Wikipedia

Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61)/GA1

< Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Protonk in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Protonk comments

edit

Images

edit
  • Overall it is my feel that there are too many "guns all firing at something in the distance" pictures. I know these are a lot of what battleships do and that most of the striking pictures fit the mold of "holy crap, that battleship is firing all of its guns at once at something", but we have three of these pictures (four if you count preparing to fire). Perhaps 1 for the infobox and one for the korea campaign?
This came up at the A-class review, and my answer to the question is that I do not yet have a stable version of the article (by which I mean the content is fluxuating due to copyedits which add and remove content). When we have reached more or less the final version then I will add additional images to the article and per your request will include non gun firing ones as well. In the mean time I will see about finding a few images for the rest of the article that do not include guns in target.
Done.
  • Image:Iowa Modernization.jpg. I don't see an admonition in the MOS about this, so I would suggest that the displayed size of this image be a little larger. The image itself is pretty interesting but at the default thumbnail size it is very busy.
The unwritten rule at milhist is to have all images conform to a single size, we don't generally accept enlarge photos becuase the forced thumbnail size has in the past generated compliants from users who inform us that the image with the larger size occupies a disproportionately large amount of space on there moniters. If it will help the GAR I will bumb up the size, but I want you to know that other editers may convert it back to its current size before all is said and done.
If the project consensus is to leave the thumbnail size as is, I'm happy to go along with that. Hopefully user's click on it and see how detailed the full picture is. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit

  Not done

  • I recommend spitting the reference notes and the explanatory notes as shown in WP:REFGROUP. I only count 5 explanatory notes, so this isn't really a big deal, just a suggestion.

  Doing...

  • The format for the references should be standardized. Since this page cites a large number of reference documents I would suggest not breaking it into notes/references but just formatting the references to provide sufficient info for a reader to retrieve the source. Specifically, the DANFS references following note 1 (Notes 13, 15, 16) and the All Hands notes (22-26, 46) might benefit from some specificity.
    • Working on it.
  • Sourcing these articles from secondary sources is, honestly, a pain. A good majority of the secondary sources on the subject are likely to be coffee table paperweights like USS Iowa At War. Garzke's Battleships is a good reference, though, and contains a non-trivial amount of material regarding the Iowa.
    • Not sure what you want me to do here. Obviously this relates to this sources I've picked, but I am not sure if you are asking me to find new sources, replace sources currently being used, or augement the sources already used with better sources. Can you clarify?
      • Sure. I wrote this sequentially and when I was putting together the "sourcing" section, it didn't appear to be too much of a big deal to have most of the history come from DANFS. Later (as you see in the small probablems/POV section), I found that the prose and layout suffered due to the limitations on sources. This is a peer review comment at this point, I'm going to go pass the article now, but it really should be fixed before this article goes to FAC (and I realize that the other iowa classes are sourced in the same fashion...as it is convenient, those should be modified as well). I listed some source suggestions below. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Not done

  • USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#cite_note-Garzke-36. Cite where you got it applies here. We should either check out the book from a library and make sure the material matches or note that the source was not...directly the book.
  • As regards the Typhoon Cobra, USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#cite_note-Cobra-10 is a dead link. It might also greatly improve the article if the editors availed themselves of the print references here.
Its been fixed.
  • Might I suggest the Naval History Magazine and Proceedings of the USNI as possible places to look for sources on the subject of battleship modernization? I know that the FAS is generally a reliable source for military information but it seems as though the reader looses out on historical context when it is used to source the modernization section. This isn't that big of a quibble.
  • USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#cite_note-FAQ-20. Is Factplace a reliable source?
    • It isn;t but I can't seem to find this link. I either removed it or it got renumbered, but by all means if you see in there let me know and I will get rid of it.
  • USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#cite_ref-38, "The incident remains the Navy's worst loss of life during peace time operations, surpassing the loss of life incurred from the friendly fire incident involving an Iraqi pilot and the Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided missile frigate USS Stark (FFG-31)". Emm. USS Thresher (SSN-593)?

POV

edit

  Done Although I suggest looking at the NSGS article again.

  • No Major POV problems. Cited in the "small problems" section are numerous wording issues that stem from relying on DANFS as an anchor reference.
  • The 1989 Turret Explosion is largely free from POV problems. the section is factual and dispassionate.
  • Reserve Fleet and Museum Ship (1990-present). I'm not a battleship guy. I'll be honest. But even given my bias against the arguments presented for big gun retention, I think that this section is in need of a minor rewrite. The naval surface gunfire support story is one of frustration, lobbying, rose colored glasses and bravado. Basic rundown is this: there were serious concerns in the 1920's (!) that ships of the line would be eclipsed by airpower. By the time that the Iowa class came in to the fleet, their primary function (fighting a "climactic battle" against other ships of the line) had been obviated by aircraft and submarines. This is perhaps most apparent at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. After WWII, the ships were recalled at the behest of congress. The article does a god job of presenting the facts of the matter and explaining why the NSGS folks might want the battleships reinstated but doesn't really cover the Navy's motivation for mothballing them or arguments against mobilization. I'm not asking that we engage in Or, just that we find some references on the subject and balance this out.
Per summary style this is covered in much greater detail in the article United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate, which is itself a fork from the larger Iowa-class battleship article. As this focuses solely on Iowa and not the larger debate I left the link at the top for people to get a better idea of the whole issue and the role of Iowa in the issue.

Small problems (Not MOS)

edit
  • "Among the Iowa-class battleships, Iowa is notable for being the only ship of the class to have served a combat tour in the Atlantic Ocean during World War II, and for the notorious circumstances surrounding a gun turret explosion in April 1989." This is kind of an awkward sentence for the lead. We should mention these (as they are salient facts), but not strain to note their significance in the lead so much.
This was done in the articles USS New Jersey (BB-62) and USS Missouri (BB-63); neither mention on those articles drew any concern from reviewers.
That doesn't mean that it's a good sentence. If can easily be replaced by "Iowa is the only ship of the class to have served a combat tour in the Atlantic Ocean during World War II." in that paragraph and then moving the gun turret bit below.
Implemented in the article. Is this better?
Actually, I think that is much better. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • "In April 1989 an explosion of undetermined origin wrecked her #2 gun turret, killing 47 sailors." Why is there no link to the main article on this in the lead?
Oversight. Sorry, its fixed now.
  • "...was initially struck from the Naval Vessel Register (NVR)..." NVR is only used once more in the text. Perhaps we can drop this acronym.
Done.

  Not done

  • The Construction section's second paragraph reads like an armament listing rather than a history of her construction. Also, it contains material that rightly belongs in the Modernization section.
This section is formatted to comply with the layout already in use on the articles USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64). Changing this format would demand a change in the other three article since they should be internally consistant.
Well, if that is the case than the format for those should change as well. The construction section should discuss her construction. Later retrofits to the ship should be discussed as they occurred chronologically or in a section discussing those changes. Internal consistency is a laudable goal but this is a chance for improvement in each of the articles.
Done.
  • If she was deployed to the atlantic to counter tirpits, why was she redeployed to the pacific 11 months before Tirpitz was sunk?
As a fast battleship Iowa was built to sail with and defend the U.S. Pacific based aircraft carriers. I have found no sources to this effect (yet) but my educated guess is that Iowa was sent into the pacific to serve as a carrier escort becuase that is what she was built for and becuase the RAF had damaged Tirpitz enough to put her out of action at the time Iowa left the Atlantic. It is also possible that she was in the Atlantic only becuase she was serving as Roosevelts escort. This is one of a limited number of surviving issues I am working on solving.
  • Service with Battleship Division 7, Admiral Lee I don't know the naming conventions, but this is an oddly named section. Further, it is tough to follow as a reader. We move from action to action without any sort of flow or premise (Yes, I realize that we have only the continuity of a deployment schedule in wartime to go on). My suggestion is to remove small bombardment campaigns and to provide an .svg map of her travels through the pacific to help connect the point in time.
This name was adopted to comply with the layout already in use on the articles USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64). Changing this format would demand a change in the other three article since they should be internally consistant.
  • "...flying the flag of Vice Admiral Willis A. Lee (Commander Battleships, Pacific)" perhaps a term other than "flying the flag" would better help the general reader. Also, is there a wikilink for his position? BATCOMSHIPPACBLAHBLAHBLAH, most likely. :)
COMBATPAC, actually :) The official name is Battleships Pacific Fleet, or so the List of major U.S. Commands of World War II claims. The actual article is redlinked at the moment, but a little research could change that.
  • "...In the opening phases of the Marianas campaign" wikilink?
Done.
  • "After a month's rest, Iowa sortied from Eniwetok..." Two things. first, Metonymy is a writing habit of old salts. While it is fine to refer to the ship as the sum of her crew and her hull now and again, we should probably keep an eye out for it. Second, "sortie" has a specific meaning. do we mean that here? Also, I'm not going to list every occurrence of metonymy. Some are appropriate, some are not.
1)noted, 2)adressed, 3)so be it
  • "She then supported air strikes against Luzon on 18 October and continued this vital duty..." who says it is vital?
Removed vital.
  • "Imperial Japanese Navy struck back with a three-pronged attack..." what were the three prongs? Is mention of them appropriate here? If not, can we remove that adjective?
The three prongs were attack forces set to stop the americas. Prong one was a decoy force aimed at drawing the U.S. carriers away from the landings, while Prongs 2 and 3 would transition though Sugurio Straight and San Bernardino Strait to attack the US beachheads. I have elaborted on this a little in the article.
  • "Iowa, with TF 38..." Although task force 38/58 is explained above, it might be worth the space to write out "task force" each time.
I suppose we could do that, although as noted above this format is used in the other three completed Iowa class battleship articles.
  • "On 18 December 1944 the ships of Task Force 38 unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives when Typhoon Cobra overtook the force..." this paragraph contains a lot of material not really related to the iowa. I don't want to be "that guy", but WP:UNDUE might direct us to trim this down so that the history relevant to the Iowa is portrayed proportionally.
This same paragraph is used in the articles USS New Jersey (BB-62) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) with no compliants, and would need to be changed there if it is changed here.
  • "The city of Hitachi on Honshū was given the same treatment..." this is, perhaps, not a cool way to refer to shelling a city.
Noted and adressed.
  • "During this time she also embarked Naval Reserve elements and midshipmen for training in addition to her usual training routine of drills and maneuvers." so?
Its just information. I can be removed if need be.
  • "In 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea, prompting the United States to intervene in the name of the United Nations." Comma after 1950.
Done.
  • "President Harry S. Truman was caught off guard when the invasion struck" footnote goes to an explanatory note. Was this really the case? Is it germane to this history of the Iowa? Is there a citation for this?
Yes, this is vitally important to the history of Iowa, as the Secretary of Defense had never once considered the possibility of war in Korea and thus most of the actions of the SoD and Truman were aimed at post WWII drawdowns, which left the US without any real backbone at the start of the war. I will look into better citing it.
  • "As part of the naval mobilization, Iowa was reactivated 14 July 1951, and formally recommissioned 25 August, Captain William R. Smedberg III in command." More naval grammar. This is admittedly superior to "Captain Smedber, commanding", but needs to be changed.
I'm open to suggestions on how to change this, 'cause from where I am reading this ought to make sense to anyone.
Change the comma to "with"?
  • "Iowa remained in US waters until March 1952, when she sailed for Korean waters." How about "Iowa sailed for Korean Waters in March, 1952"? First, it is unlikely she remained inside 12nm from land while at sea from August 1951 to March 1952 (although it is possible) and if she did, it isn't really of note 50 years later.
Done.
  • "In the company of other Naval vessels Iowa’s guns fired again 9 April..." although more accurate than saying that Iowa fired, this sentence is kind of a non-statement. In naval writing, we are fond of remarking that guns fire of their own volition because we have a flair for the dramatic. that doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Likewise, it is not really informative to say "In the company of other Naval vessels". Was she deployed alone in the first firing? (possible). If so we should note that.
I assume she was alone for the first firing, and I added the other naval vessel line to note she wasn't alone. Its been tweaked, you can alayze the results.
  • "...and mauling a division headquarters" No. bears maul things.
Tweaked
  • "where she closed four railroad tunnels " Iowa did not close those tunnels. She either blew them up or collapsed them such that they were closed by definition or closed by the north koreans.
Noted, adressed.
  • "Along the way Iowa turned her guns against Songjin for the second time in as many months, closing several railroad tunnels and seriously damaging the bridges in the area" Same as above.
Noted, addressed.
  • "The next day she entered Wonson harbor..." Did they really shell stuff from the harbor? That's hardcore.
Thats what the source says, so thats what appears here. I wasn;t there, so I could not confirm or deny this story.
  • "On 25 May Iowa, following in sister ship Missouri’s footsteps..." Ships don't have feet. I know we are speaking figuratively but this one is going a little too far.
Tweaked.
  • "Upon completion of this exercise, until the fall of 1954, Iowa operated in the Virginia Capes area" so?
Accouting for the battleships whereabouts. I do not see a need to change it.
  • "...the first battleship regularly assigned to Commander, Sixth Fleet." Ok. I'm gonna pick this one out of a hat. This article has a problem with terminology for naval units and commands. I don't really care which standard is picked as long as a standard is picked. We may refer to Iowa as coming under the command (hell, chopping to) of the sixth fleet. We may refer to her coming under the command of Commander, Sixth Fleet. We should not do both. Distinction may be appropriate when the ship is assigned as a flagship, but otherwise it is ok to accept that Commander, Sixth Fleet is the Sixth Fleet for command purposes. When they ring him on to a commissioned vessel, they will announce "sixth fleet, arriving".
I'll look into formatting this.
  • "she entered Norfolk for a four-month overhaul. Following refit," Is it a refit or an overhaul
Overhaul.
  • "During her time on the gunline in the Korean War Iowa expended over 4,500 16-in shells at communist targets. This was double the amount of ordnance that she fired in World War II" This sentence doesn't belong in the section it currently resides in. Also, I would argue that none of the rail yards and ordinance dumps have read Das Kapital, so we might not want to refer to them as "communist".
Removed.
  • "After the conclusion of Baltops Iowa returned to the United States." I would recommend that we refrain from using military pseudacronyms in prose whenever possible (even when previously identified).
This is standard procedure for milhist, you may use an abreviation after writing out the first apperence of the term in the article.
Right, and it is good practice where it is needed, but in this case we have two mentions, the first (which uses the full name and notes the shortened phrase) and the second. Wouldn't it help make the article more readable to just drop the shortened phrase altogether?
  • "During the review Iowa sailed slowly down the Hudson River and into New York Harbor, allowing Reagan to inspect the thirty-three warships representing twenty-three nations from a platform atop of Turret I" If this isn't copied directly from All Hands then it is very close. While this is probably factually true we should treat this as a pass in review and not refer to it as the navy does, as an inspection.
Tweaked.
  • "For the remainder of the year Iowa escorted Kuwaiti gas and oil tankers "reflagged" as US merchant ships from the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz." Reflagged?
To provide the legal imputis for assigning US assessts to escort the tankers the US assumed control of the vessels, reflagging them as US oiltankers and giving them US names.
Ok. I haven't checked the article yet but this should be explained or linked to an article that does the explaning.
  • "In February the battleship sailed for New Orleans for a port visit before departing for Norfolk. On 10 April the battleship was visited by commander of the US 2nd Fleet" So?
Just information on the battleships whereabouts.
  • "Although the Navy was satisfied with the investigation and its results,[28] others did not take to the official investigation results very well..." This is...inartfully worded.
Tweaked

  Not done

  • "...Congress relented and forced the Navy to reopen the investigation." Congress relented to whom?
Lobbying, I assume. I will look into tightening that up.

  Not done

  • "While Iowa was undergoing modernization, sister ship USS New Jersey (BB-62) had been summoned..." The next two paragraphs present a summary of the second investigation findings and while accurate, jump right into the text. We go from "...by the Navy before and after the first investigation,[28][29][33] but the investigation did manage to uncover evidence pointing to an accidental powder explosion rather than an act of sabotage" to a paragraph describing a timeline of events. This has to be rewritten in order to be more clear to the reader.
I'll work on it.
  • "Iowa as part of the National Defense Reserve Fleet," comma after Iowa.
Got it.
  • "Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 required the United States Navy..." Do we need an explanation in this article as to why the New Jersey was chosen to be reactivated?
I added to be comprehensive. I suppose it can be removed if need be.
  • "The Historic Ships Memorial at Pacific Square (HSMPS) organization that attempted to place the ship in San Francisco is now working with the Mare Island, Vallejo, site." This is an awkwardly worded sentence.
Actually, I noticed that this is the only paragraph without citations. That needs to be corrected, along with the ackward wording.
  • ". Prior to her arrival in California, Iowa was temporarily docked at Naval Station Newport, Newport, Rhode Island as she awaited her fate as a Naval Museum. She was docked for some time, in Newport, next to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal (CVA-59)." This can be removed.
Done.
  • "Iowa earned nine battle stars for World War II service and two for Korean War service." this is in an odd place in the text.
It was in ots own section, but I was advised to readd it to this section. This is one a limited number of things I am still working on; I would like to create a ribbon bar similar to that one the page USS New Jersey (BB-62) and USS Missouri (BB-63).

Source suggestions

edit

Ok. Since I noted the limitations of building a high quality encyclopedia article from largely primary sources, I will attempt here to give a rundown on what I feel are good secondary sources covering the Iowa.

there are probably plenty more, but that's a start. Most of those books are common enough that they should have them at a big city library. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Overall

edit

Overall this article needs some work before it becomes a GA. Mostly due to the source material used, the article reads like a deployment timeline of the Iowa rather than an encyclopedia article on the subject. Some work needs to be done to lay the sections and text out in a manner proportional to their historical significance. Not every debarking of the Iowa is something that needs to be mentioned in this encyclopedia. I don't mean to say that the content should be cut down significantly, just that we should try and organize things more. There is a lot of history in the iowa class and the Iowa itself and we should denote have an article that reflects that history. This will probably flow quite naturally from the use of secondary sources to rewrite the deployment histories.

Since the problems are small but many, I'm placing this article on hold. I'll follow along with discussion here and pass the article when it seems like most of the issues are fixed. I find that indenting and replying to each bullet point makes things easier to follow along, but do whatever works for you. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

  • Updates I've responded to a few of the replies. Thanks for jumping on this so quickly. I do have to say that the "internal consistency" response doesn't hold a lot of water to me. It is valuable to proceed in a unified fashion in some cases (the Iowa class FA drive being a great example), but if a problem is identified in one article it isn't really a response to say that the other article share the same problem. Either it is a problem and we should fix it (whether or not that 'requires us' to fix the sister articles) or it isn't a problem and you should explain to me where I've been stupid. :) Also, I remember using the word noted. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm going to pass this article to Ga status with some reservation. I remain convinced that the article as it stands can be improved significantly. The means to do so are in the sources I listed about. I'm not going to be a dick and hold up an article while I demand that people look up my pet sources, though. Thanks to Tomstar and the other editors who jumped on this so quickly and made some pretty significant improvements to an already informative and helpful article. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Iowa_(BB-61)/GA1&oldid=236724613"