Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Iowa-class battleship

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.

Closed without consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa class battleship

Nominator(s): TomStar81 (Talk), WP:OMT
Toolbox
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • External links
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after months of work and many good suggestions from a many different people I have judged that the majority of the article's issues have been addressed, either entirely or to some greater or lesser extent. At this point then it seems reasonable to me to move the article into the realm of the A-class articles, and to place before the editors of our great project these Iowa-class battleships for consideration of a promotion to A-class. I am of the opinion that the newer version and the adjustments made to the article in the wake of the PR have made this a stronger, more reliable sourced article than it was a year ago when it demoted from FA-class. I am open to further suggestions for improvement, and should be able to move to address any such issues in a timely manner. The previous ACR is here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I may be biased here, but I think I'm detached enough to offer a good opinion. I'm just barely short of supporting here.
    • A1: None of the citations themselves seem to be in error, with one possible exception. Since this is ACR and not FAR, I'd advice you to be a bit more consistant in the use of wikilinks in citations (i.e. NVR and DANFS are linked to thier articles a few times, but some of the authors, publishers, and a few titles have articles that aren't linked to). Nothing seems to jump out as lacking a citation; and while I have been able to verify only a tiny fraction of the references, I firmly believe virtually all of them to be reliable. One odd thing though: the Camp book (which seems to be about the 2004 battle in Fallujah) is a citation for an event that happened in the Gulf War? It's possible, but seems unlikely to me without being able to grab the book myself.
      • Here's an electronic copy of Camp's book with the page cited, it opens with a rehash of the first gulf war and the UAVs that fought in it, citing the famous Pioneer battleship surrender, which I in turn cited here. As far as uniformity is concerned, should I put all the links related to the citations in the bibliography section? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would probably be better, so you only have the link once.
          • Got it. I'll see to this soon.
    • A2: I believe we are about as good as we can get here. The only possible exception could be that teh "background" section may be a tad long, but the only part that jumps out to me as unnecessary is the Bureau of Ordnance/Bureau of Construction and Repair mismash (there are other places that could be tightened). No bias I can see, but that's just my perspective.
      • What can I say? I like background information on the subject material. Perhaps its a part of me that came out during the years I spent as a historian in training at UTEP :) I can trim it down, or remove it, but I think I'll take a wait and see approach for this one at the moment and see if others have an opinion on the matter one way or the other. I will trim and/or remove the material if consensus emerges that the reduction of background material would be the best move for the article, until then I am going to keep it in.
        • Nick noted that it could use a trimming. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've deleted a sizable percentage of the background section, with an extreme degree of reluctance. If the absence of legitimate information somehow helps the article advance then I suppose I'll learn to love it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A3: Structure is good. All of the work we did during the peer review paid off here.
    • A4: No major stylistic issues. There are a couple of spots where British English inexplicibly popped up (WP:ENGVAR), and a couple of measurements that ought to be using {{convert}}. Usage of {{USS}} and the like should be consistant (there are plenty of links with manual italics), though this isn't a deal-breaker. Some of the date formatting is a bit inconsistant, especially in the references (recommend you use {{use dmy dates}} and use month names instead of numbers). There are also a couple of the many redirects that ought to be fixed, like the degree symbol in Battle 360° (I thought most of the redirects were fixed during the PR?). There are also some redlinks that are unlikely to be made into articles any time soon and can probably be removed.
      • Would another copyedit pass by a different user help? I've had a couple of people volunteer to copyedit articles I've been working on, and I am sure if I asked an outside editor would be happy to look through and correct the issues.
        • I've taken a stab at removing the redirects in the article, and the result is a roughly 90% reduction of these links across the article. I've also fixed the battle 360 degree link. I'll take as stab at the redlink issue at some point this week. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Redirects look better, but your template use is still a random grab-bag. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A5: File:USS Kentucky (BBG-1) concept artwork.jpg needs a fair-use rationale for this article as well. There are a couple of images that should be staggered left-right, like File:USS New Jersey BB-62 salvo Jan 1953.jpeg to avoid excess whitespace at different resolutions.
      • I'd forgotten about the fair use rational, but it should be fixed now. On the matter of image staggering: I've staggered the images pretty consistently so that they are about 50/50 for the left and right, unless I miss my guess the only places where the white space issues would be an issue would be in the ship description section or in the spot about half way down in the article where two images are arranged one on top of the other which could be a white space issue. I'll look into it using the computers here at UTEP to see if there are any other white spacing issues that need to be addressed.
        • FUR is good, but there are still images crowding text and each other in some spots. Adjust your resolution and see for yourself. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ugh, that quote box in the background section was being pushed by the infobox and causing whitespace like it's cool. I floated that sucker left, and swapped a couple image alignments that were wtill problematic (I almost wonder if you're not sure what I mean when I say "whitspace", or if you're not checking at different resolutions). Just keep that in mind if you add/change any more images. Also, the quote box needs an author! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be a few minor fixes and I can support. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only two outstanding issues from me: the template usage ({{sclass}}, {{USS}}, etc.) is still inconsistant, and that quote needs an author. Then I can support. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Don't abbreviate caliber. It's almost always going to be hyphenated because it's a compound adjective. Standardize your gun designations; sometime its 16-inch/50 other times it's 16-inch / 50.
  • cite # 66, Friedman, p. 190 has nothing to do with what you're using it for.
    • If I recall correctly the source material is supposed to cover one of two aspects of the citation: A) that there were originally only four Iowa's planned, or B) the ships were subject to conversion proposals. In either case it looks to have been intended as a broad cite, not a specific cite. I can remove since there are multiple cites for the material, I just wanted your input on why it was a bad source for the material.
      • Page 190 covers the reconstruction of the WWI-era BBs! Double-check that this isn't a typo or delete it. And the next time somebody makes a very specific criticism like this, please examine the page in question, don't just think that "I put this in there for a reason". That sort of thing does your credibility no credit.
        • I think I have found the typo that was put in as 190 (I'm kind of thinking I put that citation in, so it's my job to fix it.) Page 390 in Battleships deals with Iowa's and other ships post war, but nothing on Essex. I suggest checking Aircraft Carriers to see what pg. 190 has there.. Buggie111 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consolidate the propulsion section into a couple of paragraphs. We don't care what watchstanders were required.
  • Redlink the radars as a reminder to get to them eventually. You're also being redundant by telling us their function each time their mentioned. Formerly, not formally. Tell us what kind of radars are in the photo. Add WWII electronics to the infobox.
  • Not sure that the Iowas could literally support the various helos as it didn't have a hanger, nor any repair parts, AFAIK. I'm not even sure that it could refuel them, so that whole bit should probably go unless you want to talk about the size of helicopters that could be landed on its helipad. When was the crane and catapults removed?
    • The catapults were removed in the 1950s, when the first of the helicopters used were introduced. By support, I think the authors are trying to infer that the ships could serve as landing and refueling points for the helos they operated. I can look into this point if you wold like it researched further.
      • Please do.
  • Link mothball.
  • No bullets in infobox.
    • Just out of curiosity, how would separate the data if not by bullets? I like to think that the bullets help keep things organized, but I will remove the bullets if consensus emerges that it would be the best course of action in the game.
      • Breaks work just fine. I find bullets a distraction and think that they're redundant since you've bolded the headings.
  • Not fond of combining WWII and 1980s data in the same infobox. I'd prefer to have one as built with a smaller one listing all the other changes.
    • I seem to recall I attempted to do something like this and the result was an infobox that was ridiculously large. I'll take another crack at it though and see what I can do.
  • There were reloads for the missiles? Where and how many? Provide a cite, please. Tell the # of missiles in the main body as well as in the infobox. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at sea, but the ABLs could be reloaded in port. By port, I've always assumed a friendly port; as to the number of missiles, the max 32: each ABL holds four missiles total, and there were 8 ABLS installed on the Iowas in the 1980s.
      • Everything is reloadable in port and shouldn't be mentioned in the article as it implies at sea from an internal magazine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's great to see so much work has gone into getting this important article back towards FA status. I think it needs a bit more work to get back to A class though, and my comments are:

  • "They were placed in reserve at the end of the war, but recalled for action during every major U.S. war in the latter half of the 20th century" - no they weren't. Only one of the ships was activated for the Vietnam War and none of them took part in the various campaigns in the former Yugoslavia.
    • If you want to get real technical then its two wars - we never declared war in Korea, it was a war fought in the name of the United Nations, and the Vietnam War was fought without a declaration of War from Congress. Moreover, if you count the Cold War as a war then the number jumps. As to Yugoslavia: According to our source material the US only brokered peace between the two sides without a declaration of war, and it appears that the military muscle for that conflict seems to have come from NATO. I'll concede that the paragraph that you cite here may need some tweaking, and I am open to the idea of rewriting it to more accurately reflect the politics of conflict, but if we do we'll need to reach a consensus on how to go about rewording it.
      • I'm not sure what the relevance of arguing the definition of a 'war' is here. My concern with the wording is that it's over-stating things as not all of the ships took part in the Vietnam War and none of them were involved in the war in Yugoslavia (in which the US provided most of the air assets during the NATO-led air campaign). I'd suggest tweaking this to something like 'They were placed in reserve at the end of the war, but ships of the class were reactivated during every major U.S. war until the early 1990s' Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've taken a stab at rewording, let me know what you think. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background section is too long and filled with superfluous detail about the various naval disarmament conferences - this belongs in the articles on these conferences (or a central article on all of them if this exists), and only material which is directly relevant to this class of battleships belongs in the article. I'd suggest significantly trimming the background section, or spinning it out into a separate article.
    • I've reluctantly removed about 50% of the information in the section. I hate it when I have to do this, but if its what you guys want then so be it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Based on hard-learned lessons in the Pacific theater concerns were also raised" - when were these concerns raised?
    • I think that the authors are referring to the inability of the allied ships to fend off or withstand air assaults from the IJN. Take the case of HMS Prince of Whales, and the disposition of US ships lacking the ability to counter IJN air assaults do to insufficient AA. Its a fact that during World War II battleships adhering to the dreadnought philosophy of all big guns abruptly started packing mixed gun batteries again due in large part to the evolution of the attack planes and dive bombers. In addition, the armor carried by shipping was largely intended to withstand assaults from other ships, not from planes, and we have established that the Iowa class battleships had sacrificed a little armor in order to A) get through the panama canal, and B) to maintain a speed advantage. I could expand this if you like to better cover the point being raised, though that would add to the size of an already large article.
      • I was more interested in the date these concerns were raised given that this information is presented in the context of the ships' construction. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Approximately 1942/1943, when the IJN air arm was at its best. I'd have to check the source, but at the moment I'm out of town so that will not be possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why the material on the ships' main guns is written in the present tense?
  • "the Japanese Kamikaze attacks used during the latter half of World War II" - the Kamikaze attacks began in October 1944, which was well past the halfway point of the Pacific War, much less World War II
    • Exactly. The latter half of World War II, meaning anything after the midway point. If we count the intro of the states as 1941 and the end of the war as 1945, then the middle of the war would be 1943, so the latter half to my reckoning would be anything after 1943.
  • The generic paragraph on the Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft gun seems out of place and, in this context, is confusing. This should be removed.
  • "When the Iowa-class battleships were launched in 1943 and 1944 they carried twenty quad Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft gun mounts" - the section on the ships' careers states that they were launched between 1942 and 1944, and this implies that they were fitted with their AA armament before being launched, which seems unlikely
    • Noted and addressed.
  • "By the time of the Korean War, helicopters had replaced floatplanes; At the time of the Korean War" - one too many 'time of the Korean War' here!
  • Did 'Naval Institute Proceedings' publish an editorial calling for the ships to be converted to paragraphs (on behalf of the magazine and/or the USNI), or publish an article by a writer calling for this?
  • Did Arleigh Burke-class destroyers really serve along side Iowa class BBs? According to the article on the destroyers, only Arleigh Burke had a period of service which crossed over that of any of the Iowas, and this was only for a few months (when the destroyer was probably involved in trials and training and the battleships preparing to be decommissioned)
  • Was there any criticism of the decision to reactivate and modernise these ships in the 1980s? (this seems likely to have occurred given its expense and their questionable combat value)
    • There was some controversy over the decision to reactivate the battleships. I am going from memory here, so this may not be 100% accurate, but I seem to recall that the controversy was situated over the age of the ships, their ability to withstand the impact of modern anti shipping missiles, the cost of the reactivation, and the intended role of the battleships. I recall that replies were that the ships were old but still considered combat worthy, that the class B armor plate should withstand any soviet missile (and it was alleged that the the armor would hold up against soviet torpedoes as well) packing a conventional warhead, that the cost of reactivating and modernizing the ships was small considering the cost of programs like the B2 then under development, and that the ships would be operating in low air threat environments that would allow the ships to function without the presence of air cover or conversely, given the ability of the ships to operate with carriers at a comparable speed, to cruise with carrier battle groups to provide additional support for the CBG. If you like, I can go fishing form the material and see about building a paragraph or two on the subject for the article.
  • The coverage of the ships' World War II service is troublesome; a key feature of their time in the Pacific during 1944 and 1945 was that they all operated as part of Task Force 38/58, and so participated in the same operations, yet these aren't always identified (for instance, three of the BBs took part in Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II during July and August 1945, but only Missouri and Wisconsin are identified as having done this).
    • I assume your talking about the individual ships part of the article. I'll confess that these descriptions are holdovers from the previous version of the article, and that they are intended only to highlight major events of the history of the ships. Still though, I'd be willing to look through and amend the material as necessary.
  • The 'ships' section also suffers a bit from DANFS-syndrome. For instance, the key feature of the Iowa class battleships' experience in the Battle of Leyte Gulf was that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time as they were used to screen the carriers instead of guarding the San Bernardino Strait, and when Halsey belatedly detached them they were unable to get in place in time to block the Japanese retreat, but this isn't mentioned.
    • Note that the ships section is intended just to highlite the major events of the history, so the section does emit certain details of their operational history.
      • This is a wise approach, and I would continue to keep the summaries as brief as they are currently. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph which begins 'Initially, proposals were made to complete these two battleships as aircraft carrier' duplicates earlier material and could be cut.
  • There's nothing at all on the conditions the ships' crews experienced (or even the make-up of the crew and how this changed over time, etc). It would be interesting to know how the US trained sailors in the 1980s to operate these elderly vessels and how successful this was.
    • It happens that we had a presentation by the USN here on campus a week or so ago, and I asked a female lieutenant where I could go and get this kind of information and she suggested a few places to check. In the mean time though this information remains elusive.
  • The article still doesn't have any photos of the ships during World War II
    • Technical point: the ships make up in WWII and Korea is 99% similar, so the Korean War images do capture the ships in their WWII format. I've been working on WWII images that will fit in the article and not be so small that they omit all the important details but thus far haven't had much help.
  • I've marked some material as needing citations Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duly noted.

As a few more comments:

  • There are two tags at the end of the Bibliography saying that the article contains text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships - this should be re-written if it's still in the article
    • To be brutally honest, if there is any material from DANFS still in the article, its going to be in the section covering the service histories of the ships. I'll look through the section and see about removing the DANFS material from the article, but as a comical side note since DANFS covers the ship's histories any attempt to rewrite the ship's histories is going to be covered to some greater or lesser extent by DANFS :)
  • Some of the books in the 'Further reading' section appear to be of limited relevance (eg, The Navy, whatever the Comment and Discussion article in Proceedings is, Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
    • I consulted the books there and they were of very limited help in the rebuilding of the article. Other sources covered in better detail the info I got from the books, but since conventional wisdom is to list all sources used in the article I thought it best to include them.
  • What makes http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm worth including as an external link? It's just someone's personal assessment of World War II battleships
    • There have been two separate and rather long edit wars concerning this article and the inclusion or exclusion of comparison related material to place the capabilities of the Iowa class battleships in relation to the Yamato, Bismark, and other battleship classes of the day. Part of the solution involved in ending the edit wars was the inclusion of this off site link so that others could read on somebody else's page the way the battleships stacked up against each other. Its a holder over from years gone by, and at this point it could probably be removed without inciting a riot, but I thought it important to give the history behind the link. I'll get to this later today, assuming nothing unexpected comes up. I have some answers to other questions you've raised here as well, but as before this I will get to this evening. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1 is irrelevant and should be removed
  • Note 5 seems speculative. The BBs could have not fired all their cruise missiles because it was difficult (impossible?) to reload them at sea and there was a desire to keep some missiles in reserve onboard these ships. More to the point, it's also of relatively little importance to the article and should probably be removed.
    • Impossible to reload. I added this only to note that the battleships did have unfired missiles and to that it was theoretically possible that one reason they were not fired is due to the warheads being nuclear. That said, it does seem speculative, but by WP:V criteria the note seems to be legit. I'll wait for additional input before I move to address this issue so I can better gauge where consensus on the matter lies.
      • I've removed it. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CPI inflation conversion should be removed from note 8 Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatnote. Maybe there ought to be a hatnote, because there was a previous Iowa class battleship. This was the USS Iowa, which was in a class of one. I do not think that there is no need for disambiguation in the title though.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just a scan of the article turns up some questions:

  • I've long been of the opinion that articles trying to achieve A and FA class should not contain text copied from public domain sources. Article claims to contain text from DANFS and the NVR.
    • I am reluctant to remove the NVR material since it serves a purpose in the article. By chance would you be in position to suggest an acceptable substitute for the NVR cites in the article?
      • For NVR citations I've been using the simple {{cite web}} when needed. There isn't a whole lot of material in an NVR listing that can be copied verbatim since the data is only specifications. Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II is never used as a source on battleship articles. You'd think that a 15 volume series would contain much detail of WWII operations.
    • It wasn't a book I had access to here at UTEP. I could see about including the material in the article.
      • It would be nice if you'd stop playing this game. I don't know if this link will work correctly but apparently there are two of the 15 volume series plus a few extra volumes available at UTEP. I found them in about two minutes of searching. Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brad, that's rather rude of you to say. An editor of your caliber shouldn't need to be reminded of AGF. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want a source in the the article then I will go looking for material from your source to add to the article, but this time do me the favor of listing every source you want in the article so that after this fails I can go looking and add all the sources you want to see in the article. I'd say that sounds fair to both of us, don't you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd consider ''History of United States Naval Operations in World War II about the worst possible source to use in any article. It was published between 1947 and 1962, at a time when the US and UK kept quite a bit of information classified. Recent publications are almost always better than older ones, and this case is certainly no exception. I for one would oppose the promotion of an article that relied heavily on horribly out-of-date sources like this. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You'd be surprised at how many "modern" books rely on "outdated" information were that information still applies. Toll in Six Frigates relies heavily on Roosevelt and Cooper. Even Ty Martin in A Most Fortunate Ship uses sources that are over 100 years old. A "modern" book will usually contain updated information where it applies. That's what happens when you take a few minutes to read your source's bibliography. If Tom had simply said he didn't consult the series I would not have cared but I highly dislike being lied to. Brad (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturmvogel found one reference not backing up what it is citing. This was a severe problem in the past and apparently it still continues. I would hope that an editor could compare the source with the cites and make sure everything is correct.
    • There shouldn't be any issues with the citations, I've been through the source material and it should be all plugged in and correctly cited. I think the instance Sturmvogel cited is a case of differing opinions for the idea of a citation than it is an incorrect cite, though I need to play the waiting game and see if that is in fact the case.
      • I still believe that an uninvolved editor should check these. Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since Buggie found another (Polish) source that was wrong could there be others? Brad (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently citation [5] is some sort of a Polish source but it's difficult for anyone to verify the source unless they understand Polish and happen to have a copy at hand. The source isn't online so it could be verified easily. Brad (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...yeah, that was here when I started rewriting and its apparently reliable. All the same, I have been looking into replacing it or at the very least ensuring that all information cited to the source is double cited to another source. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is that the Polish source should be supplemented not replaced.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would an article about a capital ship of the US Navy written in English need to source its information from one written in Polish? Are there no other English sources that can cite the information? Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I need to go to a confession). I added that ref in good faith when I sort of spontaneously started to help Tom with the FAR. I also forgot to put in a page number. I've removed the refs. Buggie111 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confess nothing, Buggie! There is absolutely nothing wrong with Polish, be it a name or a source. As a man whose name ends in "szki", my ethnicity is often confused with my ancestor's neighbors to the west. Like Toddy said, it doesn't neev to be removed entirely if you can verify it (it seems rather cynical to suggest that only English sources are worth offering as references). Alas, I can only speak a bit of Russian, and only curse words in Polish. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I had the time, I'd be able to hack through the Polish ref, using my knowledge of Russian (Polish being slightly altered romanized Russian, at least some of the time), but, from a first glance I took, none of the refs were actually in the source. Buggie111 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NONENG Brad (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: just a few stylistic comments from me (I made a couple of tweaks to the article also, please check my work):
    • in the lead, there is a little repetition here: "Three of the four battleships currently function as museum ships, while the fourth is awaiting donation to become a museum ship." (the second "museum ship" might be redundant);
      • I played with that a little to see if I could alternated phrases, let me know what you think about the changes. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • World War II and Second World War - both terms are used in the article, it should probably be consistent;
      • I've actually had trouble with this on Wikipedia. When I was in middle and high school, I was taught that the repeated use of the same phrase was a bad thing in a research paper, and the the term should be alternated with other synonyms relevant to the material being present in order to hold an audience without boring them with the repeated use of one phrase. That particular part of my education is what is speaking to me here, and it tells me that it would be better to the reader for the phrases World War II and Second World War trade off with each other so as to avoid the article becoming overly saturated with one particular version of the war. Speaking just for myself, I've always preferred that similar terms be moved in and out written works so as to avoid over reliance on one particular phrase. I know the reason for the suggestion is uniformity in the article, but I personally think that using only one term would only hurt the article in the long run. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi, Tom, I understand your point about varying the language, however, I don't believe that this applies to using interchangable proper nouns for events. Doing this could create confusion among lay readers who might be led to believe that it refers to two different conflicts. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to agree with AR here. While I take Tom's point about varying language to me this argument is incorrectly applied here. Proper nouns, such as Second World War/World War II, really do need to be used consistently in an article. This has arisen in a number of ACRs and FACs that I have read. IMO a failure to use this language consistently is only likely to cause problems at a later date. Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Conversion proposals section, the last part of the first paragraph probably should have a citation;
      • I'll cite the material, but to be fair to the statement everything mentioned in the last two lines of the paragraph is explored in much greater detail in the body of the section in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • there are a couple (three, I think) "citation needed" tags that should be dealt with;
    • in the References, Willmott is listed but doesn't apppear in the Bibliography;
    • in the References, the web ref at # 96 probably needs publisher and accessdate information;
    • in the References and in the Bibliograph there is a slight inconsistency in the presentation of retrieval dates. For example compare # 94 to # 95: "Retrieved 10 January 2011." and "Retrieved 2011-01-12." (there are a number of examples of this);
    • slight inconsistency in style "Miller and Miller" v. "Noris & Arkin" ("and" v. "&") probably should be consistent for FAC;
    • in the References "Noris" but in the Bibliography "Norris" - inconsistent spelling, please adjust;
    • the Bibliography and the Further reading section fonts are different sizes, which looks a bit strange, perhaps it should also use the Refbegin and Refend templates?
    • in the Bibliography, are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for the Camp and the Gardiner works?
    • in the Bibliography, "Muir, Malcom (1989)" - is this the correct spelling? Should it be "Malcolm"? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, is anyone able to address these comments? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm working on them, I'm just taking things very, very slowly. Believe me when I say that I will get to it, but it may take a while before your comments are properly addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi, this ACR has been open for 28 days now and as such will need to be listed for closing shortly. Tom, do you think that you will be able to address these concerns within the next few days, or do you think it best to list it for closing now? I'm happy to wait a few days if a successful outcome is deemed likely. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should be able to address some of these concerns in the next 24 hours or so, but I doubt that I will get to all of them before the end of the review. Incidentally, please accept my apologies for the absence over the last two weeks; I had to drop everything and focus on a dream and goal of mine in order to see it come to fruition. You can learn more on userpage, if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom left a note on my talk page that he'd like to have an "open nominations list" at FAC, so I'd like to encourage anyone who wants to join in to get started now and help us finish up this ACR. If we don't get enough help to finish it up, I'll jump in. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I'm not seeing a whole lot of progress and a lot of reason to close this now so it can be brought up again once all of the relevant issues have been worked on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you have my blessing to close this so that it can be reopened when the above issues have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Iowa-class_battleship&oldid=699132246"