Talk:Colorado-class battleship

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colorado-class battleship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Colorado-class battleship has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 14, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 21, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Colorado-class battleships (USS Maryland pictured) did not undergo a significant modernization prior to the Second World War despite various proposals that had been circulating since 1933?

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / World War II / Operation Majestic Titan GA‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

Ships GA‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Quick Edit

I made a quick edit to the information on main batteries. While all later constructed US battleships had a 3x3 turret arrangement, the Montana would have had four triple turrets. 24.11.94.51 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent speed

The infobox claims a max speed of 21 knots (this is consistent with what I find elsewhere), but gives a cruising range of 9600 miles at 25 knots. Can anybody with a good source fix this? --Stephan Schulz 22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, that's ridiculous. I've fixed it. TomTheHand 00:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Guns

The text claims main guns of 16in 50cal in one spot and 16in 45cal in another. I suspect the 16in 45cal is correct. Can someone check and edit. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.32.132 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Colorado class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
1. "The elevation of the main battery was increased to 30 degrees due in part to rumors that Imperial German capital ships' guns could elevate to 30° and a picture of the British Queen Elizabeth that appeared to indicate the same ability" - What does this mean? Explain the part about the picture more clearly for the reader; I honestly don't understand that part at all.
  1. I believe a photo was taken of QE with her guns at maximum elevation, then the U.S. then triangulated to find the angle. How should I word this? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Maryland fired her big guns in anger for the first time in World War II..." - That doesn't sound very professional. Recommend it be reworded.
  1. Fixed. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The Commons point in the "Notes" section should be put into a {{commons}} template.
  1. Fixed. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass The citing meets the bare minimum GA standard, though I would personally cite more of the dates and numbers.
Every paragraph is cited at the end; all of the information within the paragraph preceding a citations is fully covered... 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass No problems there.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
PassNo problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass No problems there.
Overall:
On Hold As always, your article only has a few minor nitpicks to fix before promotion! —Ed!^(talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the compliment and the review :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy enough. The article meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 13:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tangled Up in Blue

The references here are entangled. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1922 v. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922–1946, for example; multiple ref name=Conways117 to the two different sources, one of which masks the other (not seeing p. 117 actually shown to readers, just in editbox). See here for aborted fix. —Portuguese Man o' War 06:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(resolved by Yoenit) —Portuguese Man o' War 22:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzle velocity of main battery

This sentence seems dubious: "The construction of battleships armed with 16-inch guns was envisioned by the United States Navy General Board and Bureau of Construction and Repair (C&R) as early as 1913, as the upgrade in gun caliber promised twice the muzzle velocity of the 12-inch gun then in service and half again as much as the 14-inch gun then being introduced." Could there be confusion here between muzzle velocity and kinetic energy? --Yaush (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely. Muzzle velocity tends to decrease as caliber increases, as was the case with the Mk 5 and Mk 8 guns used on the Colorados, compared to the 14" Mk 7 and the 12" Mk 7 guns - MV fell from 2,900fps on the 12" to 2,700 for the 14", and down to 2,520 on the 16". Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems almost certain; twice the velocity of the 12"/50 is improbable (as it would equate to 5,800fps, only ever achieved in handful of one-off artillery) - energy on the other seems to equate well. Why no edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.67.202.151 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because Yaush and I both forgot. It's fixed now - thanks for giving us a poke. Parsecboy (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5-inch Mounts

"…5-inch 38 caliber Mark 12 dual-purpose guns in twin turrets." The correct terminology is "twin mounts". These guns were not mounted in turrets. I only want to clear that up. It is repeated in the article and in a caption for a photograph. Traumatic (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]