Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tucker-class destroyer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article is about one of the classes of World War I "thousand tonner" destroyers of the United States Navy. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's Friedman in the references? You have him cited, but there's no reference. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for the oversight. It has been added now. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All the submarines finished? – Joe N 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good heavens, no! Just a temporary diversion… — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodness. There are some left? ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good heavens, no! Just a temporary diversion… — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a few comments:
- Second sentence, second para, lead. Link to battle fleet for those who do not know what it is?
- Edit: is there even a decent link for that? If not, oh well. (I'm assuming that Battle Fleet doesn't work here) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looked to me that Battle Fleet is specifically about the 1922–1941 USN unit. Other than this ACR, battle fleet is not linked anywhere else; and battlefleet has only one link. Should there be a generic battle fleet/battlefleet article somewhere? — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created and linked to wikt:battle fleet, which should help a bit. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looked to me that Battle Fleet is specifically about the 1922–1941 USN unit. Other than this ACR, battle fleet is not linked anywhere else; and battlefleet has only one link. Should there be a generic battle fleet/battlefleet article somewhere? — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: is there even a decent link for that? If not, oh well. (I'm assuming that Battle Fleet doesn't work here) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Last sentence, second para, lead. What were previous destroyers' weights prior to the Cassin's? I know that some in the early 1900s were 250 t, so to 1000 t is a large jump—however, a casual reader won't know that.
- Just looked at my copy of Conway's; it appears that the last pre-thousand tonner destroyer class were ~800 t (p. 122). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, a sentence added in the lead and also added and cited in the 'comparison' section. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looked at my copy of Conway's; it appears that the last pre-thousand tonner destroyer class were ~800 t (p. 122). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "
The surviving members of the class had all returned to the United States by early 1919 and been decommissioned by June 1922. " - to me, this makes it sound like a majority of the class had sunk, but only one was.- I changed the sentence to start All five surviving members of the class had…. Does that read better?
- Yes. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the sentence to start All five surviving members of the class had…. Does that read better?
"The Sampsons were the only group originally equipped with anti-aircraft guns, a pair of 1-pounder (0.45 kg) guns [with a caliber of 37 mm/1.46 in].[11]" - why brackets?- I had followed a similar format in Yorktown-class gunboat where I was enumerating 1-, 3-, and 6-pounders with the calibers for each in brackets to try and avoid information overload in the text. Here, there's really not that problem, so I've eliminated the brackets. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"All but Tucker were returned to the U.S. Navy in 1933; Tucker followed in 1934" - how about "All were returned to the U.S. Navy in 1933 with the exception of Tucker, which followed in 1934."- Yes, that does read better. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"She was the first U.S. Navy vessel named in honor of U.S. Navy officers Jonathan Wainwright, his cousin, Commander Richard Wainwright, and his son, Jonathan Wainwright, Jr." - son of J. Wainwright or of R. Wainwright?- Reworded to be a little more clear. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be rather wide spaces between each of the ship summaries. Is that just me?- I had used
{{-}}between each section because some of the images overlapped into the next sections; I uploaded cropped versions of two images that alleviate the problem and have removed the{{-}}now. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had used
- Cheers Bellhalla! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Second sentence, second para, lead. Link to battle fleet for those who do not know what it is?
- Support. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.