Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alaska class cruiser

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [1].

---

Alaska class cruiser

Nominator(s): the ed17, La Pianista, IceUnshattered

Hello everyone! I've been working on this article since October-ish, and I think that it is finally ready after beautiful copy-edits from La Pianista and Icy, a little help on the side from Julian and Little Mountain 5 and the greatly appreciated offer from Colosseum to let me use a beautiful image he drew in the article. Anyway, stopping this before I violate WP:TLDR. :) Thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Aww, c'mon, I only made one edit! :P –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Every little bit helps... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, and I even messed up that edit. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Inconsistent date formatting in citations, some access dates are day month year, and others are ISO.

^ An example of a newer ship: "South Dakota". DANFS. Retrieved on 19 October 2008.

^ a b c d DiGiulian, Tony (2008-02-07). "12"/50 (30.5 cm) Mark 8". Navweaps.com. Retrieved on 2008-10-15.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Doing —La Pianista ^(T•C) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done - did a quick automated search through the document for hyphens. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 20:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Query Interesting read, there are a couple of red links, and can you dab San Pedro Bay to California or the Philippines? Also I'd like to see a little more on the crew apart from the three stats. ϢereSpielChequers 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done fixing the dab part after checking references. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No graphics in this, Pianista. See the rules at (?) WP:FAC. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • -_- I'm new here, folks. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
        • (@ WSC) The red links are articles that will be created eventually. Off the top of my head, they are only naval guns and superfire (which I promised to create in the A-class review...so many things to do, so little time!) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
          • (@ WSC again) What would you like to see? I don't know if there is much, but I'll try to hunt something down... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Hi Ed, Well I was looking for a paragraph explaining how the crew varied in size over time and maybe a bit about their facilities and any famous people who served on them. But I can't find any other Wiki ship articles that cover that sort of issue so perhaps this is just my hobby horse, but there has to be a reason for those widely disparate crew sizes. ϢereSpielChequers 21:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Hey WSC lol. I still don't know what to make of the crew sizes. It seemed like every source I went to gave a different number... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Is it possible that crew size varied over time, especially if they were projected crew sizes based on the various design configs? ϢereSpielChequers 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• (out) By 700?!? No way, unless the second part of your thought is correct. I really don't know what to do there. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion 3

• All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:CB-1 Alaska Outboard Profile 1.gif - We need a reliable source for this diagram per WP:IUP.
• File:USS Alaska (CB-1) launching.jpg - The link to the source wasn't working for me today (what is it with this site?). Is it working for other people? Also, we need an author name. If the author is unknown, the "author" field should be marked "unknown".
• File:H41961.jpg - Can we link to the html page on which this image appears, instead of the jpg directly, as recommended by WP:IUP?
• In my opinion, the infobox is taking up too much space and intruding on the article. Is there any way to remove some of fields? Are they all really necessary?

• I see some fields have been removed. I still think it is a large infobox, but this is an improvement. Awadewit (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I was try to stay in line with other ship FA's here... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the image in the "Notes" section is distracting and I would recommend its removal.

These issues should be easy to resolve and I look forward to striking this objection quickly. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know about that first one - I'll leave it to Ed17 to fix.
• Done - fixed link. Better? :)
• Done and Done (@ 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC), missed earlier) - through a quick advanced search via Google.
• I'm not sure - Ed17 should be back online sometime around 500 or 600 UTC.
• Done —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, got off of work 3 hours early and so I don't have to go to my friends' house right away.
• Going to the creator now through his site...may be a bit before he replies, who knows. =/
• Will look at and reply (infobox thought). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, and Awadewit - that site is really slow for me. Could it be your internet thinking that the server isn't responding? (Do you have slower internet that me?) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed the link - it was broken earlier. There was a missing "www" in the url, but it works on my CPU now. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, he e-mailed me back. According to him, the majority of his info for the image came from Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946, and I added that to the image. Is that enough? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• According to WP:IUP, "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)". We need to provide enough information so that a user can find this source, if they want to. A title is not really enough. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I believe that this has been done? Thanks for the help :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome (thanks for mentioning it!). Everything is in order. I'm striking the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question: This is probably too trivial for the article, but as a resident of Alaska, I'm curious to what the popular reaction was to having a ship class named after the territory. Have you run across any sources that mention that? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have not run across any sources at all that discuss that...I don't think that there would have been much of a reaction to the class being named "Alaska", though - but the ship itself is a different story. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.navweaps.com/
  • http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000021005 (published by iUniverse, a "Supported Self-Publishing" press
• The following deadlinked:
  • http://hazegray.org/danfs/cruisers/ca68.htm

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with the deadlink - I think it was supposed to link to http://hazegray.org/danfs/cruisers/ca68.txt , instead. Will see about the first two issues. Icy // ♫ 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't give any evidence to my defense (I can't find it), but I'm sure that navweaps was cleared by the RS noticeboard at some point. I'll keep hunting...

Humph. :) I'll try to find a different source. Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On navweapons.com

This particular site has been flagged before as being of questionable reliability, however the site has been ruled a reliable source by wikipedia's RS standards. The basis for this ruling was a result of the Montana class battleship FAC, which compelled the Military hisotry project coordinators to weigh in on the matter, and when that did not appease the crowd the issue was brought before the reliable sources noticeboard. It was then discovered that the author of the navweapons.com site had in fact been published in written mediums, and this coupled with the fact the pages on navweapons.com cite independent sources resulted in a ruling that the navweapons.com was acceptable for use as a reliable source on wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Darn it...I knew that it was one of your FACs...I went through all of the Iowa class ships, the class' article and the armament article and couldn't find it...but I forgot about the Montana article. :) Thanks Tom! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Support - In no way were these ships "the last true dreadnoughts to fly the U.S. Flag". Nor does the cited source claim they do. The Land (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello The Land. I removed the sentence; does the rest of the article look satisfactory? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And having inserted the word 'some' into note A4, I'm very happy to support it. :-) The Land (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm*...good catch. :) Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually looking at what Morison et al say, it might be more accurate to say in that footnote that there was confusion at the time as well. The 'cruiser or battlecruiser' section is pretty good overall. The Land (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at Morison too much w/ Google Books lately and I can't view the required page...would you mind adding it? (I don't want to add something with a citation when I can't view said citation =/) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked it. Essentially, Morison is only taking about the confusion *at the time* - I assume that Worth provides justification for "some modern historians think they were battlecruisers"... Anyway, I am happy to support. The Land (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support w/question Were the 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 guns semi-automatic like the Des Moines-class heavy cruisers? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Slap me with a trout and correct me if need be, but weren't the Des Moines cruisers the first with big semi-automatic/rapid-fire guns? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well the Des Moines page says they carried a new "type" of semi-automatic guns, not new semi automatic guns - the wording was ambiguous and to me suggested there had been an earlier type of semi-auto guns. They couldn't be battleship guns, so that leaves only a handful of other big gun ships that could have mounted semi-auto guns. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, on here it gives that as '8"/55RF Mark 16' ... no RF for any other large gun.
      • Then I saw "One of the few large-caliber automatic gun designs that proved reliable in actual service use, ..." Could DiGiulian be referring to a failed Brit or Japanese gun 8" gun? Well, he has to - a 12" gun is just too big - those shells get awfully big at these size guns, Tom, as I'm sure you know. :) maybe he means the 8"/55 Mark 71? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Or the 6-inch 47 dual purpose guns that were mounted on the Worcester-class cruisers?—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Not sure. At the moment there is insufficient evidence to answer my question. I conclude that further research will be needed. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Lovely. Anyone have a copy of Naval Weapons of World War II on hand? =/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It appears that all of the concerns by reviewers above have been addressed. I believe you might consider including a little more detail in the article about the ships' war records, such as how many aircraft in total they claimed to have shot-down, but otherwise I believe it meets FA standards. Cla68 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why are the measurements in "Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft guns" and "Oerlikon 20mm anti-aircraft guns" unspaced; they are spaced on every other article I checked. They are also inconsistent in the infobox: sometimes a space before mm, sometimes not. Is there not a MilHist guideline? Consistency, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done, hoping that I didn't miss anything. Icy // ♫ 21:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Icy! However, Pianista reverted you along with some of GoldDragon's edits...darn her. :P I fixed that, so no worries. :) Thanks again! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, darn me. Sorry for that, Icy. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm having a hard time with the prose in the first section (didn't read further); please have some fresh eyes review the prose:

• Heavy cruiser development was steadied between World War I and World War II by the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty and successor treaties and conferences. In this treaty, the United States, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy had agreed to limit heavy cruisers to 10,000 tons displacement with 8-inch main armament. U.S. cruisers designed between the wars followed this pattern. After the Treaty was effectively lapsed in 1939, the designs were slightly enlarged into the Baltimore-class cruiser.
  • was steadied? was effectively lapsed?
• I also found a typo on the infobox and little glitches. Another set of eyes would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments This does need a fair amount of MOS cleanup and prose tightening. I gave it a first pass copyedit/MOS workup, but I've skipped the entire armament section as I have a tremendous headache. Please revisit the presentation of armament names and conversions. The CommonsCat link ought to be moved to the External links section, and both of the See also links look like they should be evaluated for inclusion within the article text. Maralia (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing —La Pianista ^(T•C) 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be more specific, doing the best I can. Please come back and check the work whenever I'm finished, or whenever you feel better. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 05:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll have to leave this 'til tomorrow, as I'm busy in the morning and need the sleep. Apologies again. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 06:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit/MOS pass! Commonscat was moved by someone, but I would like to keep the "See also" - WP:LAYOUT has that there for a reason, and I don't want to include them in the article as they have absolutely nothing to do with why/how the development of the class...however, they are the only ships that are/were comparable to them! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone? :D —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I was too lazy to look at the history. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - is there any way to improve the composition of the graphic design in the infobox? It looks really fuzzy at that size. Cam ^(Chat) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Doing Yeah, it looks a little granular. I'll see what I can do with my little photoshop. ;) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No. It has something to do with the way Wikipedia reduces images, I think. This is the reason why I have the "click image for higher detail" in there... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I knew that. :) I was just looking to see if I could help. Maybe you have a low-res version? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Nope...that was the only copy the creator made. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Hm. Well I guess then Not done - I've wrestled enough with Photoshop. And, with the little note, I believe that's at least...wait for it...remedial. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Remedial? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Remedial to the blurriness, I mean. But, what the heck, Ed is always right, Ed is always right... *bows* —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Crucial comment - recent edits have added information sourced to non-reliable sources, and removed information sourced to reliable sources that need to be dealt with immediately. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - I honestly do not want to sound uninformed, but how do I approach this? Message the user? Undo his edits? What is the accepted method of work? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 22:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The best thing to do for the time being would be to revert back to the previous version and add the changes to the talk page. From there, you can work to locate reliable sources and then add the new information to the article. You can leave a message on Ed's talk page about this, or on the article talk page explaining why the edit was reversed. Alternatively, you can do nothing and the FAC will fail, but the benefit of this is that it will allow for additional time to locate and readd the material to an RS ahead of another FAC attempt. Given a choice, I would opt for the former, it means more post FAC work, bu the trade off is that the article receives a bronze star. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Doing - MBK's already messaged Ed, and I'll see what I can do. Thanks bunches, Tom - I was getting a little worried that it was going to fail because of my stupidity! :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. I hope I handled it well. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
          • (@ post-FAC) - see what I did to USS Nevada (BB-36) after its FAC. ;)
          • (@ crucial, et al.) I've left my two cents on the talk page. I do not believe that I can reference any of that outside of the armor percentages... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:CUP participant; Pool F (with me :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the notice; this is exactly the sort of disclosure that should accompany WikiCup supports and opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • ? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
        • This, I believe? Icy // ♫ 02:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah. In that case, I (re)disclose that I'm a participant as well. Sorry for missing that! :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Comments Nice work, and an interesting read. A few issues emerge:
  • "The idea for a U.S. battlecruiser class ..." The term "battlecruiser" is dropped on us here without much context or explanation, after we are told these are cruisers. What, then, is a battlecruiser? A type of cruiser? Bigger, smaller?
    • Hesitant done - I've only added a link, but I hope that's sufficiently explanatory. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No, remove the word "battecruiser". That is a mistake; a holdover from when the page was named "Alaska class battlecrusier" - try "large cruiser" instead? (w/o quotes) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Avoid the use of "this" in reference to a previous concept without restating (ex. "To facilitate this, they were given large guns..." and "At $160 million, this was seen as cost-prohibitive, so a second study was initiated.") This what?
    • Done —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't actually think you need the quotes around the term "pocket battleship" and especially not after the first use. I could settle for the first mention in the lead and in the body to be in quotes only.
  • Same with the term "super cruiser".
    • Done both of above. I've retained the first mentions, however. There must be a reason for the quotes, but I agree with their removal later in the text. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Quotes were put there because they were not actually called that in service...just nicknamed as such. The pocket battleships were just really big guns mounted on a heavy cruiser, and they were called something else by the Germans...look at the page for more. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "... the Alaska cruisers only carried six: four at the superstructure corners, and one at each fore and aft on the centerline." This description lacks clarity; I can't tell if it means four on each corner or four total. The second phrase is very unclear... "one at each fore and aft"? Do you mean "one each at fore and aft"?

--Laser brain (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • Done - took some thought, but the fact that there were six guns helped a lot. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Look at the lead picture, Pianista, if you need more - I would explain, but short on time here. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, looks great. Good luck. --Laser brain (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Lean support Support - a few things left above to deal with, but most of the article seems clean. I don't like the additional headers under "Secondary battery" and I think it can do without them. Also, the "see also" can be integrated into the text. Furthermore, the first and second paragraph of the lead could be merged. Regardless, enough to support it with a little bit of AGF added about correcting some of the above. Disclosure - I am a WikiCup participant. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done removal of headers and merge of paragraphs. I'll leave the link integration to Ed, seeing as I might mess up some things if I try to reword too far. Disclosure - I am also a WikiCup participant and I need points. ;) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll get to it probably tomorrow - rather busy with school and work at the moment. My apologies, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh wait. As I said above to Maralia (hidden somewhere), I would like to keep the "See also" - WP:LAYOUT has the section in for a reason, and I don't want to include those links in the article as they have absolutely nothing to do with why/how the class' development/the class was developed. However, they are relevant to the article, as the only ships that are/were comparable to them - which in itself is another reason why i would like to keep the links there...comparisons to the ships in one place. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note/comment/whatever - I am in the process of totally rewriting the "Genesis" section. The work in progress can be seen here; comments are fully welcome. Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.