Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/North Carolina class battleship

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

North Carolina class battleship

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Contribs)

• Featured article candidates/North Carolina class battleship/archive1

The North Carolinas were constructed in the late 1930s and early 40s; they were commissioned just in time to see the aircraft carrier take the battleship's place as queen of the sea. So, after about six years of service, they were put into reserve and never returned. Any and all comments would be appreciated, and I hope you enjoy reading the article! Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks to Parsecboy (talk · contribs) for his help in adding the "Propulsion" and "Armor" sections. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • One external link is reported as dead, please check and advise. Eleven disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. One image (the turret cutaway) has no alt text.
  • At the bottom of the design section you have a quote, but having read through the section I would recommend taking the quote and putting it at the top of the Design section between the actual design header and the "A-L" header. I think that in this manner the quote can serve as a reminder to readers throughout the section of the constant fluctuation of the design for the battleships.
  • In the sixth paragraph of the North Carolina section you have the following: "She returned to active duty in November and returned to carrier escort in time to be hit by a typhoon. North Carolina protected carriers while they provided air cover for invasion fleets and launched attacks on Leyte, Luzon, and the Visayas. Surviving another typhoon, one which sank three destroyers..." Typhoon Cobra sank three destroyers - Hull, Monogan, and Spence, yet the paragraph seems to suggest that another typhoon did the same thing. Are you sure that you don't have one typhoon crossed with another? Best to make sure now.
  • The second paragraph of the Electronics section seems to be missing a word or two, or at the very least a capital letter.
• Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fixed. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Some basic information stats are missing from the infobox (namely speed and crew complement) but looks good otherwise.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is a great article which provides a huge amount of information on these ships. I think it needs a little bit more work to reach A class though:
  • The first para isn't consistent with MOS:BEGIN as it doesn't fully define the scope of the article (eg, it doesn't stand alone and summarise the ships).
  • Further on the lead, I think that it provides too much detail on the debate over the design and has too many numbers in it - many readers will be put off by this level of technical detail
  • A table summarising the key features of the main design options considered would be interesting and a good way to make this complicated information more accessible - the current prose is very interesting, but heavy going
  • "an aerial attack would also be capable of taking out the Nagatos" seems a bit informal - I'd suggest that "taking out" be replaced with 'sinking', 'destroying' or similar
  • Should the 'Specifications' section go before the 'service' section?
  • There seems to be no reason to state that "Nevertheless, she stayed in action" after describing the North Carolina being hit by a 5 inch shell - such small caliber weapons couldn't do much damage to a battleship so there would have been no reason for her to break off for repairs
  • There should be a link to the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in the section on Washington (which took place on the night of 14-15 November, rather than 13 November as the article states)
  • The last para of Washington's service history is uncited
  • "After the war, North Carolina and Washington remained in active commission for short periods of time, possibly because they were more comfortable and less cramped than the four South Dakotas. However, they were still quickly sent to the reserve fleet, with both being decommissioned on 27 June 1947" is a bit confusing - 'however' doesn't seem needed at the start of the second sentence and you should say what happened to the South Dakotas
  • The detailed descriptions of weapons and their histories in the 'Smaller weaponry' section seems out of place - this material would be better placed in articles on the weapons rather than this article, especially as the North Carolinas were just two of the thousands of ships which carried these weapons Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • In order, though I'm extremely tired so excuse stupid errors: I would think that the lead is easier to understand this way... I did it mostly the same was on Design 1047 battlecruiser.
    • You're right. I removed a couple numbers, and will look into this more when I am next on.
    • That would nice. I'll try to throw one together, and if I can't get the syntax I'll get someone to help. :-)
    • done.
    • I don't know, should it?
      • Not necessarily - I think it would look tidier. It's not required for A class status though! Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • done.
    • Will take a look when I am next on.
    • done.
    • Yeah, I see the problem. Will fix.
    • I was thinking about that too. I think we should leave the specifications of the smaller weapons though. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay Nick, I've fixed your last two issues. Not sure how to address you first point, as I disagree with your assessment. :-) I'll try to work on a table when I've got some time. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've struck those comments. While the first one isn't enough to stop an A class nomination, it will probably be a problem if/when this goes to a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also moved the specifications section up, per your and Joe's suggestion. :-) I'll try to tweak the lead, but I don't want to make it into four paragraphs because that makes it look too long. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Just two issues.

• "When the Bureau of Ordnance introduced a "super-heavy" 16 in shell, the ships were redesigned ("A1", "B1" and "C1") in an attempt to provide protection against it; "A1" was only just 500-long-ton (510 t; 560 ST) the 35,000-ton limit, while the other two were just short of 40,000-long-ton (41,000 t; 45,000 ST)." Rather awkward, and I think you're missing a word, please rephrase
• "530 long tons (590 ST; 540 t) of cargo and 200,000 US gal (760,000 L) would also be able to be carried." Passive voice should be avoided, and 200,000 gallons of what?

• I believe that I have addressed both of your concerns. Thanks! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those it looks good, but I'd like to ask why the specifications section is at the end - it seems that most articles I recall have that at the beginning, after the design section. – Joe N 22:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well done! (GO BATTLESHIPS!!!!!!!!!) Sorry, moment of weakness :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tom, but I believe you might want to watch it—you are becoming a single-purpose account focused on battleship-related topics only. ;-> —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Once again I see a heavy reliance on DANFS articles. Entire paragraphs have only one cite to DANFS. Is DANFS in this case the only source for operational activities? I'm glad to see that you brought in other material and that has made a difference. --Brad (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't—if I could have gotten my hands on Battleships: United States Battleships in World War II I would have cited it—but I also did not believe that it mattered because these are simple summaries, not full accounts of the ship's history... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 12:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have access to MelCat? Here is one listing that I found. There are many battleship books listed there; even one on the Mighty Mo. --Brad (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do. I think I requested it...it's a confusing site. The major problem is that with college classes, homework etc., I don't have a lot of time to read and transcribe information from books to Wikipedia. :| —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My concern is that this battleship clique is trying to churn out articles to meet their goals but are overlooking other sources that would balance the article. This particular article is well done, you've rewritten it to remove the "DANFS speak", it's well organized and the prose is good; it's miles above the current Massachusetts article. The only issue is the reliance on US Navy sources. I support for A-class but I really hope that you can bring in other sources before it goes to FAC. --Brad (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Brad's comments here. I really recommend the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II as a source. Most large Australian libraries have a set, so it should be available through US libraries. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.