Talk:USS Flying Fish (SS-229)

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

An excellent article overall, but I'm confused by some of the dates. The dates in some of the section titles don't coincide with the dates mentioned into the associated text. MK 06:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tone of voice / neutrality?[edit]

I'm somewhat concerned about the neutral tone of voice in this article (or rather, its apparent lack). Skimming the text, I find:

  • "When Flying Fish daringly came up to periscope depth"
  • "Unshaken by this long day of attack"
  • "Three times on this third patrol she launched bold attacks"
  • "Along with gaining much valuable intelligence," - without any explanation or elaboration why this intelligence was valuable
  • "she closed the northern coast to make a daring attack"
  • "Continuing her bold inshore attacks"
  • "After five grueling patrols"
  • "Flying Fish was attacked by a Japanese submarine, whose torpedoes she skillfully evaded."


Without explaining or providing valid reasons for the use of all these bombastic adjectives (and also other phrases like "beached itself in a mass of flames"), the text reads like a gushing propaganda piece, rather than an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.112.68 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)