Talk:USS Massachusetts (BB-59)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Protonk review

All comments refer to this revision of the article] or thereabouts.

Images

• File:MassKamaichi.jpg source says it is the Indiana, not the Mass, though this may be confusion from the source because the navy's archive shows a similar picture of the Mass. taken from the Indiana here.
  • It the confusion; the battleship doing the shooting is Big Mamie, Indiana is the battleship from which the photo was taken. Proof is here, about 2/3rds the way down the page.
    • Good deal. Protonk (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• File:5 inch turrets aboard USS Massachusetts (BB-59).jpg this might be a nice image to use.
  • Added to the WWII section.

Minor issues

• "During World War II Massachusetts was initially assigned to duty in the Atlantic Fleet, and exchanged shots with French battleship Jean Bart during Operation Torch. " French should wikilink to Vichy France. Whether or not the text should say vichy france in the lede is up for debate.
  • Changed per your suggestion.
• Atlantic operations I feel that the chronology of the gun battle should be more clearly explained. Moving directly from her flight to Africa to escape being pressed into the German navy directly to engagement w/ American forces seems odd. Obviously the status of Vichy forces were in flux, but the main article on Jean Bart does a reasonable job of laying things out.
  • I've attempted to add some meat to the section, let me know what you think.
    • Seems good to me. Protonk (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Pacific war File:LocationNewCaledonia.png might be a good addition to situate the content, especially in light of the phrase "The Navy now drove steadily across the Pacific in the second paragraph. noting visually that we mean north and east can be helpful for the reader.
  • Added per your suggestion.
• The typhoon cobra section looks a lot like a similar section in the USS New Jersey's article.
  • It is. The same section also appears 99% word for word in the USS Wisconsin (BB-64) article. DANFS simply doesn't do justice to Typhoon Cobra, which is why the section was lifted and added here. I can remove it you want, but I think the article to better off with the section than without.
    • I don't want it removed, but I imagine that it is word for word the same in any vessel hitting the tyhpoon. Shame that there isn't a better source describing that. Protonk (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• When I reviewed USS Iowa (BB-61) for GAN I was told that section formatting describing the detachment and flag officer (e.g. Service with Battleship Division 7, Admiral Lee) was common in SHIPS articles. I don't see it here and while I feel the article is better off not having section titles like that I figure the point should be raised.
  • To be fair to the Iowa's each served as a flagship for at least one Naval Admiral who later attained 5-star rank during WWII, which is why the section headers their were configured as such. Remember that the Iowa's were unique for their long service histories (among other things) and as such should have a small degree of leniency engineered in for their status.
    • Ok. I just wanted to make sure. Protonk (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• "...the addition of a compound known as Red Hand Epoxy to encase and protect the hull against further deterioration." "Red Hand" is a trade name, yes? If so we should just link the word epoxy (since the wikilink is just for epoxy) or redlink it (if we think the specific type of epoxy will become notable. I clicked on the link expecting an article about the specific kind of epoxy.
  • Actually, I am not sure if Red Hand Epoxy is a trade name. I have fixed the link accordingly
    • Found this about it http://www.hnsa.org/handbook/morss6.htm Mpking (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Massachusetts is one of only eight remaining US battleships to be spared scrapping and donated for use as museum ships, the other battleships honored in this way are Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin.[15][A 1]" I don't have the reference but I can't imagine that a book published in 1971 can support a claim about the present (especially since a few on that list were reactivated in the meantime).
  • The book's right; I can confirm that via the US Naval Vessel Register if you wish. Eight US battleships survive to this day; DANFS material and Research into the Iowa articles and USS Texas also confirm this.
    • The book is right, but you understand my point, right? The book being right is serendipitous because a 1971 source is being used to cite a claim in the present tense. Protonk (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall

Seems pretty close to GA status, if not basically there. Once the bulk of the issues above get sorted out, I'll pass the article. For now I'll place it on hold. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll pass this article. The last unfinished point above can be worked out over time. Protonk (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)