Talk:USS Massachusetts (BB-2)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Tillman in topic The "worst battleship ever built"?
Featured articleUSS Massachusetts (BB-2) 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 10, 2023.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 13, 2010Good article nomineeListed
August 20, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
September 7, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Coordinate error

edit

{{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)Reply

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)Reply

GA Review

edit
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)Reply


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)Reply
  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)Reply
    Odd that it's not .gov then. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  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)Reply
    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)Reply
  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)Reply
    Alright then, everything looks fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

References

edit

References are inconsistent in style:

Works or titles are used only for sources with no author. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Thanks for your comments, your input at the ongoing A-class review would also be appreciated. Yoenit (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Notes

edit

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

Does it "exist"...

edit

...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)Reply

The "worst battleship ever built"?

edit

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)Reply