Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Ships (Rated B-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

crew / complement[edit]

The crew and complement figures are redundant and disagreeing. This article violates wikipedia's own definition of complement by mentioning the officers as part of the complement. And then it mentions a larger crew than complement, whereas according to the definition complement = crew + officers. I also have to say that at least coloquially and in many books crew = complement. So something is messed up in this ship class article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OK... well, free to go ahead and fix it. - theWOLFchild 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

list order[edit]

With the latest update, DDG-125 & 126 will be the start of the new Flight III, but contracted separately, DDG-127 will still be a Flight IIA. The Flight III line will continue with DDG-128. As the table is now, the ships are (and will be) in the following order;

  • DDG-123
  • DDG-124
  • DDG-127
  • DDG-125
  • DDG-126
  • DDG-128
  • DDG-129

I propose a slight change whereby we add an extra column break with a note, and keep the list in numerical and chromological order, to avoid any possible confusion (and edits from those trying to "fix" it). I made the change briefly then reverted, so that I could post an actual example, please see here and let me know what you think. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 21:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it'd better/maybe easier to add a separate column for the Flight number (config) and list them all by hull number. (This is not exactly what your edit did.) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Adding a new column would waste a lot of space and be very repetitive (as some of the section titles are more than just a flight number, e.g. "Flight IIA: 5"/62, one 20mm CIWS variant"). —RP88 (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I like the general structure of your proposed solution. The table section title "DDG-127 contracted separately as a single Flight IIA build" is a bit wordy, but I admit I can't immediately think of a good title that is terser. If we adopt your solution and also keep the longer wording I think "approved separately" is better than "contracted separately". While it is true that adding DDG-127 as flight IIA was approved by Congress under separate legislation from the legislation that approved the modification of the FY13-FY17 MYP contract (N00024-13-C-2305) to add DDG-125 and DDG-126 as flight III, looking at the contract announcement I think DDG-127 was also a modification to that same contract rather than a separate contract. —RP88 (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This text can go in the Status column (maybe on a 2nd line) if it is kept short enough. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not in any way picky about the details. You guys can work out what wording you think best. I'm really just looking to have the list in sequential order. That ddg-127 just looks out of place right now. Thanks for the replies. - theWOLFchild 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, you both have good ideas, so let's combine them. We can use the suggested wording by RP88, and also add much additional info as we like, (even include a links or a ref), but add it to a note. This way, the column break is kept brief as Fnlayson advised, in fact it'll be a single line. What do you guys think? - theWOLFchild 13:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Green tickYDone - I've made the change (it's been almost 2 weeks). To keep the column-break/header clean and uncluttered, I kept the title simple and uniform, and added a detailed refnote at the bottom of the list, that includes a cite to the source regarding the contract details. Any concerns or questions, let me know. This page is on my watchlist - theWOLFchild 08:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 22:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm going to speedy fail this GA nomination as substantial amounts of work are needed for the article to meet GA criteria 2 and 3:

  • Criterion 2: Several sections of the article are not referenced at all ('Contractors', 'Ships in class' - which has a large amount of content and 'In popular culture')
  • Criterion 3: The 'Operational history' section is greatly inadequate, as it covers only two incidents in the long history of this class of ship. Their use in multiple wars, how their deployment has changed over time, various notable accidents (collisions, etc) and other incidents and uses of the ships are not covered. There is also no discussion at all of the derivative variants of this class used by Japan and South Korea, and other derivatives (eg, the so-called 'baby Burke' design proposed for Australia). Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)