Does the 1945 crew figure also include the flight crews? If so, make that clear.
Done.
The bit about the .50cal machine guns is unclear; if they were unsuccessful, why did they add another in 1934? It sounds odd to read that they were unsuccessful, but one was replaced by a pair of them.
Friedman calls them unsuccessful, but doesn't state why. Perhaps the mounts rather than the guns themselves?
In the inter-war section, first paragraph, you repeat "captain" in the last sentence. Might you consider switching the second to read "as the ship's commander" or something like that?
The bit about "damaging Yorktown in an early phase of the exercise" - should you put "damage" in quotes (as you did elsewhere, to make clear that it was simulated damage)?
Done.
On the I-6 attack - the article just says that the list was corrected, but no details on the list itself - any info on the degree of list or how much water flooded the ship?
Amount of list or flooding not available in any source I have on hand.
Fair enough.
Why are the lines about Sara's wartime summary direct quotes from DANFS? Why not paraphrase them?
Because I couldn't think of a better way to phrase that info. Admittedly I was kinda burnt out on the whole article when I was working on that part, but feel free to suggest a better way to word it.
I get being burned out on articles. I reworded them - take a look and make any changes you see fit.
The section on the atomic tests is a bit choppy - it starts by talking about Crossroads and then diverges on some other details. The next paragraph starts directly with her surviving Able, and then does not make clear that the ship sank after Baker. Readers might assume that Crossroads happened in January 1946 and then be confused about what was going on with Able and Baker.
I cleaned this up a little, but it's all strictly chronological.
I was just hoping to connect things a bit more so the reader isn't left wondering. I added a bit, again, take a look at it.
The last sentence says that dives began in 2011 after a hiatus - they either began for the first time in 2011, or resumed after a hiatus.
File:USS Saratoga Kamikaze hit 21 February 1945.jpg - this needs a better source. Navweaps doesn't credit the photo to anybody, so there is the possibility that some seaman took the photo on his own, not in any official capacity (like with Haeberle's personal photos from My Lai).
It's a cropped version of a photo that appears on page 466 of Palomar & Genda's book, credited to US Navy. No ID # provided unfortunately, but I think we can rest assured that it really was an official photo.
Sounds fine then. You might want to replace Navweaps with the book citation, since it at least credits the image to the Navy - should help when you get to FAC.
This and
this are pretty neat images, you might consider adding them to the article. There are a few photos
here of the ship under construction that show the barbettes, might be more effective to show the ship being built as a BC than the one currently used.
I swapped out the under construction photo for one that shows the barbettes, but the other two that you mentioned don't really do anything for me that the existing ones don't do already.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
07:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I just thought the camouflage scheme was visually interesting.
Does the 1945 crew figure also include the flight crews? If so, make that clear.
Done.
The bit about the .50cal machine guns is unclear; if they were unsuccessful, why did they add another in 1934? It sounds odd to read that they were unsuccessful, but one was replaced by a pair of them.
Friedman calls them unsuccessful, but doesn't state why. Perhaps the mounts rather than the guns themselves?
In the inter-war section, first paragraph, you repeat "captain" in the last sentence. Might you consider switching the second to read "as the ship's commander" or something like that?
The bit about "damaging Yorktown in an early phase of the exercise" - should you put "damage" in quotes (as you did elsewhere, to make clear that it was simulated damage)?
Done.
On the I-6 attack - the article just says that the list was corrected, but no details on the list itself - any info on the degree of list or how much water flooded the ship?
Amount of list or flooding not available in any source I have on hand.
Fair enough.
Why are the lines about Sara's wartime summary direct quotes from DANFS? Why not paraphrase them?
Because I couldn't think of a better way to phrase that info. Admittedly I was kinda burnt out on the whole article when I was working on that part, but feel free to suggest a better way to word it.
I get being burned out on articles. I reworded them - take a look and make any changes you see fit.
The section on the atomic tests is a bit choppy - it starts by talking about Crossroads and then diverges on some other details. The next paragraph starts directly with her surviving Able, and then does not make clear that the ship sank after Baker. Readers might assume that Crossroads happened in January 1946 and then be confused about what was going on with Able and Baker.
I cleaned this up a little, but it's all strictly chronological.
I was just hoping to connect things a bit more so the reader isn't left wondering. I added a bit, again, take a look at it.
The last sentence says that dives began in 2011 after a hiatus - they either began for the first time in 2011, or resumed after a hiatus.
File:USS Saratoga Kamikaze hit 21 February 1945.jpg - this needs a better source. Navweaps doesn't credit the photo to anybody, so there is the possibility that some seaman took the photo on his own, not in any official capacity (like with Haeberle's personal photos from My Lai).
It's a cropped version of a photo that appears on page 466 of Palomar & Genda's book, credited to US Navy. No ID # provided unfortunately, but I think we can rest assured that it really was an official photo.
Sounds fine then. You might want to replace Navweaps with the book citation, since it at least credits the image to the Navy - should help when you get to FAC.
This and
this are pretty neat images, you might consider adding them to the article. There are a few photos
here of the ship under construction that show the barbettes, might be more effective to show the ship being built as a BC than the one currently used.
I swapped out the under construction photo for one that shows the barbettes, but the other two that you mentioned don't really do anything for me that the existing ones don't do already.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
07:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I just thought the camouflage scheme was visually interesting.