Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at MilHist and Ships. Sandy (Talk) 14:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article falls within the scope of the Military history Wikiproject, but was sidelined from the start for having "citation problems": there were a total of 14 inline citations for roughly 40 kilobytes of info. Today I had a chance to dig into the article to add sources for the information, the article now has 90 kilobytes of information and over 300 inline ciations (before I reduced the number by using the <ref name=""> tabs to bring the number down). I feel the ciation issue has been adressed, now I am looking for any other complaints that other may have with the article’s FA status. Note that I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond be patient; its likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I hope the MilHist group will weigh in on the quality of the citations. Although four books are listed in references, the article is almost entirely cited to one website, which is unofficial. Further problems with the current references;
    • Cite 1 - Wiki is not a source
    • Cite 2 is the same as 5 and 7
    • Cite 3 is the same as 8 (it looks like named refs weren't used correctly throughout)
    • Cites 4 and 14 aren't refs, rather notes that seem to require refs themself.
    • Many of the citations need to be expanded to bibliographic style: 16, 17 and 18 at least.
  • The bibliographic style on the footnotes needs attention. Has the article been run by MilHist for a peer review on the referencing? Sandy (Talk) 14:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those appear to be split so there won't be so many refs on one line. Do we want to fix this? I can make them all point to one DANFS link? That would put about several dozen refs all on 1 line. --Dual Freq 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, combining all the DANFS refs results in Cite error 7; Ran out of custom backlink labels, define more in the "cite_references_link_many_format_backlink_labels" message So they have to be split or it will create an error. The limit appears to be 129 ref and there are about 150 DANFS links and about 130 USS Wisconsin.org links. --Dual Freq 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting - can we ask somewhere if some tech folks can fix that limit? Sandy (Talk) 19:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good question. I found out the hard way that the custom ciations were capped, otherwise I would have continued to cite the same source with the same reference tag. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like the limit is set by MediaWiki:Cite references link many format backlink labels, I put a request in with the last editor to change that page to add more so the article can exceed 130. Maybe the solution is not to add more but to trim somewhere so that there are less. I don't know, but I'm not an admin and can't add to the Mediawiki backlink page. --Dual Freq 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's a much simpler solution: many of the paragraphs are overcited - see my comments below. Also, the correct form for named refs isn't employed (using backslash for repeat refs). Sandy (Talk) 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I thought an FA Review required that "a nominator must specify these criteria" that the article fails. This nomination seems to be looking for someone else to find failing criteria. Is this a proper nomination? What is the criteria this article fails? I've never edited the article before today, but I'm trying to understand the FAR process. Since no issues were brought up on the talk page about delisting, I'm not sure I understand why this article was nominated. --Dual Freq 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had the same problem with this review, which is why I asked if it had a MilHist peer review (which seems to me to be a more efficient means of accomplishing the goal), but the FAR instructions do say, "FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting ..." Not sure. Those notes are the ugliest I've ever seen, with such a reliance on one source, and they do need to be expanded to a biblio style still. Sandy (Talk) 19:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kirill Lokshin, our lead cooridinator, has several FA class articles that he wants put through the FAR process because they have "citation problems", and this article happened to be in that category. While citations were the primary reason behind the FAR request I would be open to additional criticism, although from my stand point all other criteria remain sufficently satisified that there should be no large scale problems. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my gosh. Has Kirill taken a close look at the citations here? I took a closer look at what was going on with the references, and strongly suggest that this article should be removed from FAR and run through a MilHist peer review. The referencing isn't done correctly. The problems are:
    • Named refs aren't used correctly: every single named reference is completely repeated, chunking up the size of the article. Please use the slash at the end of the ref for repeat refs - see the examples I did at the top of the article.
    • Within one paragraph, multiple sentences are each cited to the same source, when the source could be listed once at the end of the paragraph. This would remove about 2/3 of the overdone footnotes.
    • A massive number of statements have two references - the same ones - wouldn't one source suffice for some of those?
  • This referencing situation is elementary stuff, that could be cleaned up via a MilHist peer review - FAR might not be the best place for addressing basic referencing. Sandy (Talk) 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Per feedback from Kirill, striking my comment that FAR not the best place for review. Sandy (Talk) 20:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason everything is so heavily (exhaustively?) cited is that our citation guidelines recommend such thoroughly citing sources, and "when in doubt, cite" has always been a rule I try and follow. I am sorry if this has created a headache for you or anyone else involved in this FAR, as that was never my intention. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely agree and thoroughly endorse that rule, but 1) does every sentence need two cites, and 2) if all the sentences in one paragraph are from one source, you can cite once, not every sentence. There is still the problem that the article overly relies on one source, and doesn't use any of the book references. Sandy (Talk) 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) Every sentence was cited was cited because I really got into it. In reality the only sentences that absolutely need to be cited are the ones that have information on combat action — shots fired, hits taken, missiles launched, etc. I cited each sentence because a specific date (day, month, and year) was given for the action, which I felt nessicitated an inline citation. Something I want to add about the two primary sources: DANFS and the wisconsin.org cite do not always agree with each other on dates and battle engagements; DANFS omits some material and has virtually nothing on Wisconsin in the Gulf War, which was the driving force behind the two-sources-per-sentence citations: if two sources were cited it meant that both sources agreed on an action, if only one is source is cited it usually means the other source ommitted or glossed over the material. 2) I tried citing one source for an entire paragraph before (not in this article though) and people came along and added 'citation needed' tags to parts in the paragraph they thought were not cited. I wanted to avoid that this time around, so I cited everything. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Tom, were you planning to finish the ref cleanup work here, or did you need help? Sandy (Talk) 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I intend to, I just need another day; I got roped into an emergency typing session. Aparently I incorrectly tyrped my professors email adress when I sent two essays to her;she never got them and I do not have copies of the essay because of space issues on my hard drive. Grades are do at the end of the week, so its type or die for the passing grade. Trust me, I am getting back to the article, but I do not want fail the class; I been there before, its not fun :( TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Sandy, I think I got all the inline citations that needed fixed. I also rearranged the citations so they appear at the bottom of the paragraph unless their is a really good reason for them to be in the main body itself. I fixed a few links and made a few gramatical corrections as well. Sorry that took longer than expected, I caught a cold and the light from my computer moniter is bugging my eyes. (What is it with my luck anyway? Sheesh...) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delink all of the dates that aren't full Month-day-year dates, and review all of your wikilinking for consistency (link only important terms, link the first occurrence of each term, etc.). You moved *all* of the references to the ends of paragraphs, and combined them all at the end of the paragraph? You might want to doublecheck that some of those references weren't intended to cite a very specific fact from one source, that would be better placed at the end of the sentence, rather than the end of the paragraph. What I was referring to earlier is that (for example) a paragraph of five sentences - all from the same source - didn't need to have that source repeated on each sentence. If the entire paragraph comes from one source, you can cite the paragraph once. On the other hand, if you have a paragraph cited to 3 different sources, it's better to specify which sentence comes from which source, rather than grouping them all at the end. Hope you're feeling better ! Sandy (Talk) 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status: does this need to go down or are people pleased? Marskell 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish other reviewers would take a look: we haven't really examined the article, because it was stalled with faulty citing, and I seem to have been the only editor commenting. Sandy (Talk) 20:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Month-Day dates are subject to user date prefences (e.g. 1 March versus March 1), and still need to be linked appropriately; removing the formatting from the article was a bad idea. Kirill Lokshin 02:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - I'll go put them back :-) Sandy (Talk) 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Ref 1 is a note with web links that should be refs themselves. Ref 7's "found here" is a link to an IMAGE, not a reference, and the web refs are not in conistent format (ex, they don't all have retrieval dates. Would like to see more different refs that 15 (some of which are notes). Rlevse 13:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finding more refernces is somewhat difficult because the article is almost entirely the story of Wisconsins history. I will look into the prospect of finding other refernces that have new information, but I do not hold out much hope for that possibility. Ref 7, the image as you put it, was created to help people find the new missile magazines and phalanx mounts after a question was raised on Wisconsins talk page as to why there were none showing. I can remove that if you want, but I thought it would be easier to find added weapons systems if visitors had a visual aid. I will look into adressing the other complaints forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for ref 7, you can't use wiki as ref for a wiki article anyway. On top of that, the writing is so small on that image (even blown up), that you can't read it. The ref in the article says "a complete guide"; a pic with some caption isn't a complete guide.Rlevse 21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will post my detailed comments on this article on its talk page. I have to do a little research in a few areas, though (namely call the handiest US Marine I can find to pump for information). Overall it's still a pretty good article, nothing too substantive that needs changed, other than a discussion of the armaments at the beginning of the article, and not just in the box. KP Botany 02:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's a bit hard to believe there aren't more sources on this ship, though, her mention in all the battles, memoirs of the officers of the TFs, etc., etc. I haven't been following the sourcing controversy, I like to do the edits. KP Botany 23:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citation sufficiency and format (1c). Marskell 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moving down as it was not definite to close. Marskell 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Big improvements have been made to the article over the last three weeks, I feel the citation issue has been adequately addressed. Note that I am the one who originally brought the article up ta FA standards low these many monthes ago, so my opinion is somewhat bias :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate the sexist "she" for a ship. It's all about male control/ownership, isn't it. Tony 04:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other comments on this one? Marskell 08:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's what is used, we're not here to set precedent in gender relations. KP Botany 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I find the referencing inadequate. For example, it's most unsatisfactory to have [3] occurring paragraph after paragraph, as though a tongue in cheek response to reviewers' requests for a professional approach to verification. Although the reference appears to be affiliated with the US Navy, it is totally unreferenced itself and has no explicit authorship. I wouldn't be so concerned if there wasn't such a heavy reliance on a single website. I've removed the female pronouns standing for the ship at the top, which I, and no doubt many other readers, find offensive. Tony 12:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, those cites to that one source are what's left after I helped Tom remove about three times as many that were initially there - I would like to see a better method of referencing this article, and wish MilHist reviewers would jump in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It hugely depends on one source. Whole sections have no other source! I agree with Tony. If this is not fixed, I'm afraid I'll be a remove voter.--Yannismarou 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How else then do you propose I/we/Wikipedia cite the article? This is a historical text about one ship, not about the class, not about battleships in general, just Wisconsin. The primary source for US ship articles here has always been the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) so far as I know, other sources on the web cite DANFS when discussing this battleships history. There will likely be no other Military History members commenting here, for some reason project members either do not care about what happens to the page or believe that since the page has been reinstated on our own FA showcase section it will likely clear FARC without there two cents. Short of leaving messages on every members talkpage, it will likely just be me commenting and improving. As for the use of "she": if you check out the talk page for the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) you would see a large section devoted to the use of "she" versus the use of "it". Raul654 and others who commented there agreed that either one was ok, so long as the article used the same elected word (she or it) for the entire length. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I am also a member of the military project as you can easily find out. Now ... I definitely disagree with Kirill's position that in order to criticize a certain article's referencing, I must be able to propose alternative sources. As a reviewer I notice a problem and I refer it; this is my role! And for me the heavy reliance of 3-4 sections of the article on a single source is a huge problem for me as far as FA status is concerned. I believe that FA quality demands a better research and variety of sources, even though the location of these sources may be difficult. Therefore, the current level of referencing impedes me from being a keep voter and still brings me closer to a remove vote. Thanks!--Yannismarou 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the point being made is that it's not (necessarily) a problem! There are any number of good reasons for having a limited number of sources; the chief ones are (1) that there simply aren't any other (useful) sources or (2) that the sources already used are the canonical works on the topic, and that any others are merely derivatitive or redundant. It's perfectly fine to criticize the sourcing if you actually have some concrete reason to believe that some significant source has not been adequately consulted; but it's silly to insist that an article must have some arbitrary number X of sources without actually knowing whether there are X useful sources for this topic. Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If, Kirill, more sources are not available, then I understand the difficulty, but do not ask me to accept such an article as a FA! Silly or not, this is my opinion, and I strongly insist on it! I believe that a strong reliance of 3-4 sections on a single source, parts of which have been copy-pasted, impedes an article from being FA. The editor cannot find a solution to this inherent problem of the article? Then, I'm sorry, but this is not my problem! Not all articles can become FA. As it is now the article, the huge reliance on a single copy-pasted source is a huge flaw.--Yannismarou 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The level of citation—that is, the direct connections made from the text to the sources—is now quite adequate. As far as the sources themselves are concerned, I'd argue that if you wish to take issue with an article's referencing, it's expected that you be able, at the very least, to name other significant sources which the editors have failed to consult. As far as I know, the reliability of the DANFS is not a controversial matter; the work happens to be the canonical source for the histories of individual USN ships, so it is entirely unsurprising to see it cited as often as it is. Kirill Lokshin 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kirill. If there are important sources that have not been consulted, please point them out. Otherwise, the level of citation seems adequate. Carom 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, I'm concerned that three books are listed in Further reading,References so there are other sources, but they aren't used. I'd like to hear from MilHist on this. Would those books add anything new, give alternate viewpoints, etc? In general, I would object to overreliance on one source when others are available, so pls educate me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm just completely daft, but I don't see a "Further reading" section here. What might you be referring to? Kirill Lokshin 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, References <darn memory>. So, question becomes even stronger - they're listed as Refs, should they be used, or switched to Further reading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if they're listed as references, they presumably were consulted. The fact that there are no citations from them isn't really indicative of anything, in my opinion; given how densely cited the article is already, they would likely be redundant, at best (particularly as they appear to be quite general works, and so are likely sources more for the general sense of the narrative than for highly specific details). Kirill Lokshin 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Consulted?! And what proves that they were actually consulted? How were they used in the article? Per Sandy. And let me ask you another thing: We have a hot debate about whether the reliance on a single source is a problem or not. Then, excuse me, but if the editor has indeed consulted these sources, why hasn't he used them as inline citations to face the above problem. If this section is really "References", then these books should be used as such; otherwise, it is "further reading". I think it is time to vote: weak remove as it is now the article per all my above comments. If the single-sourcing problem is not resolved, I'm afraid I can go as far as neutral.--Yannismarou 09:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Status. There obviously isn't consensus to close, and I'd like to make a couple of points on the above debates.
  • There are sixteen sources, not one; for a subject this specific, I'm actually surprised to see so many. I also worry that reviewers maybe focused on a nose count re sources, ahead of taking the article as an individual piece. Per WP:V, is there any material "challenged or likely to be challenged"? Yes, there are an enormous number of notes for the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, but it's a .mil site and I will certainly trust Kirill in suggesting it's canonical.
  • I'd guess those general books listed under References were placed there when the article was still young and other sources hadn't yet been provided. We can't assume they were consulted for specific info, so I'd suggest changing it to Further Reading. I don't see this as decisive. Marskell 10:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sixteen sources covering specific parts of the article. I still believe the research is not adequate, but I respect the majority here. The "references" or "further reading" thing is not decisive, but it must be clarified. Since most people here believe that the citing of the article is adequate, and, if the "References" or "further reading" thing is clarified, regard my vote as neutral.--Yannismarou 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only asked about the other books because I want to know if they may present anything new or alternate viewpoints to the .mil sources. I guess what I really mean is I need to know if military sources have a pov that might be addressed by anything in those books. If the answer is no, then I'm happy with the article, but I'm not sure I've gotten answer yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not testify as to what information is present in "The Floating Drydock", as that was not one of mine. The other two are; the information drawn from "The Battleships" and "The Navy" is small since both books deal with the their topics in an "forest" view, looking at the big picture in stead of the trees. "The Battleships" presents a little information on the Iowa’s during there WWII service, and notes that they have all become muesem pieces, while "The Navy" presents a limited amount of information on the role of the four Iowa’s in the "600-ship Navy" plan outlined in the 1980s. Nothing specific was taken out of those two books for Wisconsin since the information they presented could be better cited to other sources. For example, in "The Navy" it notes that all four Iowas were modernized, recieving new gun and missile mounts, while the Federation of American Scientists website provides an armorment chart showing that the battleships recieved tomahawk missiles, harpoon missiles, and Phalanx CIWS mounts. Given a choice between the two, the latter source provides more information of value. Under the circumstances, I would assume that "The Floating Drydock" would also be a "forest" type book and would endorse the recommendation to rename the secion with the books "Further Reading". TomStar81 (Talk) 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom, why don't you cite twice where you can, incorporating those two books as much as possible. Marskell 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. In lew of the newly posted suggestions on Wisconsin’s talk page I think I will take a copy of the current version and place it in my sandbox to do some rebuilding to adress the excelent points raised here and there. I will try to rush the new additions so as not to keep everyone waiting in suspense, but this may take a while since finding printed material in a book is harder than finding it online, not to mention all that double citing I now have to do :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you know how to used named refs, it shouldn't be as hard - remember to cite page nos on books. Also, if you can strongly cite something from a book, maybe you can remove some of that long list cited to DANFS, to shorten the list? Let me know if you need any help on citation formatting or anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I took a stab at adding what I could from the books to the article. I mamaged to eek out 3 citations from "The Battleships" and one from "The Navy"; I would have done better but the books are just to broad to cite specifics. I also played with the introduction and construction some based on suggestions left on Wisconsin's talk page. Note that "The Battleships" has to seperate inline citation points because the page numbers are different for the cited info. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with some work if the references check out. I've noticed that with few exceptions (although I stopped looking) articles on Wikipedia get all of their main information from 1-3 primary sources, then only get subsidiary information from the other 3 dozen sources listed (in this article, find the name of the hurricane, subsidiary source). The article is fine in general, needs a lot of attention to detail, the primary editor appears to be willing to do this. I will also discuss it with the various experts in my family as I get the chance. KP Botany 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/USS_Wisconsin_(BB-64)/archive1&oldid=1078813193"