Talk:USS Omaha (CL-4)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on USS Omaha (CL-4). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101119105956/http://acepilots.com/ships/omaha.html to http://www.acepilots.com/ships/omaha.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous, sorry
I've just done a massive revert at USS Oglala (CM-4), then looked at another similar article with very poor tone, then at this one. It is awful, sorry. Too much detail, too biassed towards a US-centric tone and, more generally, just a poor tone. Things like the Hazards at sea section just make me wince.

These are major problems and the GAN should perhaps have speedily failed. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Random example: Omaha spotted a light on the horizon at 01:30, on 1 June 1942. The light, as it turned out, was from a small lifeboat with eight surviving crewmen aboard from the sunken British merchant Charlbury As it turned out? Really? And does the precise time really matter? The entire paragraph needs rewriting and probably should start something like On 1 June 1942, Omaha spotted a small lifeboat carrying eight survivors from the sunken British merchant ship, Charlbury. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Or The ship identified herself as Willmoto, but did not satisfactorily identify herself to the American warships.. We need to make our mind up - did it identify or not? - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sitush, headings like this one aren't exactly helpful.
 * Yes, the line you identified could be written more concisely to remove some of the details, but there is no universal opinion on what constitutes excessive or insufficient detail. Is the time relevant? Maybe, maybe not. I am of the mind that one should defer to the judgement of the person doing the writing, since they're doing the work. Simply enforcing your or my opinions on the appropriate level of detail is obviously an unworkable solution.
 * I don't see the problem with the second line. The ship said she was Willmoto, but the American ships believed that to be false. And they were correct. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am either (a) going to overhaul the mess or (b) put it up for GAR. It is badly written. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Engines
If anyone is interested in the engines for this group a very detailed description, including diagrams, from a marine engineering point of view is available at: New Scout Cruisers of Immense Engine Power (Marine Engineering, v. 26, #2, February 1921 issue). Apparently the power to size ship ratio was notable at the time. 72.196.202.60 (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)