Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Texas (BB-35)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)}

I am nominating this article for A-Class review per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#USS Texas (BB-35) A-Class reappraisal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reading the concerns raised by voorts were as follows:

A1: The citation style is inconsistent. There are refs (including some bare URLs) mixed in with {{sfn}}s. Some claims are cited to irreputable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71) and primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
A2: The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources. It also lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024. Additionally, given the sourcing issues, the article may not be factually accurate.
A3: The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with "unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources". Unnecessary detail is when an article goes off on a tangent and becomes for a time about something other than the topic. Use of primary sources is acceptable, and so long as they are about the subject, is not unnecessary detail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. It's not always true that primary source use leads to unnecessary detail. But, if secondary sources haven't covered an aspect of something, there might be a WP:BALASP issue if primary sources are overused. Here, 18 out of the 116 (or ~16% of) references are to primary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have initiated work on this article. I have finished the biblio formatting and hope to get this rewrite done soon, hopefully within a month from now. Matarisvan (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

I'll be travelling for a month without Wikipedia access from the end of this week, so will only comment (mainly on the World War II section which I'm most competent to comment on) rather than vote on whether the article should be delisted. My comments are:

The DANFS references should be replaced as it's no longer considered to be a reliable source. It should be straightforward to do this for an article on a very famous battleship.
The multiple notes and citations in the lead are undesirable, and the notes are unreferenced
There's too much detail on the current restoration work on the ship in the lead
The construction section should cover the context in which the ship was ordered (e.g. why was the USN ordering battleships at this time? What role were they intended for? Was Texas ordered as part of a broader program, etc)
"At that point in the war, the doctrine of amphibious warfare was still embryonic. Many Army officers did not recognize the value of prelanding bombardments. Instead, the Army insisted upon attempting a landing by surprise" - I don't think that this is correct, and illustrates the limitations of DANFS. The US Army was hoping that the French in North Africa wouldn't fight and didn't want to fire the first shots as a result. This was a largely successful strategy.
"Texas was one of only three U.S. battleships (Massachusetts and New York) that took part in Operation Torch" - this doesn't read well, and "only" is a bit odd given that three battleships is rather a lot!
I'm not sure if the para on Walter Cronkite is needed: this is much more significant to the article on the journalist than that on this ship.
Why was Texas still escorting convoys through the North Atlantic in 1943 and 1944? The Royal Navy had largely ended the use of battleships for this purpose in the North Atlantic by this time as the remaining German surface fleet was focused on Norway and the convoy routes to the Soviet Union.
The 'Rehearsal' section would benefit from a trim and a better title
The 'Battle of Cherbourg' section doesn't really say what the outcome of this engagement was
It would be good to say more about the experiences of the ship's crew
The '1988–1990 dry dock period' section is too detailed
The 'Dry berth project' section seems over-long
Ditto the 'Leaks' section Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]