Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Armament of the Iowa class battleship

Armament of the Iowa class battleship
Its been almost two years since this article went through any sort of review process; this was an oversight on my part since of the Iowa class articles this one is the only one that has been rewritten by someone other than me. The article is aesthetically iffy, but is still well sourced and should pass through an impending FAR with relative ease; to better the chances though I am opening a peer review prior to the FAR so that I can split the anticipated workload some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Saberwyn
The first thing that comes to mind is the redlinked "Katie" nukes in the lead section... could a short article or a redirect to an appropriate target be created?

Also, I think it would be beneficial to alternate the placement of images, and may also be an idea to either remove the image size hardcoding (i.e. the |foopx| section of the image string) or standardise the image sizing. At the moment, there appears to be several image sizes in use as well as the un-hardcoded thumbnail size, and this, combined with the all-right placement, is putting some serious chunks of artificial white space into the article.

Feel free to address each point directly, instead of addressing them all below this point. I also reserve the right to add more observations at any time. -- saberwyn 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * W19 (nuclear artillery shell) refers to "...a nuclear artillery shell for the US Navy 16 inch (406 mm) battleship guns, the W23" - it isn't discussed at any length, but this is probably the appropriate target, and there's already a redirect at W23 (nuclear artillery shell). A link in the "Ammunition" section as well as the lead would probably help. Shimgray | talk | 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

AshLin
(Moved from talk page) AshLin (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Please convert red link Katie to a stub or transclude it to an existing weapon article. (already pointed out above).
 * 2) The capitalisation of section/subsection appears to be inconsistent.
 * 3) Perhaps a section on how the weapons were when the ship was commissioned and how the weapons were replaced or updated to give a brief overall picture would be useful. A timeline in prose so to say, somewehere early in the article.
 * 4) The Tomahawk and Harpoon sections seem to have too much detail on the working of the missile. Perhaps it could be pruned and  templates be used for each weapon system having a dedicated article of its own.
 * 5) A small section on the performance of the battleship's armamments in conflict - where all it was used or fired, from WWII to decommissioning, if the info is available, would be useful.
 * On point 4: I have actually been toying with the idea of deconstructing the entire article and moving all applicable information to the main weaponry articles. In theory, this would then allow for for the armament page to be gradually phased out and ultimately deleted while allowing the weaponry articles a chance to evolve from the current start/stub/B class ratings into FAs. Haven't decided if I want to do that yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support the idea of using the weapon/generic content to improve the weapon articles. However, this does not require the destruction of this article, just a shift to focus on the class-specific weapon information: a main article link, a brief summary of the weapon, and the rest of the content focusing on the use of these weapons by the Iowas. -- saberwyn 06:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Harlsbottom
I just went back through the FAC (remarkably short!). A point raised then but seemingly never addressed is the question of small arms. I can see why the equipment carried by the U.S.M.C. detachment wouldn't count, but surely there would have been a store of rifles, small arms and the like? It's not important, but if you do have some information on it, the article would certainly be complete. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 17:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TomStar81
Notes to self:
 * factplace.com is considered an unreliable source. It will need to be removed before the FAR. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some paragraphs have no citations. This will need to be addressed before the FAR. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight
Wow. This is a really great article. I only found a few things that could be changed, none of them major:
 * More relevant wiki-links should be made. In the intro, "United States" could be changed to "United States Navy" and wiki-linked. World War II, in the next paragraph could also be wiki-linked. Tomahawk missiles and Harpoon missile should also be wiki-linked for clarity
 * "Within each turret a red stripe on the wall of the turret, inches from the railing, marks the boundary of the gun's recoil, warning the crew to keep back." could be improved to "Inside each turret, there are red stripes on its walls, inches from the railing, which mark the boundary of the gun's recoil, warning the crew to keep back." Doesn't have to be exactly like this, but the world "turret" gets repetitive.
 * "Cold War" could be wiki-linked in the ammunition sub-section.
 * In the anti-aircraft armament section, "U.S. fleet of fast attack aircraft carriers" could be pipe-linked to Fast Carrier Task Force. Also, comma after "carriers"
 * The wiki-linked "40 mm Bofors AA guns." could be de-linked, as it is already linked at the beginning of the sub section, and at the beginning of the next sub section. Same with
 * NATO could be wiki-linked in the Missiles section

Hope that helped, and good luck with the FAR. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)