Talk:USS Maryland (BB-46)

Violation of copyright?
It would appear that major sections of this article have been lifted verbatim (and without notation) from here: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/maryland/bb46-md.html

Since the aforementioned website notes that the text is from".. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships published by the Naval Historical Center", I'm not sure what implications that has to copyrights. ScottMo 01:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the latter point was valid, there were no references cited as such. I added the DANFS citation.--J Clear 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Style of the article.
Is it just me, or does this article read like a piece of US propaganda?66.159.79.3 (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because it was lifted from a US Navy web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.102 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It sounds uncyclopaedic, if not biased. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to fix it up. Vazeer Akbar (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Secondary battery after Pearl Harbor:
I believe there is a mistake in interpretation here. The secondary battery was not replaced (5"/25) by 5"/38. Rather, the 5"/25s were given enclosed shields which somewhat resemble those of 5"/38s. The same thing was done to the 5"/25 battery on USS Pennsylvania among others. Brooksindy (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel useful a paragraph collecting the wartime changes in cage-masts and secondary armament. As a matter of fact, Maryland is very poorly described in this respect in my books. pietro 2001:760:2C00:8004:D817:61BB:AEE2:1EBB (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Damage incurred in Leyte Gulf
Sorry, reference or no reference, the medical department having been "destroyed but still functional" consists of contradictory terms. "Destroyed" with no minimizing adjectives means no longer functional. Largely destroyed? meh. Severely damaged, better. 112.210.164.232 (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)