Talk:USS Iowa (BB-61)
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Camandersol in topic Inaccurate information on turret explosion?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Iowa (BB-61) 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 |
| Archives: 1 |
 | USS Iowa (BB-61) 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 August 27, 2021. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I added something to the article but it got removed. Why?
In all probability, what you added was unsourced information or information cited to an unreliable source; such information is usually removed quickly because of the article's Featured Status. Featured Articles on Wikipedia require reliable sources for an independent verification of the facts presented, consequently any information added to a Featured Article without a reliable source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion. I see information in the article that has no source. What should I do?
This sources used in this article are cited at the end of each paragraph (known on Wikipedia as "per paragraph citation") so a check of the numbered note at the end of the paragraph should provide the source for the information. If this does not work, then add {{cn}} to the suspicious information to draw attention to information that may not be cited by a source. Alternatively, you may add reliable sources to the uncited information by using ref tabs (<ref></ref>). If you do add a source to the article consider using one of the citation template(s) to ensure that you add all necessary information from your source to the article. The entire article makes reference to the ship as "she", shouldn't the battleship be referenced as "it"?
This is an issue that has come up repeatedly, and the consensus of the editors for the Military history WikiProject and its contributors is that ship articles on Wikipedia may use an all "she/her" format or an all "it" format, but the article may not alternate between the two forms of reference. The primary source of U.S. ship articles is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), which refers to all ships as "she" or "her"; as a result, is it easier for some members to simply carry that format through the rest of the article. Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{fact}} tag on it right now.
This article (like many others) uses the approach of putting no citations in the lead section. This is because everything in the lead is also found in the body of the article along with its citation, as the lead functions as a summary of the entire article. Why is the section on the turret explosion so small?
This article is concerned with the ship's history as a whole, which includes the turret explosion. Owing to article size issues and summary style policy all that appears here is a simple overview of the explosion and its impact on the battleship. More information on this incident can be found at USS Iowa turret explosion, which deals with the explosion in a much more focused and detailed way. Why are the sexual aspects and legal issues related to Clayton Hartwig not addressed in this article?
Matters related to Clayton Hartwig are discussed at length in the article USS Iowa turret explosion. As that article is concerned exclusively with the incident, the details are not included here to conform with our summary style guidelines and our policy concern neutral points of view, specifically those concerning undue weight. Can I change the information in the explosion section?
Unless the addition or subtraction is minor in nature it would be a better idea to discuss any changes to the section in this article first. In this manner, you can establish consensus for a change to the section which will reduce the odds of your addition being reverted or removed for non compliance with policies and guidelines. Discussion of the proposed changes should take place on this page in a new section, and should include sources so others can check for them verifiability and to ensure they meet our standards for reliable sources. You are responsible for demonstrating that the change is well cited, factual, and conforms to policy and guidelines here. I added pop culture reference(s) to this article, but they were removed. Why?
The pop culture reference(s) were removed in accordance with the Military history project's guidelines governing the inclusion of popular culture material in military history articles. Although we are aware that the Iowa-class battleships have appeared in a number of books, games, and movies, a conscience decision was made to eliminate all pop cultural references from the individual battleships articles and consolidate them into a single section in the Iowa-class battleship article. Before adding an pop culture reference to the class article though you should read the FAQ located on the Iowa-class battleship talk page and the hidden note located in the pop culture section on the class page, both of which outline very specific guidelines for the inclusion of pop culture material. This article is long!
Yes, it is. In part due to its length, general and specific characteristics have been split: general information on the class history can be found on the article Iowa class battleship, info on the weapons used by the battleship can be found at Armament of the Iowa class battleship, and the history of each ship can be found on that ship's individual page. |
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Re-commission vs. 2nd commission
edit@Darryl.P.Pike: and I had a conversation over this debate and decided that 2nd commission was the correct term, but I just wanted to make sure everyone else agrees before changing the wording on an article I did not help create A 10 fireplane (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC) A 10 fireplane (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone who is interested, the conversation A 10 fireplane references took place here: Talk:USS Oregon (BB-3) Participation is welcomed for a solid consensus on the issue.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
About this talk page FAQ, aren't several questions just general Wikipedia Help stuff?
editAfter reading the documentation for Talk:FAQs this morning I looked at a few random FAs for examples of good multi-question FAQ subpages. I was not surprised to see the page length, but I was surprised how 2006 and non-subject-specific some of the questions are. I was going to BOLDLY remove some, but decided this deserved at least a courtesy discussion. BusterD (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest removing per your post. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Inaccurate information on turret explosion?
editthere is a point in the article where it states "In April 1989, an explosion of undetermined origin wrecked her No. 2 gun turret, killing 47 sailors."
The inaccuracy I'd like to address is the supposedly unknown origin of the fire. It is my understanding that the Navy determined that the explosion was caused by 2 main factors.
1 Being the use of old and unsafe propellant to fire a round as per the orders of one of the officers on board while conducting a firing exercise.
The second factor being that the unstable bag of propellant was likely over-rammed during the loading process which likely put it under too much pressure causing it to ignite prematurely before the breach had been sealed allowing the inferno to engulf the room and all the crew inside.
If anyone else can comment on this and either confirm that I have the correct information (I want to make sure before I edit anything) or cite a source explaining why I'm wrong (which is very possible) I would appreciate the second opinion. Camandersol (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)