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 Ucucha 01:26, 6 December 2011 [1].

---

USS Arizona (BB-39)[edit]

USS Arizona (BB-39) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/USS Arizona (BB-39)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) and The ed17[reply]

Completed during World War I, the ship did not actively participate in the war. She was used for a vacation by President Herbert Hoover and spent most of the 1930s assigned to the Pacific Fleet. She was berthed in Battleship Row in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and suffered the greatest loss of life during the attack when her forward magazines detonated and she sank at her moorings. The iconic Arizona Memorial was built over her remains in the 1960s and she has come to symbolize the attack. We're a little late, but we believe that if we can get prompt reviews we can whip this into shape in time for a WP:TFA appearance on the main page on 7 December, the 70th anniversary of her sinking. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, at least for now. Sorry Sturmvogel, but this is currently well below the standard of recent battleship FAs - including the many you've brought up to this standard. My concerns are:
  • The lead isn't well structured, with the first paragraph dwelling mainly on dates and relatively minor details about the ship's construction and the subsequent paras not covering her inter-war service (which comprised most of her history, even if it was unremarkable) and being relatively short.
    • I also wasn't happy when I saw things like what kind of turbines she had in the first paragraph, but Sturm and I have a running disagreement over how fast to introduce details. "Boss" and "copyeditor" are two completely inconsistent jobs, so I have to sit back and let others argue about general structure and some usage and readability preferences. I think, for ships in particular, we need more reviewers at FAC to iron out all these questions. - Dank (push to talk)
      • WP:MOSBEGIN recommends that the first paragraph should provide a definition and overview of the topic of the article. In this case, that would be something like a very short summary of the ship's characteristics and career. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My personal preference is not to put any of that in the lede as it's very hard to summarize that sort of info. I've reworked the lede, how does it read now? [Sturmvogel 66]
          • Better, though I don't think that the date Arizona became a state is needed - this adds some scope for confusion for no benefit. Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) should be linked, and the years seem unnecessary in this context. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agreed and I forgot to link Greco-Turkish War earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arizona sank with the loss of 1,177 lives during the attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II on 7 December 1941, and the United States immediately declared war on Japan." - this implies that the sinking of this ship alone led to war.
    • That was my language; I've put it back almost the way it was. I'm not taking a position on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
      • The new wording is a slight improvement, though it still implies that the sinking of Arizona alone led to war. I don't think that you need to mention the fact that the attack on Pearl Harbor started the war between Japan and the US in the lead as this is very well known. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not as sanguine about the state of historical knowledge among the general populace as you seem to be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement that "Arizona retains the right, in perpetuity, to fly the United States flag as if she were an active, commissioned naval vessel" in the lead doesn't appear again in the text of the article
    • I'm thinking that it's better off in the main body; I'll move it there once I source it. [Sturmvogel 66]
      • Done.
  • "was significantly larger than her predecessors of the Nevada class." - this implies she was a one-off rather than the second ship in a new class
    • Reworded.
  • How could the ship carry more oil than she was designed to carry?
    • Reworded.
  • What's the relevance of the launch taking 42 seconds? Was this much faster than normal?
    • Deleted, TMI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though this traditionally involved smashing a bottle of wine over the bow of the ship being launched, Arizona's state government had banned alcohol, so the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam." - this is a bit confusing given that champagne is obviously both a form of wine and alcohol
    • Most people don't think of champagne as a form of wine. But I've reworded it slightly to satisfy the oenophiles among the readership.
      • The 'so' part is confusing: was this a protest against prohibition, or some kind of adaption to it? Given that wine was still involved, it was hardly in keeping with the ban. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that Arizona was a "dry" state, and this was a compromise between the traditional practice and Arizona's ban on alcohol.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I understand that. My point is that the current wording doesn't help readers to understand it. Why not word it as something like "To acknowledge the ban on alcohol which had been imposed by the Arizona state government, the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam" - this makes it a bit clearer to readers, though the governor seems to have not really acted in accordance with the letter of the law here ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though. In July 1918, the race-boat team from Arizona was able to win the Battenberg Cup by taking a three-length lead over their closest competitor, the team from Nevada, and holding it until the end of the three-mile race." - a sporting competition doesn't really justify being called "not all practice" as this implies that the ship saw some kind of service. Rowing competitions are a form of practice for rowing as well.
    • That's a pretty subtle distinction to draw. I read it as something that didn't involve preparing to kill people, or enabling those who do so.
      • Fast rowing was a core skill for sailors in the pre-outboard motor era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but it was regarded more as a sport than as realistic training for both the USN and RN based on memoirs and stuff that I've read. Remember that the rest of the crew didn't have to work while watching the races, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • My concern is really the use of the phrase "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though." in association with this. When I read this at the end of a paragraph about the ship only engaging in training I expected it would describe some kind of operational deployment. Instead it discusses a sports event. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • • I'm still not really sure what to do here; I've rewritten and combined the sentences to mitigate any thoughts about a deployment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the ship sent to Europe after World War I ended?
    • I think I remember the text saying that the ship was escorting President Wilson. - Dank (push to talk)
      • This still isn't really addressed - the escort was obviously an honorific only given that it lasted for a day and battleships would have been useless against any rouge German submarines. The fact that all the ships sailed for home after Wilson reaches France indicates that it wasn't a serious military deployment. Why did the US Government see fit to expand its battleship force in European waters after the peace, including sending at least this ship which was considered difficult to supply in the area? Was it a diplomatic maneuver or some kind of training cruise? Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably more the former, but we're getting outside the remit of the article here.
          • I don't agree - the article discusses why the ship wasn't sent to European Waters during World War I, so it should also describe why she was deployed after the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe she was deployed to protect American citizens and interests during the Grecian-Turkish War. If I remember right, there was a bit of speculation in one of Stillwell's interviews that she was deployed to protect Standard Oil's facilities, but there was nothing scholarly on that point. Also note that the oil shortage was due to problems supplying oil to the UK (a) during a war (b) over a route frequented by submarines and (c) when more useful items could be shipped. I believe all that eased with the war's end. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was referring to the 1918 deployment to France rather than the 1919 deployment. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah, my bad. It says why in the next sentence; essentially it was a diplomatic show of force. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Grecian' should probably be replaced with 'Greek'
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "İstanbul (then known as Constantinople)" - use Constantinople
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the ship really 'idle' in the 1920s? - this seems a bit dramatic for what actually sounds like a fairly conventional peacetime training schedule.
    • Idle when anchored, mostly. How would you suggest rewording that bit? [Sturmvogel 66]
      • Replace "For the rest of the 1920s, Arizona's service was filled with training and idleness" with something like "For the rest of the 1920s, Arizona only put to sea for routine training exercises". Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo caption which reads "Arizona displays her new tripod masts, following her modernization during the 1930s." is a bit odd - she's actually sailing through a fairly heavy sea, and so isn't just being shown to a photographer, and the tripod masts aren't very clear from that angle.
    • True, the offending bit has been excised.
  • "During this time, the ship was more often anchored to save fuel than at sea." - this wording is a bit awkward
    • How does it read now?
      • Worse, to be frank. I'd suggest changing it to something like "The ship did not often put to sea during this period as a result of the Navy's limited supplies of fuel". Even modern warships generally spend more time in harbour than at sea, and this was particularly the case for ships of Arizona's era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Supplies of fuel were not limited, per se, only the money to purchase them. I suspect that the normal cruising to anchored ratio before the Depression was on the order of 1:1, but these numbers show 1:2. Unfortunately, there's no handy tally anywhere to make the comparison with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, but the sentence's wording is still a bit awkward. I'd suggest changing it to something like "Due to the Navy's limited budget, the ship spent most of this period in port as a fuel-saving measure". Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted why the Pacific Fleet moved to Pearl Harbor in 1940
    • Agreed, let me find a source as to why.
      • Samuel Morison's official history would be a great source. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Found one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph which begins 'The preliminary report' seems overly complex - why not describe what the actual hits on the ship were rather than describing what successive assessments found?
    • Because some less than careful historians have repeated the statements from the preliminary report, especially that bit about a bomb going down the stack. I remember reading that as a kid.
      • A straightforward account of the damage would also act to debunk the mistaken accounts and would be much easier to read. You could add a footnote discussing the confusion over the reports if this is notable enough to cover as it's not really necessary in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Done, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks good to me Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two-sentence 'Japanese credit for sinking' section and single para 'Awards and recognition' section should be merged into other sections
    • I've deleted the Japanese bit as unimportant, but I've reworked the awards and recognition section a bit. How does it read now?
      • Looks OK to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's meant by "The US Navy still retains the title"? Does this mean that the 'USS' part of the ship's name is still valid or that the Navy still owns the wreck (or both)?
    • Probably just the latter, but I'm just repeating the verbiage from the sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnote needs a citation Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Deleted.
    • Thanks for taking the time to enumerate these issues. I agree that it was a bit rushed and I'll start addressing them tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My comments are now sufficiently addressed, and I think that this now meets the FA criteria. Great work Sturmvogel. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC) "the only known color photograph from the attack" - source?[reply]

• • It's sourced already.
• Be consistent in whether short citations are linked
  • Done.
• Formatting for Gardiner & Gray (both footnote and reference entry), Wright and Wallin don't match others
  • I think that this has been cleared up.
• No citations to Hone or Jones
  • Moved.
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • There is no requirement that an article have one or the other. However, in this article, there's an issue with periods versus commas in citations, and I will address that next time I am at a computer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They should be consistent now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• FN 27: linking
  • Done.
• FN 23: italicization
  • Done.
• Be consistent in which journal formatting you use
  • Done.
• Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
  • Not sure what you're referring to here. If it's USS, we're replicating the usage in the source documents.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• FN 58: formatting, missing date
  • Not sure what you're referring to here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Combine duplicate refs like FNs 63 and 64
  • Done.
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Hard to beat a picture of the anchor with the ship's name emblazoned as a source.
• Further reading should use same formatting as References
  • Done.
• Barber: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. Thanks for the quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Did Arizona participate in all the Fleet Problems, and over what span of years?
  • A cursory look over her chronology says that she participated in just about all when she wasn't being modernized. Why?
    • See next reply. - Dank (push to talk)
• "A highlight of the years came on 27 July 1923, when she participated in ...": Readers will assume you're only covering the important bits, so you can omit the "highlight" bit, unless we're talking about some kind of special honor.
  • I was thinking more about from the crew's POV.
    • "Fleet Problems as the highlight" is more or less equivalent to "the best part was the Fleet Problems" ... best in what way and from whose POV? What do the sources say about the crew's reactions or expectations? - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The battleship's last training was ...": Is a word missing?
  • Yes, evolution.
    • Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "wrought devastation on the Battle Line": I don't know why "Battle Line" is a proper noun here.
  • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Guys, I'll be happy to support this one on prose after my final pass, after other reviewers' issues get resolved. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks to me like Nick is almost happy, and everyone else is supporting. I did more tweaking; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck clear 4/7 sources, 8/64 citations clear and supporting. I did not check content coverage or weight, only sources supporting their assertions as indicated below. One citation fixit. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20e DANFS (MIL sources are not propagating to Australia correctly tonight, cached copy used) clear and supports
  • 49 Friedman clear and supports
  • 39 Wohlstetter clear and supports
  • 56 Stillwell clear and supports
  • 25 NYT clear and supports
  • 48 NHHC clear and supports; this is despite the complex opinion being made, the wikipedia article accurately reflects the complexity of the military opinion (well done)
  • 62 clear and supports. Miscited: cite the lowest level organisation responsible for production in a bureaucracy; in this case the student's union.
    • I don't think that the Student's union wrote or published that page; it's just in that section of the University's website.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 63 is clear and supports. (and uses the right bit of that god awful source: the reliable bit that was edited, wow... I never thought I'd pass a source like this, but the editors correctly use only the reliable section, and the editors of the reliable section are experts at roadside attractions by dint of publishing)
    • If there hadn't been a photo I don't think I'd have used it at all. Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments: a made a few tweaks as I saw them, but I also have the following suggestions (feel free to ignore anything you disagree with):
  • "and a full naval review by Secretary of the Navy Daniels". Per WP:SURNAME it can probably just be "Daniels" here;
    • Pretty sure I'm going to stet this, but I've asked at WT:MOS#WP:SURNAME just to be sure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, you know what goes at FAC better than I. It seems this point gets raised in most Milhist ACRs, though, so I'm a bit confused. Nevertheless, its a relatively minor point. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seven total battleships, eighteen destroyers and support ships". What's a "total battleship"? Would the fleet consist of "partial battleships"?
    • "In company with many of the ships of the fleet (seven total battleships, eighteen destroyers and support ships)," changed to "In company with six battleships and eighteen destroyers,". I don't know how many "many" is; I guess if it's "most", it wouldn't hurt to add that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistencies: "the navy" and "the Navy". In most cases, I think it should probably be "the Navy" as it is being used as a substitute for a proper noun, i.e. the United States Navy;
    • Most US style guides recommend lowercasing it, but there's some support for uppercasing, and it's uppercased more often than not on Wikipedia. I'm happy either way as long as it's consistent.
      • All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent presentation: "before 8:00 am" and "08:00" and "07:55";
    • Fixed.
  • this seems a bit awkward to me: "Arizona was hit four times, plus three near misses". Perhaps try: "Arizona was hit four times; in addition she experienced three near misses";
    • "Near miss" is a really difficult phrase; it would be great if no one ever said it, since sometimes it means nearby or minor damage was done and sometimes it means the opposite, i.e. no harm done. In this case, you get a sense of what was meant by the sentence that follows this one. I went with: "The bombers scored four hits and three near misses on and around Arizona."
  • there is some repetition here: "The explosion killed 1,177 of the..." followed by "The explosion touched off fierce";
    • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this: "This theory is attractive because..." The theory is attractive, or is it "plausible"?
    • Fixed.
  • "The problem is that smokeless powder is..." The problem with what? Do you mean: "This theory is problematic, however, because smokeless powder is relatively insensitive to fire and the 14-inch powder bags would have required a black powder pad to ignite the powder, making this theory improbable. As such, it seems unlikely..."
    • I changed "the problem is that" to "however".
  • Passive voice: "Acts of heroism on the part of Arizona's officers and men were many". Maybe try: "There were many acts of heroism performed by Arizona's officers and men during the attack."
    • That's not passive voice. Since it's the topic sentence for the paragraph, and since the paragraph is about acts of heroism, it works for me to lead with that phrase, though your suggestion is fine too.
      • I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I really don't think it works, but that's just my opinion and we don't have to agree on everything. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like Rupert's wording better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems tantalising to a layman like myself: "The latter battery fired its guns for the first and last time in August 1945". As a reader it makes me wonder at the circumstances: did they fire at a Japanese ship, or was it just in practice? If the sources are specific, may be you might consider adding a footnote explaining this (would only need a short sentence or two)?
    • Anyone?
      • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • this seems a bit flowery: "men of her crew lost that December morning in 1941". Perhaps just: "men of her crew lost at Pearl Harbor";
    • I think it's fine for two reasons: the phrase itself is not flowery (though it may sound that way in context), and this is the topic sentence of a section dealing with the memorial; a tiny amount of emotion is not out of place, I think.
      • Fair enough, again you have more experience with what's acceptable here. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Navy, in conjunction with the National Park Service, has..." The wikilink here for "National Park Service" probably should be moved to the mention in the previous section (link on first mention). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. Thanks for making those changes, Dank. Good work as usual. I've added my support above. I would like to see a note about the battery firing its guns, but it's not a warstoper for me if it's not put in. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Are all the links in Further Reading really necessary? And couldn't you just cite Conway? NO DANFS?
  • I might be able to fit a reference to Conway's in somewhere, but I really don't see any necessity to do so. Your reference to DANFS is confusing as it's the third ref in the references section.
    • Whoops - read this one too fast...if you can't tell I'm not a fan of Further Reading sections.
• Similarly, the first 4 links in External Links don't seem necessary (you could cite #1 but I don't think that source is credible enough and note #57 has the relevant info). The 5th link I would cite; the 6th is unnecessary, the 7th is unprofessional but have a semblence of citations and interesting photos, I'd cite 8 and drop 9. That leaves you with one external link which may not be worthy a section.
  • You have a higher standard for the external links than I do. I've kept a couple which offer pictures or something useful.
    • Pretty good I guess.
• Merge one sentence paragraph in the Awards section.
  • Done.
• I would expand citation 7 to specify which facts (number of rounds, 5" guns which were wet) came from which page. Same for 6. I suspect I would find more of these but I'm out of time, sorry! Kirk (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friedman doesn't specify which 5-inch guns were wet, but uses a blanket statement that they were considered wet. I bundle page numbers together when citing from a single source as much as possible and see no need to break them out. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that's the way you do things but just to be clear page 116 of Freidman is in Google Books so my spotcheck revealed it says the Penn. class in general had "wet anti-torpedo batteries." (Which reads: guns for shooting torpedoes...does anyone edit these books?). I don't know what's on page 440 - if its duplicated, I would switch to #3, but if not I would switch #7 to just page 116 and put another #3 on the previous sentence. Its a minor detail.
      • That might be anti-torpedo boat batteries. Sturm, I think they were all wet to some degree, no? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Overall, its very good. Kirk (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Image review—all images are from the US Navy, and as part of the US federal government, they're all in the public domain. All captions meet the appropriate criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia:

1. On the first occurrence of "the annual Fleet Problems", we have to click to see what those are-- can't we somehow define that here (fleet exercises or something)?

   Done.

2. Is "Unlike many of the other ships sunk or damaged ... could not be fully salvaged" supported by sources? It couldn't be salavaged or the Navy decided not to salvage it? What do sources say?

   Stillwell says, "The Arizona was considered to be so badly damaged that she would not be suitable for further service even if her remains could be salvaged. At that time the priority was to salvage ships that could be used in the war effort. In addition, the harbor bottom around the hull was so porous that Navy salvage experts didn't consider it feasible to build a cofferdam so that the hull could be pumped out and bodies recovered."

3. Organization: Ship preservation is a subsection of Attack on Pearl Harbor-- that's not intuitive, and suggests article organization may need attention. How about combining Ship preervation with Memorial and honors?

   Reworked.

4. Description: are the water-tube boilers oil fired? We later encounter mention of fuel oil, which leads us to believe so-- clarify in text? I've seen other ship articles mention that some coal-fired ships had oil added.

   If a ship uses mixed firing, I always mention it. Generally I don't specifically state if the boilers are oil fired or coal-fired, as I let the fuel storage answer that.

5. Construction and trials: "The builders set a goal ... " and so on. I got all balled up in the chronology and long sentences here. Might you say, "... but the ship was only half done after 12 months, and not launched until 19 June 1915. Then the next thought about the naming should be a separate sentence.

   How does it read now?

6. Construction and trials: "After acclimating the ship's magnetic compass ... ": do you think acclimating is the correct term for the adjustment of the ship's compass? Is that the term the source uses? How about "compensating" instead? Link to magnetic deviation for compensating.

   Good catch, my eyes had slid right over that. The term is actually declination.

7. "She towed targets for Pennsylavania while outside ... " what's going on here? Why was she towing targets? For example, "she towed targets for Pennsylvania's training exercises ... or whatever it was. In other words, why does the reader need to know this?

   Deleted.

8. The turbine could not be fixed --> repaired maybe better ?

   Agreed.

9. the yard workers were forced to cut holes ... were forced to is redundant, they cut holes.

   Reworded.

10. "World War I": "... the wreck was sometimes used as a target for the 14-inch guns." The reader doesn't know that the wreck refers to the San Marcus (we don't know it's a wreck). "She rarely ventured into the ocean", then we don't know is the Arizona (fix both at once).

    Done.

11. "... easier to supply coal ... " wouldn't "obtain" coal be better here? Would the reader understand better if you point out that the ships that were sent were coal-burning? Is that what you mean to say?

    Good idea.

12. The war did not end on 11 November-- the fighting did.

    True

13. "1920s": "interspersed with a liberty visit" ... strange to use the word "interspersed" for one event ... seems to imply more than one thing going on.
14. "... Greek ground forces arrived in transports and landed troops" ... the forces didn't land troops ... how about "were landed"?

    Rewrote the whole sentence.

15. "Modernization": "... thickness of STS ... " do you think you should tell the reader what STS is so they don't have to click out?

    Done.

16. "Attack on Pearl Harbor": To say that the Japanese struck, and that there were then two ensuing attack waves, is confusing. Why is that -- ... -- even needed? Especially since the Arizona was sunk in the first wave.

    Rephrased.

17. "Ammunition magazine explosion": "Ironically, the blast ... ", why ironically, I'm missing the irony, sentence is fine without it.

    Few people expect a massive explosion to put out fires rather than create them.

    Changed to "Fortunately,". - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

18. "Ship preservation", see above, why is it part of "Attack on Pearl Harbor", and the last paragraph of the section discusses the National Park Service, which really begs to be in the enxt section.

    I've restructured these sections along the lines that you suggest.

19. "Memorial and honors": "The wreck of ... ", three uses of the word "memorial" in one para-- suggest others like "commemorate".

    Agreed.

20. The whole sentence, "As of 2011, 70 years after ... " is awkward. Suggest: Seventy years after ... oil leaking from the hull still rises to the surface of the water. The as of 2011 is implied.

    I like that phrasing better. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from here-- I'll ping Raul to look in here per potential Dec 7 TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good (and fast!). I found one wayward "that", and I suspect that Special Treatment Steel needs to be all uppercase, per The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia entry on Armor, which means that article needs to be moved. It's a shame that, if we run this article on Dec 7, readers will (hopefully) click through to USS Arizona Memorial, and find ... ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mucked with a couple of these without seeing this here, but I think you'll be okay with anything I did. On the flip side, I did capitalize Special Treatment Steel. Now I'm going back to writing my paper because it's my 21st birthday and I'm going out tonight come hell or high water. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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