Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pennsylvania-class battleship/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Pennsylvania-class battleship[edit]

Pennsylvania-class battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been quite some time since I've been at FAC alone, but I'm finally back with an article I have been writing in my sandbox over the past year. I think it's finally ready for the big show.

The two-ship Pennsylvania class marked no large leap forward in American battleship technology; that was the preceding Nevada class. Still, their construction was slightly contentious from a political standpoint, as Senator Benjamin Tillman thought that if battleship size was going to keep increasing (it was already up 50% between 1907 and 1912), they may as well build gigantic ships rather than continuing with small steps forward. As for the careers of the two ships, Pennsylvania did nothing of great note, but I assume most FAC reviewers will recognize the name "Arizona".

To forestall certain points that I'm sure will come up, I do know that I have an atypical citation style, including the references and images. I'm a big fan of Chicago style, and this article follows that where it can; I've used a similar style twice before, and I believe both are fine under Wikipedia's guidelines. I thank you all in advance for your constructive criticism and comments that will improve the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query Support I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.
I suspect that the Caio Duilio link is wrong, Italian battleship Caio Duilio is a more likely target.
anti-torpedo bulges, which were standard additions on all ships in this period Are you sure? All Battleships, perhaps all US surface warships, but all warships would surprise me and all ships I really doubt.ϢereSpielChequers 11:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, your eagle eyes are always appreciated. Both of these should be fixed now! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • The redlinks for armor-piercing projectiles and deck armor can be resolved by using Armor-piercing shot and shell and deck (ship) respectively.
  • Link fuel oil
  • Fix 12.5 inches to the proper hyphenated form, and 50 miles per hour (80 km/h) winds (add |adj=on to the template)
  • Add horsepower to infobox installed power line. Missing "×" for three-inch guns.
  • Shouldn't president be capitalized in American president Woodrow Wilson
  • Watch for "the ship" and "her" in the description.
  • Overlinking on fiscal year, deck, dry dock and a bunch of terms in the description.
  • Sank, not sunk that nearly sunk the
  • What was Pennsy used as a target for; gunfire, torpedoes, what? Inquiring minds want to know!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly suggest that you trawl through book on the interwar fleet exercises to see what the ships did in them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything but the last two and possibly overlinking should be done. I do tend to link the items in the description again so that readers don't have to scroll elsewhere to find out what we're talking about. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm only willing to cater to the readers so much. Links in the infobox and on first use in the main body (including lede) are good enough for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm in DC at the moment, but I'm still trying to get to trawling through the (very helpful) book you linked. I didn't find anything in my books on what Pennsy was used as a target for; still looking. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nofi's going to be an essential reference for just about any of our interwar ships at this level. Not much on destroyers, but he's pretty good at tracking cruisers and above. One of these days we should go back and add information from it to Arizona, although I'm not sure if there's really much that Stillwell's book didn't cover.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found it at the GPO for relatively cheap; I'll probably buy it when I have a little money saved up. Stillwell was pretty thorough, but it wouldn't hurt to check. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • EN1, 25, 27, 42: don't see a References entry that would correspond to this source
  • Check alphabetization of References
  • Compare ENs 18 and 11
  • EN20: why not use author?
  • Cates: doubled period. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, except for the Pennsylvania-class_battleship#Authorization and construction section, which I'll leave for whoever wants to tackle it. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Dank. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:USS_Pennsylvania_1925_SLV_Green.jpg: source link redirects to search page - possible to either include direct link or catalogue number? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Infobox:
    • I would switch the infobox to 'show' by default.
    • Installed power missing horsepower.
    • complement uncited
    • Do you have a different citation to doublecheck the deck armor thickness? Arizona has the thickness as 5" (3" deck plus 2" splinter?)
    • Switch armor to greatest to least, from least to greatest.
    • Conning tower does not match Arizona.
    • Armament is missing number of guns per turret - e.g. 4x3 14-inch/45 caliber guns
    • Arizona had the overall length only, which is probably sufficient.
    • Similarly, Arizona's beam is cited at 97ft vs. 97 ft 6 in (29.72 m) (waterline)
    • Cruising range doesn't match, but its not cited in the Arizona article.
  • I think service history should be the last section, see Kaiser-class battleship
  • For the sake of summary style, I would truncate or merge the Background section into a couple of intro sentences in the Design since readers can read about the Nevada class in the class article
  • The important details are in standard type battleship, which is only in the lead but not in the prose. Kirk (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I organize my ship class articles a bit differently than others, nothing too crazy. I would prefer to keep the background section, as I believe that each article should be understandable on its own, and the Nevada innovations are key in understanding the Pennsylvania design. I've added a link to the standard type, though.
    • As for the infobox problems, I will check Friedman and Conway's tomorrow—thank you for the thorough comparison, and my apologies for the late reply. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]

Comments Support

  • "Nevada-class battleships" probably doesn't need a link directly underneath "Main article: Nevada-class battleship".
  • "completed multiple studies of a 'maximum battleship'" – why single quotes?
  • "about fifteen months after" – after what?
  • "22.5 knots (41.7 km/h; 25.9 mph), and 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph), and 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph)" – the first "and" can be removed.
  • Except for this, it looks good. Inkbug (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - "nothing of note" - you mean to tell me the last battleship surface engagement is "nothing of note"?
    • Why did you chose to hide the infobox as the default?
    • "armor protection for the coal bunkers" - the coal bunkers were the armor protection - the way you have it worded now makes it sound like the bunkers were armored.
    • As a general point, it makes more sense to me to organize the article such that you start talking about the design process and the different technical requirements, and then to move to a description of the finalized design. Right now, you have that split with the construction and service history sections in between. It seems rather disjointed to me to talk about the design process, then the service histories, and then jump back to "The Pennsylvania-class ships were significantly larger than their predecessors, the Nevada class..."
    • Why is the photo of Pennsylvania "now-infamous"? Shouldn't it be "now-famous"? Or perhaps just "well-known"?
    • You've got several duplicate links, particularly in the description section - I'd recommend using User:Ucucha/duplinks to catch them. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well yes, but did Pennsylvania fire any shots in that battle? Nope. ;-)
      • I wanted to add more images as opposed to statistics, and placing images opposite the infobox creates a nasty sandwich.
      • Good catch, I've fixed that now.
      • I toyed with that idea, but currently we have the specifications either at the beginning or the end of battleship article. Other than that, I don't have a specific objection to moving the section.
      • Good catch again.
      • Duplicate links removed. Thanks Parsec! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pennsylvania-class_battleship/archive1&oldid=1197948777"