Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

USS Wisconsin (BB-64) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

• Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)
• Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive1
• Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2

Notified: The Epopt, TomStar81, Dual Freq, Bahamut0013, WP MILHIST, WP Ships, WP NRHP, WP Pennsylvania, WP Wisconsin, WP USA, noticed 2023-01-16

Review section

This is essentially the same situation as Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 - the modern MILHIST standard is to include some dimensions/descriptions material that is largely absent here, and the article is over-reliant on DANFS and a veterans' association website, when there is fairly detailed literature on the Iowa-class ships. Needs some TLC - the Missouri FAR should be a fairly good example of similar problems and improvements. Hog Farm _Talk 21:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• As with Missouri, this article is still in reasonably good condition: the information hasn't changed much, the citations are stable, and while there is an over reliance of DANFS by current standards the material covered by DANFS is also present in other publications. On the whole this shouldn't be too hard to uplift, just needs a little TLC. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with comments above. The US Naval Institute has a number of publications on the Iowa-class which could be used to add information. I'd do it myself, but BBs aren't exactly my thing. I don't think it would take much work to get this upgraded.

Intothatdarkness 18:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Move to FARC per concerns outlined above, and that no one has stepped forward yet to address the concerns. No edits since March. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Move to FARC no edits since FAR began (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  Move to FARC, the needed TLC hasn't (yet) happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sturmvogel 66 working as of 30 May. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've posted a message at WT:SHIPS to try to get some help here (I don't have the needed sources to fix this), but move to FARC for now, although I'm still hoping for work to occur here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have confirmed with the library that the two battleship book they have are not on Wisconsin, they are New Jersey and Missouri (and still in special collections or otherwise unavailable for check out at the moment - maybe COVID protocols are still in effect). That leaves the internet and what little I have here at the house, and between the the two of those position most of that is already in the article.

I've checked three libraries I can access near me, and while one of them has Sumrall's book on the Iowa class, it is in a noncirculating special collection, so not particularly accessible to me. Maybe @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: would be able to spare some time for this, based on their work with Missouri? A slow save is better than a speedy delist. Hog Farm _Talk 14:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm planning on working on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 do you recommend Hold in FAR rather than Move to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked to see how bad it is, so I really can't say. I do know that it will probably be a couple of weeks before I can devote any significant amount of time to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sturm, are you still planning to have a look at this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope to start work on it later this week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 I see you did a lot of work on 30 May; where does this stand? More to do? Progress to FARC? Ready for extra eyes ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There's lot's more to do as I've only dealt with the description, modifications, and the introduction into service thus far. Further progress is going to be sporadic as there's no equivalent of Stillwell's book on Missouri for Wisconsin so it will be tougher to find substitutes for DANFS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delist No major edits to add missing information since move to FARC, it might be time to let this go. Z1720 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @Z1720: - I believe the issue is now less missing information (Sturm has greatly improved the description and design section), but more so the excessive reliance on DANFS in the later sections of the article. I recently bought a used copy of O'Hara's The U.S. Navy Against the Axis: Surface Combat 1941-1945 off of Ebay, so I should be able to work up some of the WWII content once that arrives. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Striking my delist above, since HF has said that they are working on this. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Well shoot - O'Hara arrived today, and they apparently consider the various activity Wisconsin was in to be outside of the scope of their work. Hog Farm _Talk 01:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
        • That’s the problem: the famous two are New Jersey and Missouri, which means there ain’t a lot on the other two. Piecing together the ship history is hard when DANFS is disqualified in this way other sources are not focused on Wisconsin per se. 2600:1011:B337:7059:D082:20EC:6616:A590 (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)