Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65)


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

USS Illinois (BB-65)
previous FAC (14:00, 15 December 2007)

With Special permission from Deupty FAC Director, this article is being reinstated to the FAC que after the previous nom was closed without any chance for comments on the newly uploaded version of this page. This newer version of the article has addressed some of the previous complaints raised regarding the article's length and content. Comments and suggestions are welcome for this newer version, as are any questions you may have regarding this nom. This is a self nomination, in its current form about 80% of the articles content was written by me. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose (see additional clarification at the bottom of this page)
 * First let me start off by saying excellent additions!!!This is more in line with an FA-quality article. It still isn't there, but you've clearly done your homework...speaking of doing your homework, I assume your exams are over? Enough chit-chat, let's get to the meat of the article (I'm not going to hit everything, but I will try to give at least one example of each...realize that you need to check the entire article for these problems).

What was the Second Vison Act? Was something else stopping it? These kinds of problems can and should be avoided.
 * "...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms
 * Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"
 * Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.
 * References need some work. You need to include all pertinent information: author, publisher, title, date of publication, date of access (for websites only, not books), page numbers, etc. These all need to be within Wikipedia standards (proper italics, wikified dates for ALL citations, etc).
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 61cl, use 61 cl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 61&amp;nbsp;cl .[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 700 lb.
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
 * Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * In short, it isn't ready yet. I have no intention of nitpicking and showing every possible problem. Please read User:BQZip01/FA Tips for more information.

I hope that helps in fixing up the article! — BQZip01 — talk 17:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't take criticism of an article so personally. I know I've been somewhat guilty of that in the past too, but try to detach yourself from a piece of work you don't even own.
 * As a courtesy to you and the other editors, I am reposting what you put on my talk page with regards to the article. Please post such answers here in the future. This is your responsibility, not mine. I have tried to keep your comments as intact as possible while removing extraneous comments not applicable to this FAC. If I misworded something or misquoted, it is entirely by accident.

I have been waiting for two and one-half week for an answer from you. That's more than 14 days, sir. Suppose for a moment that situation was reversed, that you were the one waiting for answer from me, and having not gotten one left three messages on my talk page looking for one only to be (seemingly) ignored. How would feel?...And for the record replies to an FAC would go directly on the FAC page, not on the FAC talk page. Its your responsibility to check back on that page to see if the nominator has addressed the issues present, and you are suppose to check back and update your oppose as needed. From where I sit, numbers 2,3,4 and 9 were fixed last year and still no post assessment tweaks to your comments. Reviewers who object at FAC are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. That written right into the opposition section. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The following stems from a conversation between and  begining on BQZip01's rfa page and extending across both our talk pages. In its original format it was intended to be critical of BQZip01's response to myself (or lack there-of), and was intended as an "if x, then y" argument on the latter's rfa page. Although not a part of this FAC originally, I will concede a point in BQZip01's favor with regards to these comments and there relevancy here, as these to shed light into my mental state regarding this FAC.


 * Respectfully, what specifically has been addressed? I haven't seen anything to indicate what has been altered. I have no intention of re-reading the entire article over and over every time you make a single change just to see if you addressed my objection. Please specify. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why did you oppose instead of comment?...Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made. Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list:
 * "...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms
 * It isn't there anymore
 * struck accordingly — BQZip01 —  talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"
 * It has been fixed
 * struck accordingly — BQZip01 —  talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.
 * These were merged.
 * struck accordingly — BQZip01 —  talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * It should be out of the article now.
 * What does this mean? Is it gone or not? (it is gone and has been struck accordingly, but please be more clear in the future). — BQZip01 —  talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "...and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made." (your words, not mine) Up until now, you have not posted such a reaction other than something like "I have updated the article." This "addresses" none of my objections in and of itself. These comments do. Please continue to do so in the future and feel free to put them directly after each point I made to clearly show the progress. You have done this with other editors' comments. I do not understand why this is such and issue with mine. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. It is also possibly inaccurate. It keeps describing the item as a " hulk". It is not clear that it was ever afloat. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? Albatross2147 (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. - FAC is not AFD. If you think it should be deleted or merged, take it there. Until then, we're going to assume it's a notable and potentially featurable article. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. - this sounds very similiar to the feedback I got during my Operation Downfall FAC. And to echo the comment I made there, there are only so many ways you can describe something that never really happened. It is not clear that it was ever afloat. - a possibly valid point, but I know of no word other than "hulk" to describe an unfinished ship. Can you suggest something? The dictionary defines it as  An old or unseaworthy ship used as a prison or warehouse. Often used in the plural. - an unfinished ship is certainly not seaworthy. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? - Whether or not it was ever launched has nothing to do with what pronoun to use. My own opinion, and Wikipedia policy, is to go with whatever common english usage is -- in which case, both "it" and "she" should be acceptable. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Whatever this thing was it certainly was never a hulk by any definition. In any event even the article's proposer conceded that one. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Her sister is an Featured Article, and all five of the never laid down Montana class battleships have their own articles. If Danfs has an entry for the ship then it meets minimum standards for being here on Wikipedia. A lot of the article is based on the information leading up to creation and the events surrounding her early construction work; this is common. If you see inaccuracies, add cn tags to the stuff that needs cited and I will see to it that the material gets cited. The article does make references to the ship being a hulk, I must admit that I am not aware of any distinction made between hulk and floating; if this is incorrect for the article and its context, it will be taken out forthwith. The other FA-class articles all use She over it, even the incompletd Kentucky; I see no reason why this one should be any different. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article (like the above) is full of egregious spelling errors which should be eliminated. Have you tried using Firefox with spellcheck turned on? Albatross2147 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What on earth does ...a larger, slower, upgunned class of battleship with an improved armor belt intended to protect her from her own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns. mean" I know the US military are notorious for own goals but this seems to be taking the precautionary principle too far. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Battleships in any nations fleet were usually armored to withstand guns of their own size. Of the ships using 16-inch guns during WWII (the North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa, and Montana classes) the North Carolinas and South Dakotas were only armoured to withstand the 16"/45 calibur guns, while the Iowa class was designed only to resist the original 2,240 lb shells originally developed for the 16"/50 and thus were inedequetly armored against the "super heavy" 2,700 lb shells they actually used during the war (it is for this reason that some people consider the Iowa class to be battlecruisers and not battleships). Montana would have been the first U.S. battleship to feature an improved armor belt intended to protect Montana and her sisters from her their own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns (and by extension, the 2,700 lb ammunition used in those guns). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite TomStar81's loving attention to the article over the past few weeks to the point where it is well written and has high clarity I can't see why the subject matter would merit a seperate article let alone an FA. In most histories of the USN the partially completed keel and frame (it was never a completed hull even) would merit at best a para but more likely a footnote. As someone else here observed there is not enough to say about this ship that never was to merit an FA. For mine the article should be merged with other unfinished vessels in the class or an overall class article.Albatross2147 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Objection  this article so bad not even the slinkyies hoes in hoe town get close to it. - bad organization - doesn't look comprehensive - and really does not look FA quality - (this comment is actionable - action being would be "improving article to FA quality") --Keer lls ton 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sustained -- you make your point as good as the others, but a few suggestion would go a long way toward helping me bring this article up to FA status. I already know about the spelling and the grammar problems, and those are beyond my ability fix becuase my spelling sucks. Unless I log on through the university systems on their computers I have no accsess to mozilla or the spellchecker within it. I think the article is comprehensive; I have stated before that this is part of series on the topic and (ideally) should be read along with Iowa class battleship and Armament of the Iowa class battleship. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom, I am very concerned about this. Are you saying you want us to give this article featured status even though you know it has spelling errors? Surely you can't be serious. What school do you attend where a simple dictionary is not available? Go through and check each word if you need to/ Please don't come to an FAC and waste time the time of fellow editors for simple things like spelling. That is not what an FAC is intended to be. As a further suggestion, cut & paste into Microsoft Word and hit "F7"; it'll do a grammar and spelling check. It isn't the best, but it will help. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done that before, and even then I do not get all of the spelling and grammar errors. What I am saying is that the spelling is beyond my ability to correct, not that I think spelling can be overlooked on an FAC because it can't. If push comes to shove I will petition the leauge of copyeditors to review the article and correct the spelling. On a similar note I am glad to see you came back. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose some questions, firstly the prose is inconsistent in tense making it difficult to follow whether the ship was built or not, along with swapping between names USS Montana and USS Illinois, according to linked articles Montana was designated BB-67. Part of this confusion in prose stems from having a separate section on Armament when the vessel wasnt completed. Armament should covered in the various designs, without the detailed sections about the design bofor & oerlikons guns Gnangarra 10:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Strike see below Gnangarra 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I write this I am (albeit slowly) working through the article to try and get it harmonized, as you noted the tense is off in places and the article switches from the class and conversion templates to the old style one cite per unit method, both of witch need to be addressed. On the Montana note you left: our current version does indeed note that Montana was assigned the hull number BB-67, but I have been working on bringing the Montana class article up to featured status and the associated research for that yielded this new evidence. At the moment our Montana class article and the as yet unfinished version sitting in my sandbox are radically different, I do not have all the needed parts to place the new version out to be seen by all. To be honest it had not occurred to me that the current article namespace version of the Montana class battleships did not address these issues. I am none to keen on outright removing the material related to the battleship when designated USS Montana since that would leave the article uncomprehensive. On the issue of the armament: I have the section arrayed as they are now because I thought that this method would be simplier to understand, but I would be willing to remove the entire section and its subsections and consolidate the information into a paragraph or two under the sections "USS Montana" and "USS Illinois". Would that be better? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Dwarf Kirlston comments also indicate that the article layout is disorganized so maybe looking at chronologically would assist that. Discuss Montana class design including armament, then discuss Iowa class the armament particulars of that, this is a significant factor in the choice of the BB-65 and BB-66 order and moving of USS Montana from BB-65 to BB-67. With Montana while its was designated as BB-65 the sources(that I could read) indicated that the order for the ship was dropped in priority for 2 extra Iowa class after the events at Midway. IMHO (without access to source 3,4,5 which appear to also cover this information) the focus on USS Illinois being called USS Montana is inconsistent with sources as it was only BB-65 designation that they have in common. Source 3 the link has died so you'll need to re-establish. Gnangarra 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OpposeIt seemed quite well written and researched, but I just don't think it is notable enough to make the grade. There are lots of ships that did get built and have a real history, why on earth put so much work into this white elephant? Excalibur (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid. Raul654 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its part of a plan to create a featured list for the Iowa class of battleships, to do that requires that the articles be FA-class. Of the six battleships in the Iowa class Illinois is by far the hardest to write for because the battleship was never consider for any sort of post life rebuild. I do believe that given the chance I can make this work, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered nominating it. Notability requirements for an incomplete ship should not be brought up here; the article has been here for years and no one has every complained about its notability at SHIPS, MILHIST, or any other project; nor for that matter has anyone every filed a notability based afd for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to nitpick, but you mean Featured Topic instead of featured list. And, the requirements for such only require a majority of the articles in the topic to be featured, but all FA-class is a good goal for such an endeavor. -MBK004 02:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A featured topic does not need all the articles to be FA. It's OK if you have a few GAs in the topic. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Yeah, what'd I say? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Featured list and all the articles had to be FA-class. Need some coffee? -MBK004 02:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sleep actually, working 22 hours days to pass school is extremely taxing on the brain and other associated mental facilities. Aside from the lack of sleep I am happy to be back. BTW, I am working on tweaking the article to address some of these concerns, so everyone keep your eyes open. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A new version has been put up in an effort to address some of the FAC complaints received here. Comments on this new version are welcome, as are any other comments or questions you may have. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Although I thought the older versions were adequate, I must say that you've done wonders for the article. As always, I've also corrected your "horrible" spelling above. :) -MBK004 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And as always, I am thankful for it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support after the more recent rewrite, I've also done some copy editting when reviewing. Gnangarra 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * withdrawing support for this article as it changed since supported this. IMHO this FAC should be closed as unsuccessful while its regrettable given the efforts of the contributors the issues arent going to be immediately addressable. Gnangarra 15:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. An article with so many English problems should not be an FA. My English is not very good but I can see problems in the lead. For example, change "this gained an eight" to "this gained her an eight" and "where as" is used wrongly. Also, the reference after "at the time of cancellation" should be after a comma or full stop. What happened to the new version with more info?  --Kaypoh (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The information is still there; the armament sections were not well recieved with the community and this nessicitated a rewrite of the article to deal with the objections. As for the sp&g objections, I will try to address the issues to the best of my limited spelling ability. BTW, thank you for coming back; I apreciate your comments on this FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 *  Objection continued despite changes  - calling a section Fate both seems that it will descibe in detain the fate of more than just a bell seems to imply a fatalistic universe -bad tone .--Keer lls ton 14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed that section title to Scrapping also removed a duplicated sentence in that section. Gnangarra —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your scheme sounds good - If I might propose - 1st heading:Background/Context/*in terms of pre-WWII/in terms of novelty of Battleship design/in terms of costs of war that never mattered in actual battle -2nd: US Government/Command/Ordering -3rd:Design -Construction and Funding -4th:Scrapping --Keer lls ton 10:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it's usual to have a section called background but I object - a possible solution is the splitting up of that section into more useful sections -section called "context"/"similar battleships" and a section called  "construction" instead - maybe one called planning as well - currently very bad organization. --Keer lls ton 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the following scheme then:
 * Design
 * Development
 * Scrapping
 * Notes
 * References
 * External Links
 * Do you think that would help the orginization any? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any scheme would be better than just "Background" and "Scrapping" as content headings - (background to what? -the scrapping???). -
 * My 2c based on what I've read in the sources the sections 1 thru 3 are very intertwined, though I'd think 1/Background & Design - which covers the issues of treaty restrictions, Panamax design compromises and the first use of the formula in battleship designs. 2/Construction - This covers the ordering/reordering(inc priority to Aircraft carriers, anti aircraft platforms after Midway/Coral Sea), building costs wleding vs rivet/weld 3/Scrapping - as is. This only my thoughts as to Dwarfs suggestion, it doesnt change my support for the articles promotion. Gnangarra 11:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment the organization has substancially improved, as a result I Strike-through my objection. - I believe comprehensibility could also be improved (per proposal above)- I will probably re-review later on.--Keer lls ton 15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;I tried to address multiple issues on this page, but it may need more tweaking by an experienced editor. I'm a little dubious about the Voodoo World reference, as it gives no sources for the data and it doesn't look like a professional site. Is there a cross-reference that could be used?&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the voodoo site information very carefully before using it here, the information is reliable (by which I mean that it agrees with other books/web sites). I will double cite that for you if it will make you feel better. Thanks you for your copy-editting help as well, I apreciate it very much. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm am still looking for your additional citations, but my real life commitments are starting to catch up with me, so there may be a long pause between requests and actions. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Found your additional citations, they were from a book I own. The part about her being the 5th of the six authorized battleships could prabably be cited several times over, the Naval Vessel Register and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships would support this claim as well via stated dates. I beleive the spring book from the Naval board could also be used to cite the information if you wish. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One or more book citations would be fine. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I got a new PC for christmas, so my contributions here may decrease somewhat shile I get everything back up to speed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I got my PC more or less set up, so barring any unforseen incidents I should be free to surf the net at will. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment With the exception of a few missing codecs needed for playing certain video files (namely, those I pirate from my pc games) I am now 100% done with setting up and installing the computer. There is one small matter though that should be wieghed with this: my previously saved websites (including a butload of sites from which I draw information for articles here) have yet to be located and readded to my favorites folder, therefore requests for information regarding certain aspects of this article (or any other article I have actively contributed to since 2004) will likely be met with a slow response. PS: Happy New Year, all! TomStar81 (Talk) 10:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's perfectly possible to have an FA on a battleship which was never built. The design work can be fascinating and the response of other nations to even an unbuilt ship can be important. However, not this one: there is not enough to say about this ship which cannot be said about Iowa class battleship or Montana class battleship. It's an article worth having but because of the inevitable limitations in scope it will never be an example of Wikipedia's best work and so shouldn't be an FA. The Land (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a nonsensical argument. The Land (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the Featured article criteria about an article having "not enough to say"; only that the article be comprehensive on the topic. To be comprehensive it must include some material that may be redundant with the articles on the Iowa or Montana class BB's. It clearly satisfies the Notability criteria, so it belongs on wikipedia. I see no logical reason to sustain this argument by The Land.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Raul654 has bought in on this FAC (see fatuity above). He likes the article therefore the chances are that not only will it get past this process but we'll see it on the front page sometime soon. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG, I hope it never makes the front page: referring to ships as women so publicly would be an embarrassment for the project. However, I don't mind the change of location for the discussion of the sexist language, and as I've said elsewhere, I think it's quite a good article. Tony   (talk)  04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, many articles that refer to ships this way have already been on the front page. Is that an embarrassment? (See: WikiProject_Ships) -MBK004 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tony   (talk)  04:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the use of female pronouns to describe the ship moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65). Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on the pronoun (note sp) move (censorship?) - Raul's comments are allowed to stand - those of others get moved. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly censorship, I had been arguing for that from the moment it was put there. Have a look at the talk page and at the link at the bottom to where the conversation is continuing. Don't try and slur the character of Raul please, it is unbecoming. Woody (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Support The conversions and numbers need to be properly formatted per WP:MOSNUM and whatever else. The one that stuck out at me was 16-in. Should it not be expanded to inches? You need between numbers and units. 2700 lb jumps out at me. The same goes for "5"/54 (12.7 cm)". I think the " should be expanded as some readers might not understand it.
 * Other than that, count me as a support. I think the other objections are mainly questioning the notability which is a non-issue in my eyes. It is well-written and comprehensive as far as I can see. Well done. Woody (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I replaced three instances of stand alone measurements with US and Metric measurments, and reconfigured all instances inches to in to match the mm measurements in the articles, I also removed the " you commented on. I did not see anything governing the use of non-breaking spaces with regards to percentages or monetary values, and thus left those measurements alone. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added in a couple you missed. That does it for me, can't see any reason to oppose. Woody (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also disappointed in the hostile and threatening manner I have been treated with regards to this review, but I too have been known to get edgy in FACs, so I'm willing to overlook this with no malice towards said editor.
 * Oppose (continued from above, not a separate oppose) I have stated my opposition to this article in the past, but many of my original problems seem to have been either taken care of in the article or changed. I am disappointed that my comments were not addressed on this page and request that they be done here in the future (any format for a response, including comments after each problem, are acceptable and appropriate).

Seeing others' interest in this subject (especially Raul's), I think it is appropriate to re-re-re-clarify my objections and specify any additional problems that have occurred as a result of edits after my second initial review ( "second initial review"... ...only in Wikipedia... ).

For the sake of crystal clarity, I will state each general problem here and then cite all specific examples below:
 * General
 * 1) It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
 * 2) *(a) "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
 * ❌ This article is not well-written because it is not of a professional standard.
 * 1) *(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
 * 2) *(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
 * 3) *(d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
 * 4) *(e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day.
 * ✅ Note that this does not apply to edits made to satisfy FAC requests.
 * 1) It follows the style guidelines, including:
 * 2) *(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
 * The lead is 3 paragraphs while the body is 7 paragraphs. With an article this short, the lead could be shorter.
 * 1) *(b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
 * ❌ Half of the sections are the references/footnotes and external links.
 * 1) *(c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
 * 2) It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * 3) It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * ❌ I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject, but is inappropriate for a featured article. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs, incorporated into the Iowa class battleship article as a wonderful addition, and this page converted to a re-direct.
 * 1) It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * 2) It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * ❌ I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject, but is inappropriate for a featured article. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs, incorporated into the Iowa class battleship article as a wonderful addition, and this page converted to a re-direct.
 * 1) It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * ❌ I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject, but is inappropriate for a featured article. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs, incorporated into the Iowa class battleship article as a wonderful addition, and this page converted to a re-direct.

This will be done working from the top down, getting into the technical aspects, and then diving into the overall layout (and realize this is being done as a courtesy, not because I feel it is a requirement). It should also be noted, that I this is not my first comprehensive review. Note that any incredulity on my part is for dramatic effect only to emphasize the problem and more clearly define the issue.

So, without further ado:
 * Prose issues
 * Lead
 * "This allowed her to gain eight knots in speed, the ability to transit the locks of the Panama Canal, and to increase the number of anti-aircraft guns." How on earth does changing an order make a ship faster? How can an order "allow" it to do so. Before the order was it not permitted to go as fast? Are there some speed limit signs I missed the last time I was on the high seas? How does an order give something an ability? How does it increase a number guns? Rephrase accordingly. Violation of 1a.
 * The ship was ordered as a Montana class ship (big guns, heavily armored) but the order was changed to an Iowa class (fewer guns, less armor). Less ship mass = more speed. This was fairly straightforward to me. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Raul, thanks for your input. For the sake of clarity, my issue is not so much with the comparisson, but the word choice. It should read something like, "This change resulted in an increased maximum speed for the BB-65 due to a reduction in armor..." It the change from Montana to Iowa "allows" nothing, but results in an actual change. "Allow" implies that the shipbuilders are now permitted to do something, when, in fact, they were directed to do something. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rearrange the sentence to read "Adherance to the Iowa-class layout rather than the Montana-class layout allowed BB-65 to gain eight knots in speed, carry more 20 mm and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, and transit the locks of the Panama Canal; however, the move away from the Montana-class layout left BB-65 without a reduction in the heavier armaments and without the additional armor and that were to have been added to BB-65 during her time on the drawing board as USS Montana."


 * "The cost was the loss of her additional armor..." She actually "lost" nothing except on paper. Orders change all the time. It's like saying I wanted a car with a 5 lite engine, but at the last minute, I got one with 4 liters. I "lost" nothing. Your word choice is inappropriate here. In short, comparing the two classes is appropriate, but this phrasing isn't. Violation of 1a.
 * Rephrased per your suggestion.


 * "Her construction was canceled in August 1945..." Who cancelled it? Congress? The President? The Navy? The War Department? This is the danger of using passive voice. It doesn't directly state what happened. Try "In August 1945 Congress cancelled..." Violation of 1a.
 * "but her hull remained until 1958 when it was broken up." Amazingly nonspecific. The hull "remained" where? Was it just the hull? The picture provided does not seem to indicate it was merely the hull that was left behind. "broken up"? Is that a technical term? It makes it sound as if it just fell apart due to pressure or deterioration. In reality, it was disassembled by workmen and sold for scrap, right? Violation of 1a.
 * I assume the Navy cancelled the battleship; usually official reports stipulate when second ro third parties alter or cancel USN construction orders. Since assupmtion is the mother of all screwups I will look into tracking that down for you.


 * "Because Illinois was only 22% complete at the time she was not considered for any significant rebuild programs" Why? cost I assume? political pressure to spend money elsewhere? Too much work to do? Not enough time? why not enough time/money? Caught in a post-wartime drawdown? etc. Violation of 1a.
 * "while several proposals were floated to complete her sister ship Kentucky as a guided missile battleship." What does this have to do with the USS Illinois? (I know contrast later, but it doesn't need to be in the lead). Did you really just use the word "floated" in an article about a Navy ship? A bit informal of an informal word choice there, but I must admit excellent use of a pun (this ship did "float" while the Illinois didn't). Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:LEAD and WP:PEACOCK
 * I hadn't put those two words togather, but now that you mention it is a great pun. Perhaps "proposed" would be a better word. In any case that sentence was deleted from the introduction.


 * "Like her sister ship USS Kentucky (BB-66), Illinois was still under construction at the end of World War II. Her construction was canceled in August 1945, but her hull remained until 1958 when it was broken up...while several proposals were floated to complete her sister ship Kentucky as a guided missile battleship." Serious overuse of the pronoun "her". Please vary your usage at least a little bit (not related in any way to this discussion). You don't need "sister ship" in the paragraph twice. Violation of 1a.
 * Out of the lead in its entirety.


 * Design
 * "BB-65 began life in mid-1930s as the USS Montana, the lead ship of her class of dreadnought battleships. " She isn't "alive" at all. Please remove colorful language. What is a "dreadnought" battleship? Perfect time for a wikilink if I ever saw one. Violation of 1a.
 * Reworded and wikilinked


 * "She would have fielded three more 16 in (406.4 mm) guns than those mounted aboard the Iowa-class, a more powerful secondary battery of 5 in (127 mm)/54 caliber DP mounts,[1] an increase in armor that was to enable Montana to withstand the effects of the 16 in (406.4 mm) caliber guns and the 2,700 lb (1,224.7 kg) ammunition she and her Iowa-class sisters were to carry." Again, the difference in ships is specifically limited to theoretical differences between classes of ships and would be more appropriate in the class articles. It just isn't needed here, IMHO.
 * noted, but not addressed. Its not that I do not want to adress this, its just that we see things differently on this point, and I prefer to see it here for ths sake of comprehensiveness, IMHO it helps the article by making it well written.


 * "The increase in Montana’s firepower and armor came at the expense of her speed and her Panamax capabilities, but the latter issue was to be resolved through the construction of a third, much wider set of locks at the Panama Canal, which would have enabled Montana to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans without the need to move around the tip of South America.[2]" See previous for more info. By linking USS Illinois and BB-65, it seems to me you have exclusively eliminated the USS Montana. There is no need to include such information here. Is "move" the right word? You mean "sail"? This sentence is very long. Please shorten or break into two sentences.'Violation of 1a.
 * changed moved to sail per your suggestion and broke up the sentence per your suggestion.


 * "By 1942 the United States Navy shifted its building focus from battleships to aircraft carriers after the successes of carrier combat in both the Battle of Coral Sea and, to a greater extent, the Battle of Midway." Add commas for readability, but excellent sentence otherwise. Violation of 1a.
 * My apologies, I thought they were already in the article. This has been adressed.


 * " As a result the construction of the U.S. fleet of Essex-class aircraft carriers had been given the highest priority for completion in the U.S. shipyards." Again, passive voice. Who gave the carriers highest priority?Violation of 1a.
 * The USN; citation provided.


 * "The Essex-class carriers were proving vital to the war effort by allowing the Allies to gain and maintain air supremacy in the Pacific Theatre of World War II, and were rapidly becoming the principle striking arm of the United States in the ongoing effort to defeat the Empire of Japan." Wikilinks needed for "Empire of Japan" Again, poor use of the word allow. They aren't merely permitting something, they are "enabling". As for the "striking arm", I think the Army, Marines, and Air Force might disagree on their role being stated this way, though battleship use was certainly down with the advent of carrier operations. Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:PEACOCK
 * Good point.


 * "It was for this reason that the United States accepted certain shortcomings in the armor for their North Carolina-class battleships, South Dakota-class battleships, and Iowa-class battleships in favor of their additional speed, which enabled these battleship classes to steam at a comparable speed with the Essex-class and provide the carriers with the maximum amount of anti-aircraft protection.[5]" "It was for this reason" = wordiness. Try "Accordingly". "certain" shortcomings? why not just "shortcomings? Again a long sentence that could be reduced in wordiness. Violation of 1a.
 * Addressed.


 * No mention of Iowa-class specifications in its design section. Why? Violation of 1a.
 * I felt the development section to be a better place for that information. I can move it if you wish.


 * Development
 * "She would now be the fifth of the six authorized ships of the Iowa class of battleships.[8][6]" VERY poor verb choice. "would now be"? how about "was designated"? or something similar Violation of 1a.
 * Removed it altogather.


 * "Like her Iowa-class sisters, Illinois was to cost $125 million and take roughly 30 to 40 months to complete." $125 million in what country? what timeframe? $125 million adjusted for 2007? 1930? 1945? Why "roughly"? how rough? A little informal. Do you mean "approximately"? Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:$
 * Ours, of course. This figure needs to be taken with a grain a salt, but by adjusting 125 million on the consumer price index the total price comes to approximately 1.8 billion in 2008 dollars.


 * "Her keel was laid down at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 15 January 1945." "laid down" should be "laid". Do we really need "Philadelphia" twice? Perhaps PNP in P,P? or simply eliminate the second usage altogether. That's what Wikilinks are for, IMHO. Violation of 1a.
 * Linked to both and added an in for good measure.


 * "Like Kentucky, Illinois differed from her earlier sisters in that her design called for an all-welded construction, which would have saved weight and increased strength over a combination riveted/welded hull of the type used on the four completed Iowa-class ships." Note wordinessViolation of 1a.
 * Noted and adressed.


 * "Engineers considered retaining the original Montana-class -type armor for added torpedo and naval mine protection (the newer scheme would have improved Illinois’ armor protection by as much as 20%);[11] however, this was rejected due to time constraints and Illinois was being built along the regular with an Iowa-class hull design.[12]" 20% more what? Strength? coverage? protection from shockwaves? corrosion? Split into two sentences and remove parenthesis.Violation of 1a.
 * The way I interpret this is protection from torpedoes, naval mines, and her own intended ammunition of 16"/50 heavy shells. This is touched on in the parent class article, but the Iowa class armour scheme was somewhat inadaquet for the battleship class. I can add to that info to the article if it would make you feel better.


 * "Funding for the battleship was provided in part by "King Neptune", a hereford swine who was auctioned across the state of Illinois as a fund raiser, and was ultimately responsible for raising $19 million in war bonds[13] (equivalent to about $200 million in 2007 adjusted dollars).[14]" Violation of 1a.
 * Got it.


 * "Illinois construction was canceled and then scrapped after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[8][6]" "scrapped" implies the ship was sold for scrap metal, but she wasn't. What is the difference here between the two verbs? Why was it cancelled after the atmoic bombings? Violation of 1a.
 * Ostensably nothing, but I will check be sure.


 * "She was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 12 August 1945,[10][15] but her incomplete hull (at the time 22% finished) was retained along with her sister Kentucky until 1958 when both incomplete ships were broken up. She was scrapped in her dry dock on the builder's ways starting in September 1958.[16] Although her sister ship Kentucky (BB-66) was considered for a rebuild to make her into a guided missile battleship (BBG)—by removing the aft turret and installing a missile system—at the time of her cancellation, Kentucky was 73.1% complete with construction halted at the first deck.[12][17] By contrast, the Illinois was only 22% complete and thus was not afforded the same option." So was the Kentucky sold for scrap or completed? I'm confused.
 * Ive scrapped nearly all of the section since it was confusing. Kentucky was not completed.


 * "...an Associated Press report article published in 1983 seemed to indicate that the bell was donated to the N ROTC unit at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in an article published in 1983 .[19] According to the AP, the bell previously resided in a Washington museum until finding its new home with the Fighting Illini football team in 1982;[19] since then, the bell has is traditionally been rung by NROTC members in a cumulative manner when the football team scores a touchdown or goal.[18]" In a cumulative manner? What the heck does that mean? Violation of 1a.
 * Cumulative meaning they start from zero and stop when they hit the number of points the team currently has on the board.


 * Technical problems
 * References still missing needed information (like access dates for websites). Violation of 2. Specifically WP:CITE
 * There should be a non-breaking space -  between all numbers and their units of measurement. For example, instead of 61cl, use 61 cl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 61&amp;nbsp;cl .[?] Violation of 2. Specifically [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
 * I thought I had this addressed earlier, but with the addition of newer material I will go back and check to ensure non breaking spaces are present.
 * Please see User:BQZip01/FA Tips for exactly how to fix this. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Units of measurement|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers)]]
 * Spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 16 in. Violation of 2. Specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers)
 * Question:do the conversion templates support this layout scheme? If they don't I will go back and replace such instances by hand.


 * Layout problems
 * Half of the sections are the references/footnotes and external links. Ergo, it is not "substantial" This is actionable through an expansion of the material. (See the next item for more information) Violation of 3b.
 * I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject, but is inappropriate for a featured article. After all, we have stubs that are certainly comprehensive, given the body of knowledge, but have no business being a featured article. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs and incorporated into the Iowa class battleship article and this page be converted to a re-direct. As a stand-alone article, I feel it fails this requirement. Violation of 4.
 * Again, I can not adress that issue here becuase it is a differnce of opinion between us and what constitutes an FA. Nonetheless, I thank you for the specific examples provided, and will continue to work on addressing the issues present to the best of my knowlage. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please understand this is not necessarily exhaustive and I reserve the right to add more to it. In short, I don't feel this meets the standards of an FA. — BQZip01 — talk 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Left unanswered comments for now until all points have been addressed. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe that User:BQZip01 has now opposed this FAC twice (here and the first oppose). Only one should count and one should probably be struck for clarity. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Second instance annotated accordingly. Fair enough? — BQZip01 —  talk 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support While the article is short I believe it meets all the criteria for a Featured Article, although it does need date accessed for web refs. I made two minor edits to the article reading it for this FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support I think most of the people do not support this nomination because tha article is too short, but in my opinion, even if it's short, it meets all criteria for FA. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. The rigourous FAC process has improved this article, making it worthy of the little brass star. I would create a stub article to fix the red link in the "Design" section, but other than that I give this article a thumbs-up. Coemgenus 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I think that this article fully meets the FA criteria and clearly demonstrates the advantages of Wikipedia not being a paper Encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with short articles IMO (though the ones I work on tend to end up bloated). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.