Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-6)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk · contribs) 01:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first surprise is the lack of a design section. Practically all BB's have such a section (summarizes the class article/infobox in a paragraph or so).
Working Inkbug (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done I hope the section has what you wanted. Inkbug (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A construction section would go along with the design para. I see you have a lot of info on the christening (relatively), but nothing on construction. At least throw in the laying down/launching/commissioning dates in the Christening section, which you might want to name "Construction"
Done Inkbug (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might want a sentence on the commissioning. Buggie111 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot that. Done Inkbug (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The inscription quoted says the ship was launched with christening on March 10, while the infobox gives March 24. Any reason why they're off?
According to the newspapers (see clippings in [1]) it seems that they were launched (and christened) on March 24 (I'll add those sources soon). As I wrote below, I don't have the book with the inscription, so I can't explain it. Inkbug (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the book in Google Books, and it does say "March 10". I don't know where the mistake came from. Inkbug (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Pre-war period" should be split into two smaller ones, divided either by specific events in Kentucky's career or simply by year.
Done I've reorganized the sections. Inkbug (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Inter-war period" needs to be reworded, makes it sound like the ship saw action in WWII. Probably "Fate" would suffice.
Done Renamed to "Fate". Inkbug (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be too much cited to the DANFs entry. While this is perfectly fine for non-GA articles, using only DANFS for a career section of a US ship isn't good enough for GA quality. Try to phase out the DANFS refs and replace them with cites from other print sources (like the ones you have but don't use in the bibliography). While you're at it, add in more info that you come across in those sources.
Hazegray is a meh source at best, suitable only when very few others can be found (probably not the case here). I'd also wonder what makes navypedia.org a reliable source.
Working I'm having a little trouble with this. I've removed some of the DANFS and Hazegray refs and replaced them with other sources, and all but one of navypedia.org ones (the last one is sourcing a categorical statement in the lead - does it need a ref at all?). Inkbug (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources I've added are newspapers from the time. Therefore, it is going to be hard to source with them the statements in the lead - do they need sources, or is it enough that later on in the article it is sourced in detail? Inkbug (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is only cited if the contributor feels like it, although I think info appearing only there probably should be moved and cited. Buggie111 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Now the Navypedia is gone, and the DANFS and Hazegray have been reduced by a lot. Inkbug (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now at 20 and 7 refs, respectively. Inkbug (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done DANFS and Hazegray are now used in better proportions. Inkbug (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd quick fail this if I was a bit more keen on reviewing US BB articles, but in the spirit of giving, I'll leave it open for two weeks. If the main problem (DANFS and lack of other refs) is addressed by the end of these two weeks, I'll post some more, minor improvements. Best of luck to you. Buggie111 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the consideration. I'll try to fix the things you mentioned, although I don't have access to the print sources (they were in the article before I edited it). Thanks, Inkbug (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the article is better now. Inkbug (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to say no. A lot of content is still coming straight from DANFS (although I commend you several thousand times for the addition of so much newspaper material), and needs to be replaced with content from generic "Battleships of the U.S." books. Check WP:OMT and look at all the American FA's, and you should see the DANFS:total ref ratio, as well as potential books. If you are having trouble obtaining the print sources in the article (the ones that were listed before you started writing), I'd suggest Inter Library Loan.

Also, when citing a book, I think it is more common to put the book in a "Bibliography" section and cite text like this <ref>Smith, p. 10</ref> instead of ^[1]:10. If you need any help working on this in the future, don't hesitate to ping me. All the best, Buggie111 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]