Pennsylvania-class battleship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 7, 2016. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In several US battleship class articles, there is a standard paragraph at the end regarding "'Standard type battleship' concept of the US Navy..." It states: "a tight tactical radius (~700 yards)". This doesn't make any sense. A tactical radius of a battleship should be something along the lines of 700nm, not 700 yards. Is it perhaps denoting a TURNING radius of 700 yards, a DEFENSIVE radius of 700 yards (seems small), or is it just a unit error and should be Nautical miles instead of Yards? BBODO 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This is supposed to be about the Pennsylvania Class Battleships and not about the indivual ships. I would expect this to be about the design and influence of the class along with flaws and not a deployment record. All in all a pretty poor page. I am about to begin upgrading it. Any and all comments are highly desired please. Tirronan 22:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This section doesn't seem to make much sense. An Artillery shell in a torpedo? A 'Davis' Torpedo? It sounds as if someone's heard about Davis Ammunition [2] and gotten confused; can anyone elucidate as to what this section's trying to say? njan 15:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I have a great reference for it and I'll put it in tonight. I am at work right now so pulling out my reference book wouldn't look too good. Tirronan 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The "plainlinks" span is a rarely used technique that makes external references look like interwiki links and is therefore surprising to the the reader when clicked on. It should be replaced by a normal external link per WP:CITEFOOT NE Ent 12:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
On the one hand, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." and " No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." On the other, " If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" and " Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia."
The citation style used in this article is nonstandard (inasmuch as the general references are not bulleted, some ref tags combine two short citations instead of each short citation having its own tag, and the source links are missing their icons), but this is not an issue so long as the information is presented clearly and succinctly—so long as the reader can find what they need to find. I also note that this article at one time followed a more standard style, and it was probably unnecessary to change it, but that's not in itself a reason to change it back, two years later.
That said...
plainlinks
css class is highly unusual. As far as I know, this class was created to correctly render internal wikilinks that, for technical reasons, have to be input as external links. The external link icon is a minimalistic way to tell the reader, at a glance, which links will take them away from Wikipedia and which will lead to other articles. If a
consensus of editors has concluded that hiding this information from the user is preferred, I'm curious to read that discussion.There's little reason to make dramatic changes to this article simply for the sake of conforming to the Manual of Style. The MoS should support articles, not hinder their growth. If a future editor makes major contributions to this article and finds that the nonstandard citation style is hampering their efforts, it will be worth revisiting, but as it stands now this isn't a battle worth fighting. At the same time, it may be useful for the creator of the nonstandard style to reexamine that work and evaluate which elements are true improvements on the Wikipedia MoS and which are mere expressions of one editor's personal taste. Ibadibam ( talk) 07:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I added Pennsylvania-class battleship to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for December 7, the 75th anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor.
The edit summary for the edit I just made didn't give quite enough space, so I'm adding to it here. Checked the Battle of Surigao Straits and the Battle of Jutland (WW1), and the Battle of Jutland was bigger, by an order of magnitude. Therefore, the Battle of Surigao Straits could not have been the largest engagement of battleships in history. However, it is worth noting that the Battle of Jutland did not feature the US Navy, but was between Imperial Germany and Great Britain. As difference to the original author of this article, extending the benefit of the doubt, I am therefore editing the part about the Battle of Surigao Straits to say "largest AMERICAN battle of battleships in history". Ahfretheim ( talk) 16:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It turned out that damage from the primary armament of enemy battle ships was only a minor cause of damage to battle ships, so this approach to armor was based on exaggerated confidence in predicting future wars. I don't know how to work this into the article, but editors should keep this inconsistency in mind. Being imitated is not evidence that one right, succeeding is.
What kind of fire control did the ships have did they have rangefinders and analog computers like the British ? Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 12:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Pennsylvania-class battleship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 7, 2016. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In several US battleship class articles, there is a standard paragraph at the end regarding "'Standard type battleship' concept of the US Navy..." It states: "a tight tactical radius (~700 yards)". This doesn't make any sense. A tactical radius of a battleship should be something along the lines of 700nm, not 700 yards. Is it perhaps denoting a TURNING radius of 700 yards, a DEFENSIVE radius of 700 yards (seems small), or is it just a unit error and should be Nautical miles instead of Yards? BBODO 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This is supposed to be about the Pennsylvania Class Battleships and not about the indivual ships. I would expect this to be about the design and influence of the class along with flaws and not a deployment record. All in all a pretty poor page. I am about to begin upgrading it. Any and all comments are highly desired please. Tirronan 22:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This section doesn't seem to make much sense. An Artillery shell in a torpedo? A 'Davis' Torpedo? It sounds as if someone's heard about Davis Ammunition [2] and gotten confused; can anyone elucidate as to what this section's trying to say? njan 15:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I have a great reference for it and I'll put it in tonight. I am at work right now so pulling out my reference book wouldn't look too good. Tirronan 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The "plainlinks" span is a rarely used technique that makes external references look like interwiki links and is therefore surprising to the the reader when clicked on. It should be replaced by a normal external link per WP:CITEFOOT NE Ent 12:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
On the one hand, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." and " No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." On the other, " If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" and " Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia."
The citation style used in this article is nonstandard (inasmuch as the general references are not bulleted, some ref tags combine two short citations instead of each short citation having its own tag, and the source links are missing their icons), but this is not an issue so long as the information is presented clearly and succinctly—so long as the reader can find what they need to find. I also note that this article at one time followed a more standard style, and it was probably unnecessary to change it, but that's not in itself a reason to change it back, two years later.
That said...
plainlinks
css class is highly unusual. As far as I know, this class was created to correctly render internal wikilinks that, for technical reasons, have to be input as external links. The external link icon is a minimalistic way to tell the reader, at a glance, which links will take them away from Wikipedia and which will lead to other articles. If a
consensus of editors has concluded that hiding this information from the user is preferred, I'm curious to read that discussion.There's little reason to make dramatic changes to this article simply for the sake of conforming to the Manual of Style. The MoS should support articles, not hinder their growth. If a future editor makes major contributions to this article and finds that the nonstandard citation style is hampering their efforts, it will be worth revisiting, but as it stands now this isn't a battle worth fighting. At the same time, it may be useful for the creator of the nonstandard style to reexamine that work and evaluate which elements are true improvements on the Wikipedia MoS and which are mere expressions of one editor's personal taste. Ibadibam ( talk) 07:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I added Pennsylvania-class battleship to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for December 7, the 75th anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor.
The edit summary for the edit I just made didn't give quite enough space, so I'm adding to it here. Checked the Battle of Surigao Straits and the Battle of Jutland (WW1), and the Battle of Jutland was bigger, by an order of magnitude. Therefore, the Battle of Surigao Straits could not have been the largest engagement of battleships in history. However, it is worth noting that the Battle of Jutland did not feature the US Navy, but was between Imperial Germany and Great Britain. As difference to the original author of this article, extending the benefit of the doubt, I am therefore editing the part about the Battle of Surigao Straits to say "largest AMERICAN battle of battleships in history". Ahfretheim ( talk) 16:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It turned out that damage from the primary armament of enemy battle ships was only a minor cause of damage to battle ships, so this approach to armor was based on exaggerated confidence in predicting future wars. I don't know how to work this into the article, but editors should keep this inconsistency in mind. Being imitated is not evidence that one right, succeeding is.
What kind of fire control did the ships have did they have rangefinders and analog computers like the British ? Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 12:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)