This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South Dakota-class battleship (1939) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | South Dakota-class battleship (1939) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 12, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
South Dakota-class battleships are considered to be the best "
treaty battleship" ever built? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"These ships are considered the best Treaty battleships ever built, and quite possibly the finest battleships ever built on a ton-for-ton basis, due to their armament, protection, and excellent fire control."
I don't see how claiming anything to be "the best" - unless discussing that which is irrefutable, eg. Academy Awards for Best...,etc - contributes to the article. Moreover, the two sources for this claim are dubious to say the least, coming from personal, non-peer review websites. Note that there is a precedent for not accepting citations from http://www.combinedfleet.com given its mostly fictional content and anecdotal (at best) criteria for choosing what it (or the author) considers "the best".
(for that see [ [1]]
Also, I'd be hesitant to accept anything from Navweaps.com - the "citation" gives no evidence, proof or justification for this rather grand claim.
There is much else that could be added - the position of the SoDak as Treaty battleships at all, given that they commissioned six years after the US effectively began circumventing the Treaty in relation to the Japanese violation - but the above is enough anyway.
This isn't a busy page, but if there is no objection to the rev. I'll go ahead at a later date. 84.64.197.103 02:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Cohaagen
I don't know where this came from, but I don't remember reading anywhere that the class was referred to as such historically, and as such I don't think that it belongs here. -- Lord Kelvin 05:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
According to this source, the outboard screws were aft of the inboard pair, an arrangement that I read somewhere is referred to as a "tunnel stern" (I am relying on memory, so don't quote me). I know of no other ships like this, so I think it is worth a mention. This could open a whole new can of worms: why was it done?, and was it successful?
Thank you for your review. Regarding images, I am not really sure if it is possible to move any left; to do so would mess with a lot of section headers. I thought about moving the #Secondary battery picture down a paragraph (to avoid being under a 4th-level heading) and to the left, but that would sandwich text between that and the AA gun picture, which I would consider worse. The problems with the ship pictures under #Service is that every picture corresponds with the ship on the right (sort of like starting out an article with a right-aligned image, I guess). What do you think? — Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I know this was supposed to be a 'Treaty' battleship but 35000 tons standard seems way off.
Displacement: 35,000 tons (standard) 44,519 tons (full load)
Even the fat Yamato did not have a near 10k difference between standard and full load.
My Jane's 'Battleships of WW2' gives a figure of about 41,000 standard displacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.87.112.22 ( talk) 19:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggest addition of crew size details to article and table? Noble Korhedron 18:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
South Dakota-class battleship (1939). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on South Dakota-class battleship (1939). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South Dakota-class battleship (1939) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | South Dakota-class battleship (1939) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 12, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
South Dakota-class battleships are considered to be the best "
treaty battleship" ever built? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"These ships are considered the best Treaty battleships ever built, and quite possibly the finest battleships ever built on a ton-for-ton basis, due to their armament, protection, and excellent fire control."
I don't see how claiming anything to be "the best" - unless discussing that which is irrefutable, eg. Academy Awards for Best...,etc - contributes to the article. Moreover, the two sources for this claim are dubious to say the least, coming from personal, non-peer review websites. Note that there is a precedent for not accepting citations from http://www.combinedfleet.com given its mostly fictional content and anecdotal (at best) criteria for choosing what it (or the author) considers "the best".
(for that see [ [1]]
Also, I'd be hesitant to accept anything from Navweaps.com - the "citation" gives no evidence, proof or justification for this rather grand claim.
There is much else that could be added - the position of the SoDak as Treaty battleships at all, given that they commissioned six years after the US effectively began circumventing the Treaty in relation to the Japanese violation - but the above is enough anyway.
This isn't a busy page, but if there is no objection to the rev. I'll go ahead at a later date. 84.64.197.103 02:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Cohaagen
I don't know where this came from, but I don't remember reading anywhere that the class was referred to as such historically, and as such I don't think that it belongs here. -- Lord Kelvin 05:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
According to this source, the outboard screws were aft of the inboard pair, an arrangement that I read somewhere is referred to as a "tunnel stern" (I am relying on memory, so don't quote me). I know of no other ships like this, so I think it is worth a mention. This could open a whole new can of worms: why was it done?, and was it successful?
Thank you for your review. Regarding images, I am not really sure if it is possible to move any left; to do so would mess with a lot of section headers. I thought about moving the #Secondary battery picture down a paragraph (to avoid being under a 4th-level heading) and to the left, but that would sandwich text between that and the AA gun picture, which I would consider worse. The problems with the ship pictures under #Service is that every picture corresponds with the ship on the right (sort of like starting out an article with a right-aligned image, I guess). What do you think? — Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I know this was supposed to be a 'Treaty' battleship but 35000 tons standard seems way off.
Displacement: 35,000 tons (standard) 44,519 tons (full load)
Even the fat Yamato did not have a near 10k difference between standard and full load.
My Jane's 'Battleships of WW2' gives a figure of about 41,000 standard displacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.87.112.22 ( talk) 19:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggest addition of crew size details to article and table? Noble Korhedron 18:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
South Dakota-class battleship (1939). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on South Dakota-class battleship (1939). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)