Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)[edit]

USS Wisconsin (BB-64) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: The Epopt, TomStar81, Dual Freq, Bahamut0013, WP MILHIST, WP Ships, WP NRHP, WP Pennsylvania, WP Wisconsin, WP USA, noticed 2023-01-16

Review section[edit]

This is essentially the same situation as Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 - the modern MILHIST standard is to include some dimensions/descriptions material that is largely absent here, and the article is over-reliant on DANFS and a veterans' association website, when there is fairly detailed literature on the Iowa-class ships. Needs some TLC - the Missouri FAR should be a fairly good example of similar problems and improvements. Hog Farm Talk 21:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As with Missouri, this article is still in reasonably good condition: the information hasn't changed much, the citations are stable, and while there is an over reliance of DANFS by current standards the material covered by DANFS is also present in other publications. On the whole this shouldn't be too hard to uplift, just needs a little TLC. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with comments above. The US Naval Institute has a number of publications on the Iowa-class which could be used to add information. I'd do it myself, but BBs aren't exactly my thing. I don't think it would take much work to get this upgraded.
Intothatdarkness 18:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per concerns outlined above, and that no one has stepped forward yet to address the concerns. No edits since March. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to FARC no edits since FAR began (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to FARC, the needed TLC hasn't (yet) happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sturmvogel 66 working as of 30 May. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a message at WT:SHIPS to try to get some help here (I don't have the needed sources to fix this), but move to FARC for now, although I'm still hoping for work to occur here. Hog Farm Talk 17:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed with the library that the two battleship book they have are not on Wisconsin, they are New Jersey and Missouri (and still in special collections or otherwise unavailable for check out at the moment - maybe COVID protocols are still in effect). That leaves the internet and what little I have here at the house, and between the the two of those position most of that is already in the article.

I've checked three libraries I can access near me, and while one of them has Sumrall's book on the Iowa class, it is in a noncirculating special collection, so not particularly accessible to me. Maybe @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: would be able to spare some time for this, based on their work with Missouri? A slow save is better than a speedy delist. Hog Farm Talk 14:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on working on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66 do you recommend Hold in FAR rather than Move to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked to see how bad it is, so I really can't say. I do know that it will probably be a couple of weeks before I can devote any significant amount of time to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sturm, are you still planning to have a look at this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to start work on it later this week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66 I see you did a lot of work on 30 May; where does this stand? More to do? Progress to FARC? Ready for extra eyes ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's lot's more to do as I've only dealt with the description, modifications, and the introduction into service thus far. Further progress is going to be sporadic as there's no equivalent of Stillwell's book on Missouri for Wisconsin so it will be tougher to find substitutes for DANFS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I helped at the USS Missouri rescue. As Sturmvogel 66 noted, this a less-famous of the Iowa class ships and so may be sparser on published secondary sources. So many of the arcane-but important details maybe only can come from places like DANFS and association websites. I'll also take a look for other sources. If they don't exist, I'd rather it lose FA status than delete large amounts of such material which rely on sources like DANFS. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO reliance on DANFS and veterans' association sources should not count against it when used for info on items that are specific to the Wisconsin (vs. on the Iowa class battleships in general) DANFS is about as expert and authoritative as a source can get and those "boring"/ enclyclopedic items are probably published only there. Unlike the more famous USS Missouri which had books published specifically on it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No major edits to add missing information since move to FARC, it might be time to let this go. Z1720 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720: - I believe the issue is now less missing information (Sturm has greatly improved the description and design section), but more so the excessive reliance on DANFS in the later sections of the article. I recently bought a used copy of O'Hara's The U.S. Navy Against the Axis: Surface Combat 1941-1945 off of Ebay, so I should be able to work up some of the WWII content once that arrives. Hog Farm Talk 00:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Striking my delist above, since HF has said that they are working on this. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well shoot - O'Hara arrived today, and they apparently consider the various activity Wisconsin was in to be outside of the scope of their work. Hog Farm Talk 01:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • That’s the problem: the famous two are New Jersey and Missouri, which means there ain’t a lot on the other two. Piecing together the ship history is hard when DANFS is disqualified in this way other sources are not focused on Wisconsin per se. 2600:1011:B337:7059:D082:20EC:6616:A590 (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some improvement has occurred, and it is in better shape than when first nominated here. Some quick thoughts (I unfortunately have had to go to only minimally active to due IRL stuff):
      • "USS Wisconsin (BB 64)". Unofficial US Navy Site. Retrieved 26 November 2006." - I don't think navysite.de would be accepted as a source at FAC anymore
      • "Departing Valencia on 17 April, Wisconsin reached Norfolk on 27 May." - is not supported by the only source cited in that paragraph
    • I'll try to look further at this one and see if there's anything I can do once I get through reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article review/Minneapolis/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sex Pistols/archive2. Hog Farm Talk 15:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The issues raised are grounds for review, however all things considered the article is stable and sourced. Could it be better sourced? Of course. Is it required of our articles to have the absolute best sources? Not per se, so I think we can keep the star here - for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TomStar and North8000 above that we probably aren't going to find anything much beyond DANFS and the veterans' source. I still don't think navysite.de would cut it, but there's only four refs to it so it shouldn't be overly hard to replace it. There's been enough loose additions since the original FAC that a source-text integrity source for odds and ends should probably be conducted, but I think that Sturmvogel has improved the construction and WWII material significantly so it'll just be a polishing going forward from here. Hog Farm Talk 20:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this specifically in detail, but in my experience, Rohwer can usually be used to replace a fair bit of DANFS citations, or can especially when paired with general histories of different naval actions.
I find it curious that Garzke & Dulin's book hasn't been consulted at all. I haven't read it myself, but I have used their volume on Axis battleships, and I have their volume on British/Soviet/French/Dutch battleships, and both have detailed histories of the ships they cover. While it's dated, it is certainly better than DANFS. Frankly, this seems like a glaring 1c issue. Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: - I've reviewed Garzke & Dulin via Internet archive; they devote less than a page to the history of Wisconsin, generally in less detail than is already in the article. I still don't think navysite.de should be being used as a source, and the source-text integrity issue I noted on October 7 is still present but this is probably getting close to about as good as we can get this one. Hog Farm Talk 19:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, that's disappointing - usually they go into great detail. Although in fairness, that book was published in 1976, so there's a fair bit of the ship's history that's not covered (and what there is largely consists of escorting carriers around the western Pacific, which isn't the most exciting thing to write about). I agree that navysite needs to be removed, and probably the material it supports, since it seems like no alternative source can be found. Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source-text integrity issue I noted above has been fixed using DANFS. I've also replaced three usages of navysite.de with a combination of the New York Times, Garzke & Dulin, and DANFS. The fourth use I couldn't find anything better than this Greenpeace report for, which I have doubts that that is high-quality RS for this topic so I removed the information. The article still copies DANFS heavily but I don't have the time or energy to address that right now and DANFS is public domain so we're fine on that front. Hog Farm Talk 02:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720[edit]

In an effort to get this out of FAR, here's a review of the article from a non-expert. My initial impression is that the history section is very long, and there are very large sections. While I could go through it and start cutting information, I think many editors would find that disruptive instead of helpful. Is there anyone who is a subject-matter expert who can cut down this section, add headings so that each section is about 3-4 paragraphs, and ensure that none of the paragraphs are too long or too short? Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that the history section is actually too long; overall length of the article is quite manageable and with a topic such as this the history section would be expected to take up most of the article. I don't have a strong opinion on section length. Hog Farm Talk 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I don't think I would support this article in this condition for FAC promotion in 2024, but I'm not seeing anything to delist over. Pinging @Z1720, Parsecboy, North8000, and Sturmvogel 66: - this has been at FAR for nearly a year now, the most glaring issues have been addressed, and I think it's about time we either close this as kept or identify further issues to improvement, rather than just holding this in FAR purgatory indefinitely. Hog Farm Talk 15:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving to delist per Sturmvogel, regrettably. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (pinged above) I think that the article is as good as it can be regarding sourcing which seems to be the main discussed area. Has lots of technical encyclopedic information that is unlikely to be covered by sources that meet tougher criteria being discussed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme give this a look in the next couple of days as my attention has been focused elsewhere these last few months.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist While revising the remaining WW2 sections, I'm finding text credited to DANFS that isn't there anymore. I suspect that the editors used the original text of DANFS from the 1960s and didn't update the article when the DANFS was heavily revised in this millenium. This calls into question all of the DANFS-cited material, which needs to be edited for tone, if nothing else. I'll finish what I've started, but I won't have any time to rework the later material until next year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/USS_Wisconsin_(BB-64)/archive2&oldid=1217473851"