Talk:USS Oglala

My revert

I've just reverted the massive additions made in May 2017. The tone was hopelessly unencyclopaedic and the information far too detailed. It also read like a copyright violation, although I've not bothered to verify that. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see it probably mostly came from a public domain source. Nonetheless, it was crap, eg: It was not all work for the men of the expedition. Even the senior officers were given opportunities to embark on their own adventures? I do hope that the same thing hasn't gone on elsewhere otherwise I will be doing a lot of reverting. At the absolute simplest level, aside from there being way too much trivia, we don't use words like "thankfully" and "sadly" - they're POV and I'm sure that not even everyone in the US would agree with them. This US-centric bias has to stop. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Please also note that any consensus at WP:SHIPS does not over-ride the wider consensus of the Wikipedia community. The tone is all wrong, it is not neutral etc. and the lead was for some bizarre reason reduced in size for no apparent gain. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The infobox says that she was renamed Shawmut on 7 January 1918 but the text seems to suggest this happened before she was (re)commissioned on 7 December 2017. They can't both be right. THe box also says she was reclassified as a minelayer in 1920, which seems odd given her conversion to that role in late 1917 - is this some sort of USN bureaucratic thing or is it a cock-up by us? - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, reuse of PD sources is probably about as old as the project, so that argument doesn't hold up.

DANFS text is frequently written in a flowery or quaint style, and generally needs to be rewritten. Obviously, it's written from a US POv, which needs to be taken into account and corrected where necessary. It is also sometimes overly detailed - the fact that USS Tennessee (BB-43) was at one point divided into these sub-articles is the most glaring example of that. It would be better if the issue could be solved without reverting. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Log

Further to my comments in the previous section, how much of the movement detail given in the sections from "Caribbean service" to "World War II" in this version is really necessary? Obviously, things like the renaming are needed but, overall, it reads like a summarised ship's log and I think it can probably be reduced by more than 50 per cent without leaving the average reader short-changed. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Place in History

The Oglala has been denied her place in history, but this has to stop. While not the best known vessel, her impact on the lives of every American and her incredible journey make her worthy of eternal fame. We may forgive the Japanese who damaged her in what may have been the greatest action on that fateful day, but we will never forget. The Oglala will live forever in our collective national memory. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)PearlWeaver

DANFS and corporate history

DANFS is usually excellent and accurate with regard to naval service. It often contains errors about histories of civilian vessels taken into naval service. The DANFS article contains corporate history that is not supported by other references that specialize in civilian matters or the contemporary official U.S. registry, Merchant Vessels of the United States. An initial revision reflects those references and others, giving a more corporate, civilian ownership/operation picture of the period before Navy acquisition may provide precise information. Palmeira (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)