This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USS West Virginia (BB-48) 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 |
USS West Virginia (BB-48) 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Outstanding article - very thorough. -- -B- 08:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
'In one compartment, a calendar was found, the last scratch-off date being 23 December'
Is that historical fact? It sounds very much like some horror wartime legend, many of those came out as a legend...Source please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.196.119 ( talk) 17:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I lost track of the years between 1943 and 1944. She went to Puget Sound in 1943, but apparently did not depart until a year(?) later to play a part in the battles of October 1944. Ediza8 ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Ediza8
"West Virginia's main armored belt was 13.5 inches (343 mm) thick over the magazines and the machinery spaces, and 8 inches (203 mm) elsewhere. " This sounds like WV had full length 8" fore and aft belt extensions, which none of the quite puritanically AoN "standards" had. The 8" dimension probably refers to the taper at the lower edge - it should read "...machinery space, but tapered below the waterline to 8" at it's lower edge." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.18.238 ( talk) 16:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This article includes far too many details about battles that have their own articles. Also, it is written in a florid, enthusiastic manner, instead of the detached tone of an encyclopedia. Vgy7ujm 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
@ Parsecboy: Not all readers start at the top of an article and read every word down to the bottom. They may dive into a section when, for example, they are looking for a vessel's involvement in a particular battle, as I did. It took quite a of of backing up into previous sections to determine what year the action took place in. I have encountered this situation in several articles, and do not want other readers of Wikipedia to have to be inconvenienced. There is no downside that I can see in having a year thrown in there once every few paragraphs. Chris the speller yack 17:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Layout needs to be logical and consistent, which doesn't fit with inferring when a reader will start in the middle. Adding dates on the off-chance that someone will find it inconvenient to look for them is a fool's errand. As long as a reader knows where to look (lead, infobox, section) leave it at that. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
"it had been initially believed that she had been hit by five torpedoes, but a sixth impact had been discovered during the patching, and this inspection revealed the seventh hit." This is not clear if she was found to be hit a 6th or 7th time e.g. if two additional hits were found then wording is sloppy. Can someone clarify it? MartinezMD ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Seabee and ex Marine Lt. Wilfred L. Painter (CEC) was given the task of raising both the USS California and USS West Virginia. [1] The California was refloated and in dry dock in forty five days. To speed salvage operations on the West Virginia, Lt. Painter requested 120 Seabees from the 16th Naval Construction Battalion and it was done in thirty. [2] For his leadership in the salvage of the two battleships Lt. Painter received the first of the five Legion of Merit medals he was awarded. [1] The other four had V's for combat and he made Captain by wars end. Mcb133aco ( talk) 00:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)mcb133aco Mcb133aco ( talk) 00:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Two good articles. One of them says that the USS West Virginia (BB-48) was launched on November 17 at the other 19. Where is correct. -- Inctructor ( talk) 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
while the overall mention of the three men in the article is sufficient for its current place, I believe it deserving of its own subsection of the article especially with the recent rise in interest in the story. I think it being expanded by including reference to the original cover up of the circumstances of their deaths along with more specifics on there story in general would do the article good. Africonnor ( talk) 00:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USS West Virginia (BB-48) 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 |
USS West Virginia (BB-48) 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Outstanding article - very thorough. -- -B- 08:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
'In one compartment, a calendar was found, the last scratch-off date being 23 December'
Is that historical fact? It sounds very much like some horror wartime legend, many of those came out as a legend...Source please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.196.119 ( talk) 17:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I lost track of the years between 1943 and 1944. She went to Puget Sound in 1943, but apparently did not depart until a year(?) later to play a part in the battles of October 1944. Ediza8 ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Ediza8
"West Virginia's main armored belt was 13.5 inches (343 mm) thick over the magazines and the machinery spaces, and 8 inches (203 mm) elsewhere. " This sounds like WV had full length 8" fore and aft belt extensions, which none of the quite puritanically AoN "standards" had. The 8" dimension probably refers to the taper at the lower edge - it should read "...machinery space, but tapered below the waterline to 8" at it's lower edge." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.18.238 ( talk) 16:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This article includes far too many details about battles that have their own articles. Also, it is written in a florid, enthusiastic manner, instead of the detached tone of an encyclopedia. Vgy7ujm 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
@ Parsecboy: Not all readers start at the top of an article and read every word down to the bottom. They may dive into a section when, for example, they are looking for a vessel's involvement in a particular battle, as I did. It took quite a of of backing up into previous sections to determine what year the action took place in. I have encountered this situation in several articles, and do not want other readers of Wikipedia to have to be inconvenienced. There is no downside that I can see in having a year thrown in there once every few paragraphs. Chris the speller yack 17:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Layout needs to be logical and consistent, which doesn't fit with inferring when a reader will start in the middle. Adding dates on the off-chance that someone will find it inconvenient to look for them is a fool's errand. As long as a reader knows where to look (lead, infobox, section) leave it at that. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
"it had been initially believed that she had been hit by five torpedoes, but a sixth impact had been discovered during the patching, and this inspection revealed the seventh hit." This is not clear if she was found to be hit a 6th or 7th time e.g. if two additional hits were found then wording is sloppy. Can someone clarify it? MartinezMD ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Seabee and ex Marine Lt. Wilfred L. Painter (CEC) was given the task of raising both the USS California and USS West Virginia. [1] The California was refloated and in dry dock in forty five days. To speed salvage operations on the West Virginia, Lt. Painter requested 120 Seabees from the 16th Naval Construction Battalion and it was done in thirty. [2] For his leadership in the salvage of the two battleships Lt. Painter received the first of the five Legion of Merit medals he was awarded. [1] The other four had V's for combat and he made Captain by wars end. Mcb133aco ( talk) 00:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)mcb133aco Mcb133aco ( talk) 00:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Two good articles. One of them says that the USS West Virginia (BB-48) was launched on November 17 at the other 19. Where is correct. -- Inctructor ( talk) 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
while the overall mention of the three men in the article is sufficient for its current place, I believe it deserving of its own subsection of the article especially with the recent rise in interest in the story. I think it being expanded by including reference to the original cover up of the circumstances of their deaths along with more specifics on there story in general would do the article good. Africonnor ( talk) 00:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)