this isn't the 'total cost' - it's the cost per vessel. 'Is' should be replaced with 'was' given that the conversions are now complete
  • Have the subs ever been swapped between the Pacific and Atlantic Fleets?
  • There may have swaps, but there are no documents that clearly log the transfers. I've added a note just above the table saying that the classification is according to the latest updates. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the † and * symbols seems unnecessary given that you're also using colour coding. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  • That is the most succinct way, for me, of writing it. Another, longer, alternative is "The Ohio-class was designed in the 1970s to carry the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, with which it was concurrently designed." You don't have to be concurrently designed with another system in order to be compatible with it. For example, the UGM-27 Polaris was designed to in the mid-1950s, but the Benjamin Franklin class submarine was designed and built during the early- to mid-1960s. If the alternative is better for you, I will replace the current version with it. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ohio-class was designed to carry the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, also being designed in the 1970s."? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second clause I know refers to the SLBMs, but it doesn't sound like it. I will rephrase it instead to "The Ohio-class was designed in the 1970s to carry the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, with which it was concurrently designed." ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the book doesn't say what the problem is, and there aren't a lot of other readily-available sources which indicate the problems. If this is a big deal, I will remove the reference to D.C. and simply say that a reason for the boat's late schedule was the manufacturing issues. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about 'Due to an unspecified "series of unfortunate problems in Washington D.C."'? Keeps the detail, but makes clear to the reader we don't know what they were? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would've thought it be 2002 dollars, since the source was published in September 2002 detailing the future costs of the conversion. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allowing for inflation/economic growth, a modern equivalent sum would be between $800 and $900m, probably enough for it to be worth clarifying that these are 2002 dollars (e.g. $700m (2002 prices) or something like that. But I'm notoriously specific on historical prices! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support a few comments:

  • " are in service as of 2012," perhaps "is in service as of 2012". Perhaps this is a jargon thing
  • "series of unfortunate problems in Washington D.C." Would it aid us to know who said this, even if we don't know what they were??
  • At least two sources (the cited book and The Naval Institute guide to the ships and aircraft of the U.S. fleet (2005) p. 64.) say that the development of the submarine and its systems lagged behind schedule, but the sources do not disclose who said this. I suspect the government doesn't want to disclose any classified information, although I'm not sure what kind of classified systems could lengthen the class's development period. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "agreed to rationalise" Wouldn't it be -ize? I would say "reduce" anyway.
  • "sufficient enough" strike "enough".
Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in 2029" I would say "for 2029", but this is stylistic.
Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to the U.S. Navy " Unless they were decommissioned, I would say "to active service" or whatever the appropriate technical term is.
Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More