Talk:USS Flying Fish (SS-229)

An excellent article overall, but I'm confused by some of the dates. The dates in some of the section titles don't coincide with the dates mentioned into the associated text. MK 06:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tone of voice / neutrality?
I'm somewhat concerned about the neutral tone of voice in this article (or rather, its apparent lack). Skimming the text, I find:


 * "When Flying Fish daringly came up to periscope depth"
 * "Unshaken by this long day of attack"
 * "Three times on this third patrol she launched bold attacks"
 * "Along with gaining much valuable intelligence," - without any explanation or elaboration why this intelligence was valuable
 * "she closed the northern coast to make a daring attack"
 * "Continuing her bold inshore attacks"
 * "After five grueling patrols"
 * "Flying Fish was attacked by a Japanese submarine, whose torpedoes she skillfully evaded."

Without explaining or providing valid reasons for the use of all these bombastic adjectives (and also other phrases like "beached itself in a mass of flames"), the text reads like a gushing propaganda piece, rather than an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.112.68 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)