Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ohio-class submarines/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:10, 12 March 2012 [1].

List of Ohio class submarines[edit]

List of Ohio class submarines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... the list has recently undergone a very successful A-class review which saw its promotion only seven days since its creation. I think the list is ready for the next step. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead image could actually be at the top of the lead, and larger (I think MOS says we can go up 300px or so for a lead image).
  • "is currently" needs a timeframe (like "as of February 2012").
  • Five paras in a lead of a list so brief is probably three too many.
  • I'm really only pointing at WP:LEAD here, for an article as brief as this, the lead should be shorter. An alternative approach would be to very much summarise the lead and have another section where you greatly expand on the info. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should displacement be a part of the list, sounds appropriate...
  • The specifications of all 18 boats are the same, unless the US Navy decides to mate three Ohio boats to give the Typhoons somebody to compete against ;) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also maybe range/armament etc? More interesting than Hull number to fair.
  • I'm afraid that won't help, as the lead has mentioned the armaments of the SSBNs and SSGNs. As for the range, since the Ohio boats are nuclear, they can travel indefinitely until their next refueling of nuclear reactors (I've included the info about the 42-year operational life and the 2-year mid-life refueling ✔) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • USS Ohio is overlinked in the lead.
  • Perhaps consider expanding what SMART I means, it may not be clear to everyone.
  • Use {{dagger}} for screen readers rather than just the plain symbol.
  • Ref col doesn't need to be sortable.
  • The command is for the whole table so, unfortunately, I can't remove the sortable function from the Ref col. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true, you should be able to make the desired change by adding "class=unsortable" in the col heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colours are a little garish, perhaps just colour the cell with the boat's name?
  • The diagram of the layout of an Ohio-class sub seems out of place here. It's interesting, but it's kind-of crammed in under the list of the subs and not explained or really referred to anywhere.
  • There's a similar file at the bottom, so I personally think the diagram of the Ohio class sub is fine in this case. You want me to remove it? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it just seems a little out of place without any real explanatory text. Perhaps this could be used in the "new" section I've discussed above where you can expand out a more summarised lead.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose just in case. I haven't seen this new version and while it's certainly an improvement, it brings with it its own issues.

  • No need to have "picture" sortable.
  • Table needs row and col scopes per MOS:DTT.
  • What's the rationale behind the sorting of the Hull number and Weapons columns?
  • Is it Navy.mil or Navy.mil?
  • "the U.S. Navy is currently undertaking" when is "currently"?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Regretful oppose per WP:FLC 3b. I don't believe this list meets the requirements for being a stand-alone list as it could easily be integrated as an embedded list in the article Ohio class submarine. Currently the article Ohio class submarine is only 1340 words, while the length of the prose in this list is 583 words. Much of the text in the list, as well as the list itself, would fit nicely within the main Ohio class article. In fact, there is already a simpler version of the list in the Boats of the class section. I recommend merging the list and article and redirecting this page to the main class article; when cleaned up, the main class article can be nominated at WP:FAC. –Grondemar 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a think about this, and decided that embedded lists would only be suitable for articles such as Seawolf class submarine, Vanguard class submarine, Trafalgar class submarine, and any other classes have less than 15 vessels (the Ohio class is the third-most numerous after the Los Angeles and Sturgeon classes). If the list in question is to be merged, don't you think the detailed information (date order, launch, commissioning, status, etc) is too much for, and would dominate, the article? For the records, there is a similar list at List of Los Angeles class submarines. Please read my comment over carefully, and tell me what you think. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it's a tough call. I'm not sure that I can agree that there should be a hard cut-off when an embedded list should be split from an article, although I definitely agree that List of Los Angeles class submarines needs to be separate from Los Angeles class submarine. To me the key question is whether, when Ohio class submarine is brought to FA status, would including this list in the prose of that article be WP:UNDUE weight. I invite other editors to weigh in on this subject; if the consensus believes that this list should be stand-alone, I'll withdraw my oppose. –Grondemar 01:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • C and D class destroyer is the only example of a decently developed article on a large class of ships (14 in total) I can think of. It has a table with the relevant data like this list, followed by several paragraphs that sum up the activities of the ships. I am really on the fence about whether it should be a stand-alone list or not. I doubt these boats have all that interesting service histories, so I don't think it would be overkill to do something like the C and D class example. Removing the photos from the table would go a long way to shrink the table, making it more manageable if it is merged in. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the amount of effort I have invested in this list, and the fact that most of us are on the fence, I think this list should remain as it is, instead of being merged. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at the revised list with the pictures of the individual boats embedded in the list, I'm willing to strike my original oppose as I believe that in this format it can and should stand alone from the main class article. I will review the list further before deciding whether to support. –Grondemar 01:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just a few things:
    • "is currently, as of February 2012," - "currently" can be removed per WP:DATED.
    • As those are American submarines, why not convert to mdy format?
    • Maybe a see also section for similar submarine classes?--♫GoP♫TCN 14:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, pending resolution of Grondemar's concerns above Comments
    • Not sure why this wasn't brought up earlier, but the list needs to differentiate between the SSBNs and the SSGNs.
  • There are only four SSGNs, so I thought it would be better to merge both types of boats. Also, the main differences between the two have been outlined in the intro -- I wouldn't know what extra information to add if I was to split the SSGNs off. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to split anything off. Technically, the SSBN/SSGN is part of the hull number and should be included in that column. All you need is a note explaining the difference between the two. Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've explained about the SSGN in the lead. You want me to further add a column called "Notes" and say what weapons and payload the SSGNs carry? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think that should be in the table. You might consider replacing the unit identification code column with the weapon suite - I don't know what real value the UIC is to the average reader, but I think many would be interested in what weapons the boats carry. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed: Henry M. Jackson is listed as SSGN-730, but the armament column has Trident IIs - which is correct? Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, why are there redundant sorting methods (i.e., color coding and symbols?)
  • See below.
    • I don't know if this has been considered or not, but do the colors chosen work for color-blind individuals? Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the point of the inclusion of both symbols and colour coding -- the symbols help the colour-blind readers, while the colours are for those who can see colours. User Matthewedwards insisted that I use both types of classification during a previous FLC. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of my concerns have been addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Avoid bold links like the one in the intro, per the MoS.
  • In the drawing's caption, is the note for item 11 supposed to have a 1 at the end, like the Auxiliary machine room no. 2 a bit later? Giants2008 (Talk) 19:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from –Grondemar 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from –Grondemar:
  • "Named after its lead boat, the Ohio class of nuclear-powered submarines is, as of March 2012, in service with its sole operator, the United States Navy." ✔
  • It's a little confusing to say that the Trident missiles were designed concurrently with the Ohio-class, and then mention that the missiles first served on a different class of submarine. Perhaps the mention of the first submarine each missile served on is excessive detail and could be cut?
  • I think it's acceptable to have a weapon (the Trident) being developed alongside another (the Ohio class) but entering service with an older one (the Benjamin Franklin class), especially since development of the Ohio class lagged behind for a few years. At the same time, it's not right to make the reader incorrectly assume that the missile entered service with the Ohio class. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1994, a study called the Nuclear Posture Review determined that, of the 18 Ohio SSBNs the U.S. Navy would be operating in total, 14 would be sufficient for the strategic needs of the U.S. " "A study called the" seems excessively wordy, as does "the U.S. Navy would be operating in total". These could be trimmed or cut.
  • I've addressed your former point, but not the latter as in 1994, only about 15 of the class were commissioned.
  • Instead of "the Ohio" should it not be "USS Ohio"?
  • Either way is acceptable, but I'd hate the "USS Ohio, USS Michigan, USS Florida, and USS Georgia" construction, which is, obviously, redundant.
  • As TRM mentioned above, row and column scopes need to be added per MOS:DTT

Thanks, –Grondemar 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from Harrias talk
  • After sorting the Weapons and Status columns break. Harrias talk 11:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below.

Comments

  • Per Harrias above, and against Parsecboy's suggestion above, I would remove the col merge and go with separate cells. For one thing, this list is sortable, while the "List of heavy cruisers of Germany" is not.
  • The breaking of the two columns prior was due to the ROWSPAN function requested by TRB and Grondemar. To address this and SatyrTN's comment, I've separated the two cells into eighteen cells. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the color coding and the accessibility symbols be in the same column? If it were me, I'd color code (and symbolize) the boat name column.
  • The ROWSPAN function doesn't work with the colour coding, and so I've moved the symbols and colours to the "Hull number" column. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Ohio-class_submarines/archive1&oldid=1138483761"