Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Submarine

Submarine[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

I was first going to post this on Featured Article Review,but after reading the info it seems better here.The problem with this article is that it's not comprehensive and there is a general flow problem.For starters the article lacks the basic thing that a submarine page needs : how does it floats,dives and goes between these two states.This is essential!

The second thing is that the article has a discussing about the propultion,but other topics aren't mentioned.For a military sub stealth is everything,it's the reason we have subs.No discussion on how stealth is achieved (modern subs may have a suspended inner chamber to dampen the noice).Hand in hand with stealth is the hunter/killer aspect and sub hunting.Also nothing on life support,life on board or the weapons and electronics.How about submarine operations?Were do they dock?

The third thing is more a problem when these sections exist an that's that the history section is far to dominant it has grown too much to not have a spin off.The strange thing here also is the highlighting of accidents after 2000 when in the coldwar there have been very grave accidents (nuclear and an imploding sub).

Lastly the Submersibles section is a strange inclusion,given that it hasn't much to do with submarines and the confusion that could arise between the two could be explained in the lead.I also wonder if there isn't more info on civillian subs out there.--Technosphere83 12:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the article, just glanced through it. However, I say: the first point of yours would be a pretty simple addition to the page. Second point: i don't think that is key to the article. Yes, it should be mentioned, but i don't think stealth/military aspects are necessarily the focus of the article. third point: i agree, there does seem to be a lot of detail on modern accidents but far less of histroci ones - this could be partially because of the availability of information. Records are harder to find the further back you go, and 20 years back into the cold war might not seem like a long time - but it means the writer of the article would have to go to a library or somethign, not just other sites on the internet etc, to find this info. i agree completely with that point. last point: no comment, i didnt read that far :)

On the other hadn however, you seem to know a fair bit about this topic! when you said they might have suspended inner chambers to acheive stealth, ive never heard that before. You could help to improve the article with your knowledge on it! this isn't really a vote to keep it featured, but nor is it a vote against it. just an opinion for your interest. SECProto 22:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second SECProto that Technosphere seems to know quite a bit about the subject... Techno: Be Bold! Ad to the page and improve it. If this article is demoted, you yourself can make it featured again. Good nomination, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth is still the number one thing to add in my opinion,because it's what makes it a sub.Don't know this in depth but I do know enough about it to have a idea of the whole topic.The reason is because I'm sort of an information whore.

Some of the most famous sub accidents are pre-2000.To name two K-19 and U.S.S. Thresher.

Russian accidents : http://www.bellona.no/imaker?id=11084&sub=1 and more general : http://www.lostsubs.com/

Encarta has a much better balanced article : http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567260_1/Submarine.html

It's the virginia that has the cushioned chamber (saw this on discovery): "Command Center will be installed as one single unit resting on cushioned mounting points." http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nssn/ --Technosphere83 12:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a very good article. I would add in the missing parts described above, though.--Alabamaboy 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't changed one bit and if you are going to vote "keep" than in effect you are saying that wikipedias best content isn't on par with the other references.Even Encarta--Technosphere83 11:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove This is not a very good article. I agree with the nominator's assessment. In addition:

The writing is quite uneven and poor, starting from top: Most major navies use submarines. (second sentence), There are probably more military submarines in operation than any other type of submarine, though it is difficult to obtain exact figures because navies are secretive about their submarine fleets., U.S. fast boats no longer prowl the deep oceans in the hunt for the elusive Soviet and so forth (many other examples)
The lead does not clearly summarize the topic No mention of submarine origins, but an immediate (sceond para) dive into details like U-boats and how they were named, to some classification of military subs, but no significant explanation of non-military use (one-man subs used in university competitions?). All over the place and not comprehensive.
The reference sources and citations are inadequate There is a lone inline citaion, which is odd, and the five reference texts, by their titles, only cover specific, very limited periods and types of submarine (one is The steam warship 1815-1905, the other four seem to cover (WWII?) battles and military use only, e.g. Wahoo: The Patrols of America's Most Famous WII Submarine, or Sink 'Em All: Submarine Warfare in the Pacific, (1951)). This seems far from sufficient to support the information in the entire article.

With the nom's objections, there are fundamental problems not casually fixed. --Tsavage 01:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]