Date suggested for photo can not be correct edit
First, congratulations on achieving "Featured Article" status!
The article on this ship states its hull was launched in September 1911. If one is familiar with the launch of these big-gun warships, they were never launched from the shipways with their main armament in place, much less with most of the superstructure already complete, as the risk of capsizing was too great. Additionally, the article states the ship was completed by May, 1915.
However (and the point I am making is), the information provided on the photopage with regards to the date of the image says, "Date of photo not indicated, but most likely around 1911."
Obviously, the idea the year the photo was taken as "being around 1911" could not be correct, as we are looking at a completed battleship, not one whose hull was about to be or had been just launched.
Based solely on the information provided in the article, the photograph was most likely taken at and during one of several other separate locations and scenarios, all of which are well after 1911.
The first possibility and one which appears most likely, given the evidence, is that the photo was taken very soon after her arrival at the New York Naval Shipyard for her painting in October 1914, for she would need to be drydocked in order to be painted. Additionally, the ship appears to be in overall excellent - and original (pre-refit) - shape with all major aspects of her construction complete. The very little rust and scratches visible on the hull are typical of new ships just before their first formal painting.
Perhaps the most telling evidence she is in the New York Naval Yard is what can be seen when the full-sized image is downloaded. To the lower left can then be seen a number of other lattice main masts onboard U.S. battleships. As these were strictly a U.S. capital ship feature (or a feature of customers of the U.S. when it came to capital ships of the period), their presence in the image rather strongly suggests the photograph was taken at the New York Naval Base. As the ship had to be drydocked to be painted, the photo itself seems likely to have been taken quite soon after the ship's arrival at the Naval Base. As noted, the article notes this took place in October 1914.
The second possible scenario is the ship is just about to undergo her 1924-25 refit in the U.S., though the hull appears quite a bit cleaner than most ships' hulls appear which are in need of a refit. Still, this is not an unreasonable possibility.
The last and perhaps most unfortunate scenario (for those of us interested in such things) is that the photo was taken at a time and at a place we know nothing about beyond which is depicted in the image. The ship was photograped at a major U.S. Navy facility, either a base or major subcontractor. As subcontractors were private enterprises, with potentially less stringent security measures, and battleships at the time represented the very pinnacle of a nation's naval might, I believe it was photographed at a Navy-owned base and not at a subcontractor. We know it entered New York Naval Shipyard for painting in late 1914. We also know it entered "Philadelphia" and "Boston" for her 1924-25 refit, though no mention is made if either of these were the large naval bases which existed at both locations, though presumably such U.S. naval bases were exactly where the ship underwent her refit.
The refit significantly altered her appearance in a number of details. None of these details is visible in the image provided.
I personally would not be that surprised to learn Camden did not have a drydock during Moreno's construction. Drydocks are not necessary to build ships. Only shipways. Because of the lack of any evidence of refit, I can only conclude the photo was taken either in October 1914 once drydocked for painting at the New York Naval Base, or, less likely, at the Philadelphia Navy Yard immediately after having arrived in 1924 for her refit.
Which means the photograph was taken no earlier than October 1914 at the absolute earliest and no later than 1924 at the absolute latest (1925 would have her in the midst of the refit and there is no indication in the photograph a refit had even begun, let alone is underway).
If someone with more experience than I have at making changes to WP's articles and captions please change the photograph's caption to remove the obviously incorrect date, that would be great.
Perhaps the caption can simply say "This undated photo shows the completed battleship in drydock." Or, "This undated photograph shows the battleship in drydock, possibly at the New York Naval Shipyard where she was sent for painting in October, 1914." Or, "Sometime between late 1914 and 1924," or any number of other, similar statements.
Whatever is decided, it is a post-September 1914 and a pre-1925 photograph.
Thank you and again - congratulations.
