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

USS Texas (BB-35)

I got to work on this battleship becuase the World War I portal should have at least one piece of hardware rated FA class. I am looking for any further suggestions as to how the article can be improved; I intend to take the all the way to FA status. As per the Emt147 declaration, do not object on the basis of week citations, add {{fact}} tags to stuff that you as the editers feel is not cited and I will address it accordingly (assuming that it has not already been addressed). Note that as a US ship article composed largely of historical information, this article is almost entirely an NPOV copy/paste from the PD Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks pretty good. The citations seem sufficient, given that this is mostly DANFS material; beyond that, there's a number of other things to look at:

• The lead seems a bit choppy; the first and last paragraphs are too short, in particular. If it can't be gracefully expanded, it may be better to collapse the whole thing to a single paragraph.
• The second paragraph of the "Construction" section seems bizarrely out of place; was it intended to be in the lead?
• The "Construction" and "1914-1920" sections might be better off being merged together.
• The use of military time is inappropriate in a general-purpose encyclopedia; it should be changed to a more normal format.
• The constant repetition of "14 inch (356 mm)" is excessive; once the conversion has been given, there's no reason to repeat it anytime the guns are mentioned. (Couldn't they be referred to simply as the main guns, incidentally?)
• The last three sections ("Post-WWII", "Memorial", and "Film career") are somewhat stubby. It may be sensible to merge all three; but, at the least, I would suggest merging the "Film career" section in with the "Memorial" section.

Kirill Lokshin 03:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes as per your suggestions. I am still not entirely sure what I want to do with the "Film Career" section; narrowly speaking it is noteworthy, in a broader sense it could be conisidered a "Pop Culture" section, which would warrent a removal. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not that much material; maybe just mention it at the end of the "Museum Ship" section? Both of the films were made during that period, after all. Kirill Lokshin 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merged the section as per your suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nice job. These are my suggestions:

• Prose problems from the lead:

USS Texas (BB-35) was a New York-class battleship, and was (see the repetition too close in the same sentence: was ... and was) the second ship of the United States Navy named to honor Texas, the 28th state. Texas' keel was laid down on 17 April 1911 at Newport News, Virginia, by the Newport News Shipbuilding Company. She was launched on 18 May 1912 sponsored by Miss Claudia Lyon, and commissioned on 12 March 1914 with Captain Albert W. Grant in command.

Well too many "was" for me. Not "brillian" the prose here IMO, and it is the lead!

• "the first receive a commercial radar in the U.S. Navy". Is a "to" missing here ("to receive") or am I wrong?
• "system of hull classification symbols.[4][3]". Don't you think that it would be better like that: "system of hull classification symbols.[3][4]".
• "She returned to New York early in 1929 for her annual overhaul and had completed it by March when she began another brief tour of duty in the Pacific. She returned to the Atlantic in June and resumed normal duty with the Scouting Fleet." Repetition of the same form of expression in two successive sentences. And IMO it is not nice when a new paragraph starts like that: "She ... " I prefer in this case: "Texas ... " or "the battleship ... ".
• "At that point in the war, amphibious warfare doctrine was still embryonic; and many did not recognize the value of a pre-landing bombardment." I think such a general assessment deserves its own citation. I tagged it with .
• "At 3:00 AM Texas and the British cruiser HMS Glasgow entered the Omaha Western fire support lane and into her initial firing position, at 4:41 AM, 12,000 yards (11 km) offshore near Pointe du Hoc, along with battleships Arkansas and Nevada, and three US heavy cruisers, along with a combined US-British flotilla of British battleships, along with five cruisers and 22 destroyers." Uncited paragraph.
• "Although Texas is the oldest remaining dreadnought-type batleship, she is not the oldest remaining battleship: The Japanese battleship Mikasa, a pre-dreadnought battleship, is older than Texas." According to whom? Any source?
• "Anti-ship missiles such as the Fritz X were among the first instances of short range guided missiles during the Second World War. The German Luftwaffe used them to some effect against Allied shipping, and sank or damaged some large warships successfully before the Allies devised countermeasures, principally radio jamming." Again source, please? The fact that these assessments are in notes does not mean that they should be uncited.
• "Johnston, Ian and McAuley, Rob. The Battleships. Channel 4 Books, London ISBN 0-7522-6188-6": Is this book mentioned in notes? I did not see it, but again I may have not looked carefully. But if it is not used, it is not "reference" but "further reading".
• As far as the other books are concerned why do you repeat full data (publisher, ISBN, year of edition etc.) in both "Notes" and "References"?
• Categories are not alphabetized.
• "As per the Emt147 declaration, do not object on the basis of week citations, add {{fact}} tags to stuff that you as the editers feel is not cited and I will address it accordingly (assuming that it has not already been addressed). Note that as a US ship article composed largely of historical information, this article is almost entirely an NPOV copy/paste from the PD Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. " I understand what you say, but I have to tell you honestly that the great dependence from "American Naval Fighting Ships" would be a problem for me in FAC.--Yannismarou 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I like a challenge. From the top: I inserted that missing "to" for the commericial radar. Good catch. Citation numbers are now in correct order. I have adressed the tag you inserted, the information was from DANFS. According to Wikipedia, Mikasa is older, but I suppose I need to find someone else to state that so I can properly cite it. The part about anti-ship missiles caught me off guard, I included that in ref tabs so others would also be suprised. I am working on that angle at the moment, when I get more info you will to. "The Battleships" is a small book with fun tibits about the nations that built and operated battleships since there inception. Most of what is stated in the book is stated here from other sources. In this case specifically, the info on Texas comes from the last chapter, which notes in part that "...the United States has preserved by far the greatest number [of battleships], 8 in all, including the vintage WWI Texas," and later noting that "...only Japan has preserved a battleship [in the modern sense of the word], Mikasa, Admiral Togo's flagship..." I have not yet had a chance to thoughly investigate this source for additional info on Texas, though I suspect that there may be some info in with the battle sections. I was unaware that the books in question had been added to the "Notes" section, that is why they are cited twice. They are not there now. Categoris have been aplhabetized. Finally, American battleships are like american presidents: there are a few that stand out immediately and recieve a disproportionately large amount of the lime light, and there are those that come under the head of "whats his name". Texas is in with the latter category; there have been no major works published about her battle history beyond DANFS, therefore the article draws on DANFS for most of its information. It isn't that I am not willing to add more sources, its just that no one has taken the time to publish accounts exclusive to the ship in question. DANFS reliance should not be counted against this article: Wikipedia has long reconginzed its importance, and DANFS material is what makes up nearly all of the US ship pages here. You will note that when aplicable, I have used sources other than DANFS for the citing, such as in the sections on D-Day, which draw not from DANFS but from the Historical Naval Ships Visitors Guide. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)