Talk:Wickes-class destroyer
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wickes-class destroyer 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 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
This could stand some serious work
editI am not sure how or why this would be considered a class B article under current guidelines. Ship infobox after ship infobox isn't a article. I've put in a class info box and I would like to reform this article to something like what I would expect in a Wiki article. What the class represent in an advance over the previous class of destroyers and something of the classes history. This needs some work! Tirronan 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've cut out the list and placed it in a new article List of Wickes Class Destroyers hopefully this will allow this article to fill in more with actual information on the class instead of being a platform for a list in lie of an article. Tirronan 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs some serious work to be a B-class article, and have re-assessed it appropriately. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Why does this particular article just have to have a huge table and almost nothing in the actual meat of the article itself? I hived off the list of ships only to find it replaced by a larger table doing exactly the same thing. I haven't done a survey but is this standard?Tirronan (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Photos
editIt must be next to impossible to find photographs of old hulls below the waterline.--Parrtech (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)