Talk:USS Massachusetts (BB-2)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

The Bureau of Archaeological Research coordinates for this site are 30° 17’ 48” N, 87° 18’ 41” W Bureau Underwater (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. The coordinates 30° 17.816’ N 87° 18.69’ W published in the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research brochure on the USS Massachusetts convert to 30° 17’ 49” N, 87° 18’ 41” W. BrainMarble (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Massachusetts (BB-2)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Conversion needed for the displacement figure in the infobox (and specify what type of ton is being used)

    Done Yoenit (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   What makes museuminthesea.com reliable?

   It's the official site of the Florida Underwater Archaeological Preserves and run by the Florida State government. Yoenit (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

   Odd that it's not .gov then. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Massachusetts.jpg needs a proper source showing date of publication or death-date of the author to prove that it's PD in the US.

   I have mailed the webmaster of Maritime quest with a request for more information, will post again once I know more Yoenit (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

   As I have received no response yet I decided to use another picture for the infobox, a color painting. Yoenit (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Excellent work so far, there are just a few issues that need to be addressed before the article meets the GA criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

   Alright then, everything looks fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

References

References are inconsistent in style:

• Some citations use title case, others use sentence case
  •  Done result of lazy copying on my part Yoenit (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Mix between standard footnotes and shortened footnotes
  • Not a problem, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How to present citations(it even provides some examples of FA's that do the same) Yoenit (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Shortened footnotes not formatted in Harvard style; i.e. Reilly & Scheina 1980, p. 58
  • using titles instead of publication dates is allowed (see WP:CITESHORT) Yoenit (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Works or titles are used only for sources with no author. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats not what WP:CITESHORT says. I am not aware of any other policies providing rules for shortened footnotes, would you be so kind to link the relevant one? Yoenit (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Shortened notes are formatted Harvard style— normally as "last year, page". The year can be in parenthesis and the page can be separated with a colon. If there is no author, then work or title is used. See Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. CITESHORT needs work— it is on my list.

You can optionally link the short cite to the full cite; see Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations and for an example, see Massachusetts in the American Civil War. I think it makes it easier for those not familiar to the system to find the full cite. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a showstopper for GA, but it will be an issue for A or FA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, your input at the ongoing A-class review would also be appreciated. Yoenit (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Please see the A-class review for some copyediting notes. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it "exist"...

...for the purposes of being put in Category:Existing battleships? I mean, it has a location. And an owner. Here they say "The rusting hulk is considered the oldest battleship still in existence". So maybe. Herostratus (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The "worst battleship ever built"?

So this article asks, at Atlas Obscura: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/wreck-of-the-uss-massachusetts Why, does anyone know. She ran aground a couple of times, and suffered a battery explosion. Doesn't seem to justify the clickbait title. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)