Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61)

Turret explosion

Is this the same Iowa whose gun turret exploded in 1989? -- Zoe

Yup. But it's not recorded in DANFS yet, so the facts are too much in dispute to record here. :-) But seriously, the article is still missing all the 1980s action... Stan 03:21 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

What was the name of the sailor who was accused of blowing up the turret intentionally because of his being upset over the ending of an alleged homosexual relationship? -- Zoe

Oh how juicy - I don't remember ever hearing the story at the time, but there's plenty about it on the net. The sailor in question was Clayton Hartwig, and the Navy's website carefully doesn't mention the scandal... Stan 04:53 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

There is a blog about the events of that day @ http://h8creator.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/errant-parent-and-the-day-hell-came-to-visit/

Check it out it is pretty interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.105.35 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Armaments table

What's the source for the 1968 section in the "Armaments" table? If the ship was mothballed from 1958 to 1983, why would there be an entry for 1968? Does it really mean to reference 1958? And why, in 1958 or 1968, would it have no AA armaments at all? Cromis 18:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the table was copied from the New Jersey one. I removed the entry. And the New Jersey had the guns removed to save weight as it was correctly assumed that there would be no air threat from the North Vietnamese, and such guns would not be useful even if there was.Spejic 19:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mispelling?

Iowa departed on a midshipman training cruise 1 June 1955 and upon her return, she entered Norfolk for a four-mouth overhaul.

What is a four-mouth overhaul?

That should be "month" (the "u"/"n" confusion is very common in OCRed txt). Stan 17:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Also E.T. Woolfidge --> Edmund T. Wooldridge.

—wwoods 21:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Stricken

According to http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB61.htm the ship was stricken from the Navy list on March 17, 2006. A large chunk of the "present" section of the article is going to have to be deleted now. Spejic 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the info bar to reflect this new development, and I will reword the present section to reflect this as well (assuming, of course, that no one beats me to it). TomStar81 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Anchorage nest at Suisun Bay

Pictured right is one of the anchorage nests at Suisun Bay. Am I correct in thinking that Iowa is the rightmost vessel shown? If so, should I add this photo to the article? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• That is correct, Iowa is the vessel on the far right. I would refrain from adding this photo though; In my opinion a better one would be a picture of the land Iowa would have if moved to Stockton, or better yet, a concept photo of the planned museum for Iowa. TomStar81 03:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel the need to clarify my earlier comment: Having looked at it a little longer I think maybe it would look good in the bottom part of the section on Iowa’s placement into the mothball fleet; although I would refrain from adding it to the museum ship section. TomStar81 04:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But the thing is that Iowa is 'with' the mothball fleet, but not 'in' it. It isn't a member of the Navy Inactive Fleet - it's just temporarily being stored with them. Spejic 11:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Suisun Bay, San Francisco

She arrived in Suisun Bay, San Francisco, on 21 April 2001 and is part of the Reserve Fleet there.

Wait, am I mistaken, or is Suisun Bay NOT within the boundaries of the City and County of San Francisco? In fact, I believe it's at least 10 miles away (by flight, farther by water-travel) from San Francisco. It may, however, be accessible to the San Francisco Bay via the San Pablo Bay, but that's hardly cause to call it "Suisun Bay, San Francisco", no? Perhaps preferrable would be "Suisun Bay, in northern California", or "Suisun Bay, in the San Francisco Bay Area"? - Eric 09:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suisun Bay is indeed not in SF county - the northern extent of SF county is Red Rock Island, which is just south of the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. Measuring the distance from Red Rock to the Suisun fleet in Google Earth it's around 19 miles. "Suisun Bay, in northern California" seems best; as Suisun Bay isn't part of SF Bay (they're separated by the Carquinez Strait) I think mentioning SF bay might be confusing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Last Battleships?

Hello, the line: "The Iowa, as class leader of the last battleships in any navy..." caught my attention. Wasn't the British battleship Vanguard the last battleship of any navy? Even though the primary 15 inch guns of the Vanguard were recycled from earlier ships, wasn't the Vanguard newer than the Iowa class?

Vanguard was the last battleship ever built. She was completed after USS Missouri, in 1946, and was known in brittian for being the only battleship to never fire in anger. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the line "The Iowa, as class leader of the last battleships in any navy..." seems to jump out at me. Vanguard's 15 inch guns were fired in anger, at Jutland in WW1, but they were fitted to earlier ships.

The Iowa Class was the last US class, but I'm sure it wasn't the last class ever, even though HMS Vanguard was a one off.

Rejection by San Francisco, CA

Should it be noted that the permission to berth the USS Iowa near AT&T Park (aka PacBell Park) was rejected by the goverment of the City of San Francisco?

It is noted that the city of San Fransisco turned down an offer to berth the battleship. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-enyclopedic?

"On February 24, 1943, Iowa put to sea for shakedown in the Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic coast. She got underway on August 27 for Argentia, Newfoundland to neutralise the threat of German battleship Tirpitz which was reportedly operating in Norwegian waters."

The terms/word "put to sea", "shakedown", "underway", as well as calling it "she" seems non-encyclopedic to me, and is more colloquial than should be. Something should be donw about this. Also, I'm changing "neutralise" to the correct spelling of "neutralize", with a "z".--PoidLover 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been repeated discussions about the use of "she" in ship articles; the community consensus is that the use of "she" is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. The terms "put to sea", "shakedown", and "underway" are nautical terms that fit the article perfectly; these can be linked to articles for clarification if need be. Also, if your out to change established procedure for articles like this your comments would be better left either at WikiProject Ships or WikiProject Military history. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, using "she" to describe a ship is actually grammatically incorrect; it's a form of colloquialism. Journalistic style (which Wikipedia likes to use as one of their guides), specifically the Associated Press Stylebook, directs the use of "it" when discussing ships. As such, that's also the style that U.S. Navy public affairs outlets have adopted. Nolefan32 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Per U.S. Navy style guide "Ships may be referred to as "she" or "her." " and Navy styleguide_all "her, she - Appropriate pronoun when referring to a ship. Do not use this pronoun with reference to a nation except in quoted material. Use "it" instead." The it refers to nation, not ship. --Dual Freq 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have given my credentials on this topic - I served 20 years in the Navy and Naval Reserve, and today I'm a civilian working for the Department of the Navy. My professional background is journalism and communications (what the government refers to as public affairs); currently I'm a Navy base public affairs officer. It is true that according to naval style, "she" and "her" are acceptable (and even preferred) terms for describing a ship; however, naval style also dictates that ship names are to always be written in all caps, i.e., USS NIMITZ, which is a style you rarely see outside of official naval correspondence (which is the only documents naval style applies to). In the Navy public affairs arena, we instead use the Associated Press Stylebook, which is the main guide used by print media outlets throughout the United States; that guide dictates "it" over "she", and as such, we the official communicators for the Department of the Navy, use "it". Nolefan32 04:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I just took a look at the "Navy styleguide" you linked to. What you stumbled across isn't what it presents itself as. That's a localized styleguide developed by the journalists at the Navy Newsstand for articles submitted to them; don't misconstrue it as being an "official" Navy style directive, it's intended ONLY for Newsstand submissions. Nolefan32 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Its an issue that has come up before on various medium, notably at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she"). Wikipedia doesn't hold the use of she to be grammatically incorrect becuase its a standard English practice. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I see Wikipedia espousing all sorts of guides and sources for what it dictates to be good grammar, and of course the extremely vague "standard English practice". Most outlets that wish to be taken professionally, such as newspapers and magazines, prefer to adhere to a single source for their style, whether they make it up locally or borrow one that already exists. The one most used by media outlets is the Associated Press Stylebook, and it happens to be my personal favorite as it was the one that was taught to me in journalism school and which we've used throughout my career, but there are others and all are good. My point being is that Wikipedia can't be trying to fritter around and use this style source for this and that style source for that and then just say "standard English practice" when they don't like any of the style out there. It's simply unprofessional. You've got to pick one and go with it. Nolefan32 04:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not out to change any procedures, it's just that this article seemed a little unprofessional to me, but now that I see there's a reason for all this, it all makes sense. Is the link for nautical terms anywhere on this article? If not it should be, and clearly be referenced on the article.--PoidLover 05:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Shakedown" can be linked to Shakedown cruise, and "put to sea" can be linked to military deployment since thats what a warship does when she goes to sea. "Underway" doesn't link to anything I know of; although it may be listed in the nautical terminalogy glossary. I will see what I can do about linking the stuff. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that should suffice.--PoidLover 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to raise the she/it issue again. Of the four entries on the Iowas, this is the only one using "it". Given all the above material justifying "she", I think this one should be changed to conform to the others. I'd be happy to do it. Busaccsb 05:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I do plan to get around to it eventually; you will note that not only is this the only page to not use she, it is also the only one of the four completed Iowa class battleship pages not to be featured. I am working on bringing this on up to FA status; its just been on hold for some time now. If you wish to change the article from it to she go right on ahead, but make sure that the article doesn't alternate from she to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did it, and also did a few minor wording changes. You seemed to like what I did a few months back, so didn't think this would be a problem. I have a couple questions: what are the requirements for FA status, and how am I supposed to sign this page?Busaccsb 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FA requirements can be found on the this page under criteria; there is also some FA advice on the parent Military history project page. Among other things the article needs inline citations and more content for its various sections; the other Iowas had more meat in their WWII and Korean War sections, and in the case of Iowa specifically there is the issue of her 89 turret explosion, a section which will need to be built from scratch. A better source other than DANFS will have to be found for the WWII and Korean War sections. More images should be uploaded as well. Of course thats just for starts, there are other things that would need to be worked out as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos

They are too much small. Always this stuff of 'thumb' dimensions. I disagree because there is no way to see particulars if not click on photos. But this is not necessarly a good thing, expecially for who has 56k link (as myself), because an article must be fair, because if you post a medium size photo atleast you allow the reader to see something interesting.

To me (not to talk to who has ASDL,Fi-Wi etc.) it's clear that put a 300-400px image NOT slow down too much the page opening and is an huge advantage to me to see something. If thumb images are needed to sell DVD with Wikipedia inside, as is happening, then there is a problem that affects Wikipedia.

Onestly,

is amusingly small, while

Allow a way better to see what is pictured with xxxx more details to check...and it's a way fairer to see..

Stefanomencarelli 20:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case the photos are small because the article is small. When I get around to bringing this article up to FA status I intend to enlarge the images somewhat so they match the ones on the other pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom, a great deal of discussion has already been generated around the issue of using images. An attempt to go around WP:Aviation guidelines for image sizes was recently made. This is the comment that was given by an admin reviewing the issue: "Stephano, if you want the pics bigger, all you have to do is set the thumb size bigger on your preferences. Go to the "my preferences" link at the top of the screen, then click on the "files" tab. In there is a box where you can set the size you want to view thumbs at. If you add thumb sizing, then you are preventing everyone else from deciding what size they want to see things at. Why should you be telling me what size I should view things at? Should I not have the choice to have the images at a size that fits best my monitor? By sizing thumbs, you force your view on everyone else, which just isn't a very nice thing to do. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)"

My comment was: "There is a reason for not having large images, they take up space, make it harder to download the article and unless you are a graphic artist, trying to establish a "decent size" is entirely subjective. As a former graphic and technical artist, I worked within parameters established by the graphics editor and I still do. Those who want to see a larger image, merely have to "click" on the image and a separate window will take the viewer to the image size that was established by the editor who submitted the photograph. I typically upload a high resolution image but if it was anything other than a "thumb" size in an article, the images would quickly overload the article. If you check out any of the WP:Aviation Project pages, you will see the same basic layout and use of image sizes. FWIW, the image you are using as an example, is one that I uploaded and I feel that the "thumb" size works extremely well with this image. Bzuk 00:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)."

Another editor's comment: "Please note that there is an option in the my preferences tab at the top of the page to change the size of thumbs to a size that is suitable for you, and if you really want to see the picture full resolution, then you can click on the picture. "Hard coding" picture size will over-ride other peoples preferences as how large they want to view thumbs.Bear in mind that not everyone is viewing the page on the same sized/resolution screen as you, and some will be viewing pages with very slow download speeds, so large pictures will be an irritant or inconvenience to some.Nigel Ish 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)" FWIW Bzuk 15:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

Photo in dry dock

[1] might be worth adding to the article, particularly if it was possible to tie down the date.MarkMLl (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a world war 2 era photograph, so the date would have to be 1944 or 1945. If I remeber correctly this was during one of the island campagns (possibly the solomons or marianas), so that would be a good place to start. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

http://battleships.freewebsitehosting.com/Iowa.html appears to be the original source. I've placed the following caption on commons: USS Iowa in a floating drydock at Manus Island, Ulithi Atoll, 28 December 1944. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Protonk comments

Images

• Overall it is my feel that there are too many "guns all firing at something in the distance" pictures. I know these are a lot of what battleships do and that most of the striking pictures fit the mold of "holy crap, that battleship is firing all of its guns at once at something", but we have three of these pictures (four if you count preparing to fire). Perhaps 1 for the infobox and one for the korea campaign?

This came up at the A-class review, and my answer to the question is that I do not yet have a stable version of the article (by which I mean the content is fluxuating due to copyedits which add and remove content). When we have reached more or less the final version then I will add additional images to the article and per your request will include non gun firing ones as well. In the mean time I will see about finding a few images for the rest of the article that do not include guns in target.

• Image:USS Iowa 1945 LOC 182971pu.jpg, perhaps a direct link to the source? assuming that the link isn't temporary.

Done.

• Image:Iowa Modernization.jpg. I don't see an admonition in the MOS about this, so I would suggest that the displayed size of this image be a little larger. The image itself is pretty interesting but at the default thumbnail size it is very busy.

The unwritten rule at milhist is to have all images conform to a single size, we don't generally accept enlarge photos becuase the forced thumbnail size has in the past generated compliants from users who inform us that the image with the larger size occupies a disproportionately large amount of space on there moniters. If it will help the GAR I will bumb up the size, but I want you to know that other editers may convert it back to its current size before all is said and done.

If the project consensus is to leave the thumbnail size as is, I'm happy to go along with that. Hopefully user's click on it and see how detailed the full picture is. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships source link should include a link to the Hazegray version given the NHC's limited uptime.
  • Done.

N Not done

• I recommend spitting the reference notes and the explanatory notes as shown in WP:REFGROUP. I only count 5 explanatory notes, so this isn't really a big deal, just a suggestion.

Doing...

• The format for the references should be standardized. Since this page cites a large number of reference documents I would suggest not breaking it into notes/references but just formatting the references to provide sufficient info for a reader to retrieve the source. Specifically, the DANFS references following note 1 (Notes 13, 15, 16) and the All Hands notes (22-26, 46) might benefit from some specificity.
  • Working on it.
• Sourcing these articles from secondary sources is, honestly, a pain. A good majority of the secondary sources on the subject are likely to be coffee table paperweights like USS Iowa At War. Garzke's Battleships is a good reference, though, and contains a non-trivial amount of material regarding the Iowa.
  • Not sure what you want me to do here. Obviously this relates to this sources I've picked, but I am not sure if you are asking me to find new sources, replace sources currently being used, or augement the sources already used with better sources. Can you clarify?
    • Sure. I wrote this sequentially and when I was putting together the "sourcing" section, it didn't appear to be too much of a big deal to have most of the history come from DANFS. Later (as you see in the small probablems/POV section), I found that the prose and layout suffered due to the limitations on sources. This is a peer review comment at this point, I'm going to go pass the article now, but it really should be fixed before this article goes to FAC (and I realize that the other iowa classes are sourced in the same fashion...as it is convenient, those should be modified as well). I listed some source suggestions below. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

N Not done

• USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#cite_note-Garzke-36. Cite where you got it applies here. We should either check out the book from a library and make sure the material matches or note that the source was not...directly the book.
• As regards the Typhoon Cobra, USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#cite_note-Cobra-10 is a dead link. It might also greatly improve the article if the editors availed themselves of the print references here.

Its been fixed.

• Might I suggest the Naval History Magazine and Proceedings of the USNI as possible places to look for sources on the subject of battleship modernization? I know that the FAS is generally a reliable source for military information but it seems as though the reader looses out on historical context when it is used to source the modernization section. This isn't that big of a quibble.
• USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#cite_note-FAQ-20. Is Factplace a reliable source?
  • It isn;t but I can't seem to find this link. I either removed it or it got renumbered, but by all means if you see in there let me know and I will get rid of it.
• USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#cite_ref-38, "The incident remains the Navy's worst loss of life during peace time operations, surpassing the loss of life incurred from the friendly fire incident involving an Iraqi pilot and the Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided missile frigate USS Stark (FFG-31)". Emm. USS Thresher (SSN-593)?
  • Surface navy is now used to seperate this incudent from sub related incidents. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

POV

Y Done Although I suggest looking at the NSGS article again.

• No Major POV problems. Cited in the "small problems" section are numerous wording issues that stem from relying on DANFS as an anchor reference.
• The 1989 Turret Explosion is largely free from POV problems. the section is factual and dispassionate.
• Reserve Fleet and Museum Ship (1990-present). I'm not a battleship guy. I'll be honest. But even given my bias against the arguments presented for big gun retention, I think that this section is in need of a minor rewrite. The naval surface gunfire support story is one of frustration, lobbying, rose colored glasses and bravado. Basic rundown is this: there were serious concerns in the 1920's (!) that ships of the line would be eclipsed by airpower. By the time that the Iowa class came in to the fleet, their primary function (fighting a "climactic battle" against other ships of the line) had been obviated by aircraft and submarines. This is perhaps most apparent at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. After WWII, the ships were recalled at the behest of congress. The article does a god job of presenting the facts of the matter and explaining why the NSGS folks might want the battleships reinstated but doesn't really cover the Navy's motivation for mothballing them or arguments against mobilization. I'm not asking that we engage in Or, just that we find some references on the subject and balance this out.

Per summary style this is covered in much greater detail in the article United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate, which is itself a fork from the larger Iowa-class battleship article. As this focuses solely on Iowa and not the larger debate I left the link at the top for people to get a better idea of the whole issue and the role of Iowa in the issue.

Small problems (Not MOS)

• "Among the Iowa-class battleships, Iowa is notable for being the only ship of the class to have served a combat tour in the Atlantic Ocean during World War II, and for the notorious circumstances surrounding a gun turret explosion in April 1989." This is kind of an awkward sentence for the lead. We should mention these (as they are salient facts), but not strain to note their significance in the lead so much.

This was done in the articles USS New Jersey (BB-62) and USS Missouri (BB-63); neither mention on those articles drew any concern from reviewers.

That doesn't mean that it's a good sentence. If can easily be replaced by "Iowa is the only ship of the class to have served a combat tour in the Atlantic Ocean during World War II." in that paragraph and then moving the gun turret bit below.

Implemented in the article. Is this better?

Actually, I think that is much better. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• "In April 1989 an explosion of undetermined origin wrecked her #2 gun turret, killing 47 sailors." Why is there no link to the main article on this in the lead?

Oversight. Sorry, its fixed now.

• "...was initially struck from the Naval Vessel Register (NVR)..." NVR is only used once more in the text. Perhaps we can drop this acronym.

Done.

N Not done

• The Construction section's second paragraph reads like an armament listing rather than a history of her construction. Also, it contains material that rightly belongs in the Modernization section.

This section is formatted to comply with the layout already in use on the articles USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64). Changing this format would demand a change in the other three article since they should be internally consistant.

Well, if that is the case than the format for those should change as well. The construction section should discuss her construction. Later retrofits to the ship should be discussed as they occurred chronologically or in a section discussing those changes. Internal consistency is a laudable goal but this is a chance for improvement in each of the articles.

• "Shakedown" This can link to Sea trial.

Done.

• If she was deployed to the atlantic to counter tirpits, why was she redeployed to the pacific 11 months before Tirpitz was sunk?

As a fast battleship Iowa was built to sail with and defend the U.S. Pacific based aircraft carriers. I have found no sources to this effect (yet) but my educated guess is that Iowa was sent into the pacific to serve as a carrier escort becuase that is what she was built for and becuase the RAF had damaged Tirpitz enough to put her out of action at the time Iowa left the Atlantic. It is also possible that she was in the Atlantic only becuase she was serving as Roosevelts escort. This is one of a limited number of surviving issues I am working on solving.

• Service with Battleship Division 7, Admiral Lee I don't know the naming conventions, but this is an oddly named section. Further, it is tough to follow as a reader. We move from action to action without any sort of flow or premise (Yes, I realize that we have only the continuity of a deployment schedule in wartime to go on). My suggestion is to remove small bombardment campaigns and to provide an .svg map of her travels through the pacific to help connect the point in time.

This name was adopted to comply with the layout already in use on the articles USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64). Changing this format would demand a change in the other three article since they should be internally consistant.

• "...flying the flag of Vice Admiral Willis A. Lee (Commander Battleships, Pacific)" perhaps a term other than "flying the flag" would better help the general reader. Also, is there a wikilink for his position? BATCOMSHIPPACBLAHBLAHBLAH, most likely. :)

COMBATPAC, actually :) The official name is Battleships Pacific Fleet, or so the List of major U.S. Commands of World War II claims. The actual article is redlinked at the moment, but a little research could change that.

• "...In the opening phases of the Marianas campaign" wikilink?

Done.

• "After a month's rest, Iowa sortied from Eniwetok..." Two things. first, Metonymy is a writing habit of old salts. While it is fine to refer to the ship as the sum of her crew and her hull now and again, we should probably keep an eye out for it. Second, "sortie" has a specific meaning. do we mean that here? Also, I'm not going to list every occurrence of metonymy. Some are appropriate, some are not.

1)noted, 2)adressed, 3)so be it

• "She then supported air strikes against Luzon on 18 October and continued this vital duty..." who says it is vital?

Removed vital.

• "Imperial Japanese Navy struck back with a three-pronged attack..." what were the three prongs? Is mention of them appropriate here? If not, can we remove that adjective?

The three prongs were attack forces set to stop the americas. Prong one was a decoy force aimed at drawing the U.S. carriers away from the landings, while Prongs 2 and 3 would transition though Sugurio Straight and San Bernardino Strait to attack the US beachheads. I have elaborted on this a little in the article.

• "Iowa, with TF 38..." Although task force 38/58 is explained above, it might be worth the space to write out "task force" each time.

I suppose we could do that, although as noted above this format is used in the other three completed Iowa class battleship articles.

• "On 18 December 1944 the ships of Task Force 38 unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives when Typhoon Cobra overtook the force..." this paragraph contains a lot of material not really related to the iowa. I don't want to be "that guy", but WP:UNDUE might direct us to trim this down so that the history relevant to the Iowa is portrayed proportionally.

This same paragraph is used in the articles USS New Jersey (BB-62) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) with no compliants, and would need to be changed there if it is changed here.

• "The city of Hitachi on Honshū was given the same treatment..." this is, perhaps, not a cool way to refer to shelling a city.

Noted and adressed.

• "During this time she also embarked Naval Reserve elements and midshipmen for training in addition to her usual training routine of drills and maneuvers." so?

Its just information. I can be removed if need be.

• "In 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea, prompting the United States to intervene in the name of the United Nations." Comma after 1950.

Done.

• "President Harry S. Truman was caught off guard when the invasion struck" footnote goes to an explanatory note. Was this really the case? Is it germane to this history of the Iowa? Is there a citation for this?

Yes, this is vitally important to the history of Iowa, as the Secretary of Defense had never once considered the possibility of war in Korea and thus most of the actions of the SoD and Truman were aimed at post WWII drawdowns, which left the US without any real backbone at the start of the war. I will look into better citing it.

• "As part of the naval mobilization, Iowa was reactivated 14 July 1951, and formally recommissioned 25 August, Captain William R. Smedberg III in command." More naval grammar. This is admittedly superior to "Captain Smedber, commanding", but needs to be changed.

I'm open to suggestions on how to change this, 'cause from where I am reading this ought to make sense to anyone.

Change the comma to "with"?

• "Iowa remained in US waters until March 1952, when she sailed for Korean waters." How about "Iowa sailed for Korean Waters in March, 1952"? First, it is unlikely she remained inside 12nm from land while at sea from August 1951 to March 1952 (although it is possible) and if she did, it isn't really of note 50 years later.

Done.

• "In the company of other Naval vessels Iowa’s guns fired again 9 April..." although more accurate than saying that Iowa fired, this sentence is kind of a non-statement. In naval writing, we are fond of remarking that guns fire of their own volition because we have a flair for the dramatic. that doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Likewise, it is not really informative to say "In the company of other Naval vessels". Was she deployed alone in the first firing? (possible). If so we should note that.

I assume she was alone for the first firing, and I added the other naval vessel line to note she wasn't alone. Its been tweaked, you can alayze the results.

• "...and mauling a division headquarters" No. bears maul things.

Tweaked

• "where she closed four railroad tunnels " Iowa did not close those tunnels. She either blew them up or collapsed them such that they were closed by definition or closed by the north koreans.

Noted, adressed.

• "Along the way Iowa turned her guns against Songjin for the second time in as many months, closing several railroad tunnels and seriously damaging the bridges in the area" Same as above.

Noted, addressed.

• "The next day she entered Wonson harbor..." Did they really shell stuff from the harbor? That's hardcore.

Thats what the source says, so thats what appears here. I wasn;t there, so I could not confirm or deny this story.

• "On 25 May Iowa, following in sister ship Missouri’s footsteps..." Ships don't have feet. I know we are speaking figuratively but this one is going a little too far.

Tweaked.

• "Upon completion of this exercise, until the fall of 1954, Iowa operated in the Virginia Capes area" so?

Accouting for the battleships whereabouts. I do not see a need to change it.

• "...the first battleship regularly assigned to Commander, Sixth Fleet." Ok. I'm gonna pick this one out of a hat. This article has a problem with terminology for naval units and commands. I don't really care which standard is picked as long as a standard is picked. We may refer to Iowa as coming under the command (hell, chopping to) of the sixth fleet. We may refer to her coming under the command of Commander, Sixth Fleet. We should not do both. Distinction may be appropriate when the ship is assigned as a flagship, but otherwise it is ok to accept that Commander, Sixth Fleet is the Sixth Fleet for command purposes. When they ring him on to a commissioned vessel, they will announce "sixth fleet, arriving".

I'll look into formatting this.

• "she entered Norfolk for a four-month overhaul. Following refit," Is it a refit or an overhaul

Overhaul.

• "During her time on the gunline in the Korean War Iowa expended over 4,500 16-in shells at communist targets. This was double the amount of ordnance that she fired in World War II" This sentence doesn't belong in the section it currently resides in. Also, I would argue that none of the rail yards and ordinance dumps have read Das Kapital, so we might not want to refer to them as "communist".

Removed.

• "After the conclusion of Baltops Iowa returned to the United States." I would recommend that we refrain from using military pseudacronyms in prose whenever possible (even when previously identified).

This is standard procedure for milhist, you may use an abreviation after writing out the first apperence of the term in the article.

Right, and it is good practice where it is needed, but in this case we have two mentions, the first (which uses the full name and notes the shortened phrase) and the second. Wouldn't it help make the article more readable to just drop the shortened phrase altogether?

• "During the review Iowa sailed slowly down the Hudson River and into New York Harbor, allowing Reagan to inspect the thirty-three warships representing twenty-three nations from a platform atop of Turret I" If this isn't copied directly from All Hands then it is very close. While this is probably factually true we should treat this as a pass in review and not refer to it as the navy does, as an inspection.

Tweaked.

• "For the remainder of the year Iowa escorted Kuwaiti gas and oil tankers "reflagged" as US merchant ships from the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz." Reflagged?

To provide the legal imputis for assigning US assessts to escort the tankers the US assumed control of the vessels, reflagging them as US oiltankers and giving them US names.

Ok. I haven't checked the article yet but this should be explained or linked to an article that does the explaning.

• "In February the battleship sailed for New Orleans for a port visit before departing for Norfolk. On 10 April the battleship was visited by commander of the US 2nd Fleet" So?

Just information on the battleships whereabouts.

• "Although the Navy was satisfied with the investigation and its results,[28] others did not take to the official investigation results very well..." This is...inartfully worded.

Tweaked

N Not done

• "...Congress relented and forced the Navy to reopen the investigation." Congress relented to whom?

Lobbying, I assume. I will look into tightening that up.

N Not done

• "While Iowa was undergoing modernization, sister ship USS New Jersey (BB-62) had been summoned..." The next two paragraphs present a summary of the second investigation findings and while accurate, jump right into the text. We go from "...by the Navy before and after the first investigation,[28][29][33] but the investigation did manage to uncover evidence pointing to an accidental powder explosion rather than an act of sabotage" to a paragraph describing a timeline of events. This has to be rewritten in order to be more clear to the reader.

I'll work on it.

• "Iowa as part of the National Defense Reserve Fleet," comma after Iowa.

Got it.

• "Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 required the United States Navy..." Do we need an explanation in this article as to why the New Jersey was chosen to be reactivated?

I added to be comprehensive. I suppose it can be removed if need be.

• "The Historic Ships Memorial at Pacific Square (HSMPS) organization that attempted to place the ship in San Francisco is now working with the Mare Island, Vallejo, site." This is an awkwardly worded sentence.

Actually, I noticed that this is the only paragraph without citations. That needs to be corrected, along with the ackward wording.

• ". Prior to her arrival in California, Iowa was temporarily docked at Naval Station Newport, Newport, Rhode Island as she awaited her fate as a Naval Museum. She was docked for some time, in Newport, next to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal (CVA-59)." This can be removed.

Done.

• "Iowa earned nine battle stars for World War II service and two for Korean War service." this is in an odd place in the text.

It was in ots own section, but I was advised to readd it to this section. This is one a limited number of things I am still working on; I would like to create a ribbon bar similar to that one the page USS New Jersey (BB-62) and USS Missouri (BB-63).

Source suggestions

Ok. Since I noted the limitations of building a high quality encyclopedia article from largely primary sources, I will attempt here to give a rundown on what I feel are good secondary sources covering the Iowa.

• Article about battleship construction before WWII in the Journal of military history.
• Iowa Class Battleships: Their Design, Weapons and Equipment
• Iowa Class Battleships
• Google news archive search If you have access to Lexis and Proquest all of those old newspaper articles will be available for free. Most libraries will have proquest or some similar newspaper database.
• The United States Navy and the Rise of the Doctrine of Air Power good, early article about the airpower bit I was talking about (note, the Iowa they are talking about is the earlier one)
• American Naval History for a birds eye view has some post WW-II hits for the Iowa
• History of the U.S. Navy: Volume Two More WWII stuff.

there are probably plenty more, but that's a start. Most of those books are common enough that they should have them at a big city library. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall

Overall this article needs some work before it becomes a GA. Mostly due to the source material used, the article reads like a deployment timeline of the Iowa rather than an encyclopedia article on the subject. Some work needs to be done to lay the sections and text out in a manner proportional to their historical significance. Not every debarking of the Iowa is something that needs to be mentioned in this encyclopedia. I don't mean to say that the content should be cut down significantly, just that we should try and organize things more. There is a lot of history in the iowa class and the Iowa itself and we should denote have an article that reflects that history. This will probably flow quite naturally from the use of secondary sources to rewrite the deployment histories.

Since the problems are small but many, I'm placing this article on hold. I'll follow along with discussion here and pass the article when it seems like most of the issues are fixed. I find that indenting and replying to each bullet point makes things easier to follow along, but do whatever works for you. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Updates I've responded to a few of the replies. Thanks for jumping on this so quickly. I do have to say that the "internal consistency" response doesn't hold a lot of water to me. It is valuable to proceed in a unified fashion in some cases (the Iowa class FA drive being a great example), but if a problem is identified in one article it isn't really a response to say that the other article share the same problem. Either it is a problem and we should fix it (whether or not that 'requires us' to fix the sister articles) or it isn't a problem and you should explain to me where I've been stupid. :) Also, I remember using the word noted. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to pass this article to Ga status with some reservation. I remain convinced that the article as it stands can be improved significantly. The means to do so are in the sources I listed about. I'm not going to be a dick and hold up an article while I demand that people look up my pet sources, though. Thanks to Tomstar and the other editors who jumped on this so quickly and made some pretty significant improvements to an already informative and helpful article. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Was BB-61 the second, third, or fourth USS Iowa?

I suppose this is a trivial point, but DANFS lists BB-61 as the third USS Iowa. The ship that would have been the third, BB-53, was laid down shortly after World War I, but construction was stopped and then canceled because of the Washington Treaty on Naval Disarmament. She and her four sisters were never commissioned. While on the same topic, it is not clear that the first ship to bear the name was properly commissioned. Hers was a name change, from USS Ammonoosuc; but as I read the article in DANFS, she was never commissioned, either as Ammonoosuc or as Iowa. PKKloeppel (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

I can't decipher what the "All Hands" citations are. Some citations are missing full info, example: The Warfighter's Encyclopedia: Aircraft — RQ-2 Pioneer". WP:ALLCAPS, all caps should be reduced. The DANFS citations are incomplete and incorrectly formatted (I checked the documentation, and it looks like the template isn't being employed correctly.) I'll check in later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Why in the world would a U.S. Navy ship be measuring ranges in statute miles? And even if it were, WP:MOSNUM requires whatever miles are used be identified as statute miles or as nautical miles in nautical or aviation contexts. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn it people, make up your minds: do you or do you not want nautical miles. I am getting fed up with having to constantly convert between the two so before I go tearing through a ll six battlesip articles -again - I wnat to know which its going to be. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it is, they need to be identified. What that means is, don't use {{convert}} to do it if you use statute miles, unless that has an option to identify them. The best choice is likely those units used in making the original measurement; otherwise, you often lose the sense of precision of the measurement. The most important thing is the ability to determine which of those ambiguous units is being used by your sources of information—and that is often not an easy task. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The distances are valid. The constant bickering over MOSNUM all over wiki is really getting old. I say put it in NM with a convert to KM and move on. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn sure better not use "KM". Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And, what do you mean by "The distances are valid"? They are valid because Rlevse says they are valid? The source cited in support of the claim that "At the time the ships were operating about 300 miles (500 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea" does indeed say that "about 50 destroyers were operating about 300 miles east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea." But it doesn't say "boo" about 500 km; and it doesn't say that the miles are statute miles. This U.S. Navy source was most likely using the miles conventional in the context—i.e., nautical miles, not statute miles. So you have anything else in support of a claim that these miles are in fact statute miles? Or that the U.S. Navy measures ranges of their guns in statute miles, ever, or in the measurements of those ranges in this article in particular? Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong here too, but I wouldn't expect ranges of the guns to be in miles of either type, but rather in thousands of yards. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if any of you are good with math then head over navweapons.com and look for the guns because the ranges given there are in yards. If you start there and work backwards we can definitively find out whether this is in nm or sm. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

All I get at navweapons.com is spam links. And navweapons.mil is nothing. The 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun gives its range as a dubiously precise "41,622 yards". One possibility--maybe that is just some damn fool editor, whether on Wikipedia or somewhere else, adding a 22 yard barrel length to a more believable 41,600 yards, because that 41,622 yd also is not a more rounded number in any other units I can think of. In any case, that fits with the "more than 20 nautical miles" figure in this article; the problem is the more specific measurement about the maximum range achieved in one specific shot from the guns on this ship on 1 Jan 1989, given as 23.4 nautical miles (which is about 47,400 yd). Judging by the general references for the paragraph, this might be found in the "USS Iowa(BB-61) Detailed History" link or in Thompson, pp. 70–77. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Armaments refitting by year

Can template Infobox Ship convert to this old format Armaments refitting by year
Fernvale (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can get the armament to work like that in the Template:Infobox Ship Begin, then by all means. However, using the old infobox that's pure code won't work, that style's been depreciated in favor of Template:Infobox Ship Begin. Hope this helps! AP1787 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer UAV?

The Pioneer aircraft was designated a RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicle) and not an UAV (unmanned air vehicle). Just ask Fleet COMPRON 6 RPV Det. They went on to USS Wisconsin (BB-64) for the 1991 Gulf War after serving on USS Iowa (BB-61) for her last cruise in 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.23.143 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the designation changed in the eyes of the public since the public uses the term UAV and RPV interchangably. If you can provide a source for the information provided above we can add it to this article or to the class article. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is a bathtub really that important?

Hey, I noticed the opening paragraph of this article contains a line about USS Iowa being the only battleship to have a bathtub. The databox on the right side also contains this tidbit. It seems to me that, while this is an interesting little anecdote of history and whimsy, it's not really something that's definitive of the history and character of the USS Iowa, and therefore doesn't belong in the first paragraph of the article. Including it in the body is fine, but again, it's a bit of trivia, not something to be read about in the introduction.

I've tried to remove the offending lines from the intro and databox, but someone seems intent on keeping them there. Seems a bit childish to me; somebody's pet little factoid they want to elevate beyond its place.

—DD3

It is important to the history of the ship, is factually accurate and verifiable, plus gives even more notability to the ship. It really is the only installation of a bathtub on a US Navy warship, which makes it inherently notable and therefore deserves a position in the lead and the infobox. Plus, since this is a Featured Article, if that information was deemed too trivial for inclusion, why wasn't it brought up at the many levels of reviews by others? -MBK₀₀₄ 19:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with MBK004. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the bathtub is trivia and shouldn't be in the lead. WP:LEAD states that 'In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources' and 'in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text. Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them'. As the only coverage of the bathtub in the body of the article is a photo it's not important enough to be the second sentence of a FA. I'm surprised that this didn't come up in the FAC, but FAItalic texts should be improved where appropriate, and this is crying out to be fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

MOS:BEGIN also implies that the opening paragraph should only include the most important facts about the topic in order to define the article's scope for readers. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also of the agreement that it's trivia and shouldn't be in the lead. Skinny87 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering where this fact is contained I was aboard the USS Olympia(C-6) and there was a bathtub on board. I also agree that it does not belong in the opening paragraph of the page. SigBen59

Olympia is a cruiser, not a battleship. The reference is explicit to the fact, and the installation is an appropriate part of history since it was only installed for FDR. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I know the difference between in class of warhsips. I am not denying the relevence, it is a neat little factoid and it deserves to be written on the page. I am merely suggesting that the caption below the photo of the bath be revised. The caption below the bathtub reads "When Iowa was selected to ferry President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Cairo and Tehran Conferences, she was outfitted with a bathtub for Roosevelt's convenience. ... This bathtub remains the only one ever installed on a United States Navy warship." With all deference to the caption on the page the reference leads to it is incorrect. Since I have heard of any other battleships or other warships I am inclined to agree with you on that point. The caption might be better served to read "When Iowa was selected to ferry President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Cairo and Tehran Conferences, she was outfitted with a bathtub for Roosevelt's convenience. ... This bathtub remains the only one ever installed on a United States Navy battleship."--SigBen59 (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is still factually incorrect. TEXAS and NEW YORK both had bath tubs and I am pretty sure that most, if not all, of the pre-WNT battleships had bathtubs. There were bath tubs for the Wardroom Officers, Captain, Chief of Staff, and for the Admiral both ships were built. Though the bath tubs for the Wardroom officers and Captain went away during the 1925-27 reconstruction, a bath tub was retained in the Bath in the Admiral's Stateroom through WWII and was removed sometime after WWII. The knobs are on the bulkhead plumbed up and the "footprint" (from where the tub sat) still remains on the tile deck. See this photo that I uploaded the Commons. I will upload a scan of a 1926 drawing showing the Admiral's bathtub (if I get a chance I will do this at work tomorrow). It is much clearer and in location where it should be today had it not been removed after the war. I can take photo graphs the knobs and foot print if need be.BB35 Restorer (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As promised here are a couple of scanned sections of the 1926 "Admiral's Bath & Water Closet - Arrgt. of Fixtures & Piping", drawing #31301. And here is the list of materials for the bath. Notice that among other fixtures, the tub is already aboard ship. Meaning it was, at the time, currently installed in the original Admiral's Bath -this location. Oh and here is a picture of the surviving porcelain knob and here is another.BB35 Restorer (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Civil Unions/Marriages aboard the Iowa (BB-61)

The state of Iowa allows same sex unions.

If the landlocked state of Iowa were to preserve the Iowa (BB-61) in the Bay Area, would the Iowa (BB-61) be considered part of the state of Iowa for purposes of the Iowa Code?

Could the Iowa (BB-61) be used for same sex unions, which is allowed by Iowa Code?

66.43.253.135 (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Metric Conversion

I deleted several inaccurate metric conversions:

16" was converted to 410mm preedit; 16" actually = 406.4mm

5" was converted to 130mm preedit; 5" actually = 127mm

I do not think original USN specs were metric; this site, which seems reasonably authorotative, gives the specs in inches only:

http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-7.htm

and this site gives specs with inches listed first:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

--NCDane (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I also notice lb to kg was inaccurate, and made the correction.

I hope such mistakes are made throughout the wikipedia cite, because such lack of precision would be a seriuos systematic shortcoming.--NCDane (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted you for several reasons, First you removed several appropriate wikilinks and formatting associated with those. Second, many of the conversions you contest were automatically done via a template, your issue is with the template folks, and is not solved by simply removing items from a Featured Article. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, {{convert}} tends to round numbers. An easy workaround is rendering it in plain text, like this: 16" (406 mm)/50 caliber gun. Place non-breaking spaces in between the numerals (you'll see where I placed them if you edit this section). Another workaround is to force the template to be more specific using the |sigfig= feature (see Template:Convert#Parameters). Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fix Metric Conversion Template ASAP!!!

If the meric conversion template renders inches to mm to the nearest 10mm then it is not suitable for an encyclopedia where much greater accurancy is owed to the user. The nearest single digit would I think be minimum standard. That is certainly how the conversion is rendered in all other sources I have ever read on naval gunnery, hardcopy and online.

I cannot in fact think of any context where such inaccuracy might be acceptible, and I am dismayed that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Iowa_(BB-61)&action=edit&section=19no editor with a scientific background or with scientific interests did not notice and correct the problem years ago.

As it is, there must now be tens of thousands of articles with containing this error, which is is ridiculous one, and which can only serve to diminish the credibility of the Wikipedia project.

Can someone please pass notice of this very serious quality defect on to an appropriate authority who can fix the template and begin taking measures to correct the likely tens of thousands of errors produced by the substandard template?

I will attempt to redelete mm references, taking care to preview so as not to remove links or formatting. If I cannot figure out the formatting I will leave it be. --70.152.128.3 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is not the place for such a complaint and deleting such references (mm conversions from inches) runs contrary to our writing guidelines. As to where to place such a comment, I would recommend Template talk:Convert, where your concerns could be addressed across Wikipedia. Please realize that this subject has been broached before. Some people believe that we should stick to just the native measurements, as that is what they are intended. For example, in American football, a 10 yard penalty is never referred to as a 9.144m penalty. Likewise, these were never intended as anything other than 16 inch guns. In any case, I think I've made my point.

As to their accuracy, this is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. As such, scientific accuracies like those noted above are excessive within this context, IMHO. Yes, you are absolutely correct that 16 inches accurately 406.4mm and not 410mm, however, 3.6mm of difference represents very little difference in the big scheme of things (just over an eighth of an inch...probably less than the rifling in the barrel). As such, I (and many others on Wikipedia) find this to be an appropriate conversion.

As to who is a "appropriate authority who can fix the template" can fix, that would be you. :-) This encyclopedia is one that anyone can edit.

Lastly, I would caution you to dial back the hostility a bit. We are people just like you and most of us are open to new ideas and would like help in fixing things that are in error. If you can make the encyclopedia better, more power to you and your inputs (if accepted) would be instantly changed in 100,000+ articles. If you need any help on such a request, please contact me on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

BQZip01:

I have a lot to say in response, and I would like to accept your invitation of personal contact. However, I am afraid to say I cannot figure out how to make contact after having visited your home page.

Could you please tell me which of all the pretty graphics I should click to talk to you?

I wish to say here in the clear, at the risk of further censure from you for "hostility", that your suggestion that rounding to the merest mm might be asking too much is just plain silly.

An encyclopedia should of course strive for fine-grained precision with every word it publishes. An encyclopedia may not be able to attain levels of precision expected in a scientific journal in EVERY word of EVERY article, but it CAN do so with MOST words of MOST articles, and inch to mm conversion is a case in point, as the article on the Iowa Class battleships illustrates:

There inch to mm conversion is rendered to the nearest mm, as it should be throughout the great and noble Wikipedia edifice.

I take it you "and many others on Wikipedia" think this level of precision is inappropriate.

Well, I hope you can keep your hands of the edit function anyway, and leave the 406mm as is, rather than diminish the article's accuracy by changing it to your preferred 410mm. --70.152.128.22 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

PS I left a comment at the template talk page before I read your response above. Perhaps someone in authority will be more forthcoming, not to mention thankful, than you have been. I doubt it though: another reader identified the error there before I did, and the whole issue seems to be a Quaility Control/Assurance blind spot afflicting the entire Wikipedia administration.

To contact me, click the link in the red box at the top of my talk page (I have to have a special place due to a stalker who has seen fit to accuse me of homicide, various felonies, slander, etc.).

I cannot censure you in any manner. I am not an administrator and I lack the power. I am a simple editor, like yourself. Even if I did have the power, I would be WAY out of line to do so. My comment referred to the fact that your words seemed more hostile than necessary. A simple conversational tone would be more appropriate and avoid any defensiveness on the part of other contributors.

I am sorry that you think I'm not being forthcoming. This is not a simple correction as it affects hundreds of thousands of articles (roughly 4% of all articles on Wikipedia). If we make a correction and it affects articles in a negative way, it will cause more problems than it fixes so we need to be careful.

As someone who is in the military, I clearly recognize there is a significant difference in ~4mm at lower calibers, but at this scale, the difference is negligible.

As to the meat of your argument, would 406 be appropriate? Do we need the .4? If so, we are still rounding. Given the size, I would say anything in that range accurately describes the weapons and their size, but I also don't really care all that much. If 406 floats your boat (pun intended), we can certainly try that. Hopefully, my most recent changes correct your concerns (the template has a field to bypass the defaults). If they don't, feel free to adjust them as necessary. Feel free to BE BOLD and make changes you think are necessary. I know the guy who reverted you last time and the reversion is merely a process by which he is stating discussion should happen. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I was unaware, prior to deeply delving into this, that there was simply a technical issue and easy fix on the page. My apologies if I wasn't clearer on this. My point was that you should go to the template talk page to discuss a perceived problem with the template rather than this page, not that you were wrong to point it out. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead "was v. is"

In the lead, the words was and is are both used. I'm not entirely sure which one should be used, so I'd appreciate if someone looked at it to make sure the verb police don't come knocking. AP1787 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bathtub

Copied from article space

When Iowa was selected to ferry President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Cairo and Tehran Conferences, she was outfitted with a bathtub for Roosevelt's convenience. Roosevelt, who had been paralyzed in 1921, would have been unable to make effective use of a shower facility. This bathtub remains the only one ever installed on a United States Navy warship."Still Asset Details for DN-ST-86-02543". DefenseImagery.mil. United States Department of Defense. 1 December 1984. http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DNST8602543&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/1986/Navy/DN-ST-86-02543.JPG. Retrieved 24 August 2008. 

• Wrong. This is not the only bathtub ever installed on a United States Navy warship. The head in the sick ward of the USS North Carolina has a bath tub for patients who were unable to use a shower, according to the tour that you can take on this museum ship.

Can you provide a reference? Without one the info can not be added to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove the bathtub stuff? It's really not that important, in my view... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I agree it should go. See my comments above regarding bathtubs on NEW YORK class battleships with citation. Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61)#Is a bathtub really that important?BB35 Restorer (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Then dump it. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The bathtub should stay. It was something people inside and outside of the Navy would always remark about that ship. It gives some unique historical, non gun firing interest. And it's not just some random bathtub, it's connected to usage by POTUS during WW2.TCO (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft of USS IOWA

The draft in this article is listed around 37ft. The Missouri and New Jersey (same class) show about 29ft. That's a pretty big difference. Was there a change, or is this an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfo 0 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

National Archives scans

FYI, As part of the Meetup at the National Archives: Backstage Pass Tour and Editathon. Wikipedians helped scan 10 high quality images of the Iowa in New York Shipyard from September 1940 until January 1943.

• commons:File:19-LCunnumbered.tif USS. Iowa (BB61) at the New York Navy Yard looking aft from about midship (June 27, 1941)
• commons:File:19-LC BS49181.tif USS. Iowa (BB61) in the New York Navy Yard looking forward from about FR 106 (September 30, 1940)
• commons:File:19-LC BS49186.tif USS Iowa (BB61) in the New York Navy Yard looking forward from about amidships (July 3, 1942)
• commons:File:19-LC BS49189.tif USS Iowa (BB61) in the New York Navy Yard midship looking forward (October 3, 1941)
• commons:File:19-LC BS49193.tif USS Iowa (BB61) in the New York Navy Yard looking forward from about Frame 90 (January 15, 1943).
• commons:File:19-LC BS49188.tif USS Iowa (BB61) in the New York Navy Yard looking forward from about Bulkhead III (December 30, 1940).
• commons:File:19-LC BS49182.tif USS Iowa (BB61) in the New York Navy Yard looking aft from about Frame 101 (September 30, 1940).
• commons:File:19-LC BS49194.tif USS Iowa (BB61) in the New York Navy Yard looking aft from about Frame 120 (January 15, 1943).
• commons:File:19-LC BS49197.tif USS Iowa (BB61) in the New York Navy Yard (January 15, 1943).
• commons:File:19-LC BS49191.tif USS Iowa (BB61) in the New York Navy Yard midship looking aft (October 3, 1941).

One of these converted to a slightly smaller size :-) might work well in the article or in Iowa class battleship. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Arrangement of awards

Iowa awards and battle stars as displayed 1 Jan 2012

I took the photo at right yesterday, and it shows an arrangement of awards and battle stars that does not exactly mesh with the arrangement in the article. Who is right? Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction of error in the main article.

The Iowa entered dry dock in Long beach in the fall of 1945, and received repairs. Following the shake-down cruise, she headed to Tokyo Bay to relieve the USS New Jersey.

Iowa entered Tokyo Bay in early 1946 and became flagship of Vice Admiral Forrest Sherman. Iowa sustained considerable damage in a typhoon off the coast of Okinawa, and returned to Bremerton ,Washington, in June of 1946. We entered dry dock for extensive repairs. This took about six months. Following her shake down cruse, she returned to long Beach harbor and began training midshipmen & reservist on cruises to Pearl Harbor.

I know this is correct, for I reported on board Iowa in the fakll of 1945, and was a crew member until September 1948. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.38.13 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)