Talk:USS Maryland (BB-46)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Maryland (BB-46) 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 Maryland (BB-46) 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Violation of copyright?
editIt would appear that major sections of this article have been lifted verbatim (and without notation) from here: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/maryland/bb46-md.html
Since the aforementioned website notes that the text is from".. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships published by the Naval Historical Center", I'm not sure what implications that has to copyrights. ScottMo 01:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the latter point was valid, there were no references cited as such. I added the DANFS citation.--J Clear 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Style of the article.
editIs it just me, or does this article read like a piece of US propaganda?66.159.79.3 (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That's because it was lifted from a US Navy web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.102 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. It sounds uncyclopaedic, if not biased. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm trying to fix it up. Vazeer Akbar (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Maryland (BB-46)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- review
All in all a very interesting article. I made quite a few edits, mostly fixing little things.[1] If I changed the meaning of the article in any way, please feel free to revert. (Captions that aren't complete sentences aren't supposed to have a ending period.)
What does "detonated low-order" and "TF 54" mean?
- I changed the article to make this make sense
How does extreme beam differ from Beam (nautical)?
How does mean draft differ from Draft (hull)?
- I didn't know about those links, I added them
There seems to be too much detail in places:
- e.g. "She was launched on 20 March 1920, and sponsored by Mrs. E. Brook Lee, wife of the Comptroller of the State of Maryland and daughter-in-law of U.S. Senator from Maryland Blair Lee;"
- I took this out
Suggest you remove this image as it's quality isn't very good and there are plenty of better ones in the article already. It would help to have that one removed.
- Took it out
Vreeken is used quite a bit as a source. I'll accept on good faith that you have phrased everything in your own words. I know there are only so many ways to say certain things.
Do you think all those red links will have articles? e.g. stood out?
- I took out the red links. Vazeer Akbar (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Will put on hold to await your response.
MathewTownsend (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
- c. no original research:
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- fair representation without bias:
- fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- no edit wars, etc:
- no edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass!
- Pass or Fail:
Good work. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Secondary battery after Pearl Harbor:
editI believe there is a mistake in interpretation here. The secondary battery was not replaced (5"/25) by 5"/38. Rather, the 5"/25s were given enclosed shields which somewhat resemble those of 5"/38s. The same thing was done to the 5"/25 battery on USS Pennsylvania among others. Brooksindy (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I feel useful a paragraph collecting the wartime changes in cage-masts and secondary armament. As a matter of fact, Maryland is very poorly described in this respect in my books. pietro 2001:760:2C00:8004:D817:61BB:AEE2:1EBB (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Damage incurred in Leyte Gulf
editSorry, reference or no reference, the medical department having been "destroyed but still functional" consists of contradictory terms. "Destroyed" with no minimizing adjectives means no longer functional. Largely destroyed? meh. Severely damaged, better. 112.210.164.232 (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)