Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/USS Nevada (BB-36)

USS Nevada (BB-36)

Hello all!
Even though this is featured, I would like to ensure that it gets on the Main Page on my target date, December 7th. So I'm listing here to ensure that it is perfect! :)
While the referencing (should) be picturesque, please make a run-through of the prose, as I'm not sure that it is perfect (maybe FA quality, but not perfect =])......and thank you all for helping me out! Cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dowling

It's a great idea to ask for a peer review before nominating a FA for the main page - nice work on doing this. I think that the article is generally great, and have only the following minor suggestions.

"The new battleships of the Nevada class were the first two in the U.S. Navy to have triple gun turrets" - it'd suggest that you tweak the last bit of this sentence to something like "gun turrets with three guns" so it's a bit clearer.\
- Fixed
It's stated that the Nevadas limited deck armour was a "possible design flaw" and then that it was actually a flaw. This is a bit confusing, and may be a bit unfair given that when the ships were designed aircraft posed nothing like the threat they did in 1941 - surely the flaw was a failure to increase the ships' armour as threats evolved?
- Doing...
  - Simply removed.—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did this fix it? Or is it too confusing...? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit odd that almost a third of the ship's history is limited to the single sentence "Nevada served in the Pacific Fleet for the next eleven years" - is there nothing at all to say about her activities during the 1930s and the lead up to war in the Pacific?
- Scarily, that is all I could find. Using OR, I would assume that she participated in the Fleet Problems somewhere, but everyone glosses over all of her inter-war years with the exception of the 1929 refit. Bonner on pg. 104 would be the only one who might explain, but that's one of the the "non-viewable" pages on Google Books... =/ Does anyone have that book...? (*Cross fingers and pray*) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 13:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Attack on Pearl Harbor' section needs an introduction explaining why the ship was at Pearl Harbor, where she was moored, her combat readiness, etc - it's a bit tabloid to start with a quick description of the start of the attack before going into these details.
Did Spitfires and Seafires really fly from Nevada - I didn't know that there were float plane versions of these aircraft?
- For what it's worth this website (which may or may not be a reliable source for FA purposes) says that VCS-7 flew from a base in southern Britain, and wasn't embarked on warships. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. I simply removed it. :) It was reliable because the Spitfire site simply hosted a convenience copy. :D —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After Normandy, the Allies decided to invade Toulon in an operation that was codenamed Operation Dragoon" isn't correct as this operation was approved and planned well before the landing at Normandy, and was actually pushed back from the original plan for a simultaneous landing with the one at Normandy
Operation Dragoon is linked a couple of times
- Fixed
Which parts of Japan did Nevada bombard, and when did these bombardments occur? The current wording is a bit vauge.
- Again, nothing was stated in any of the sources...=/ —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nevada doesn't appear in the listing of battleships which bombarded targets in the Japanese home islands in both Samuel Eliot Morison's Victory and the Pacific or Richard B. Frank's Downfall. ~~USS Alabama seems to have been the only non-fast battleship to have been used in these bombardments.~~ All the battleships used in these bombardments were recently completed fast battleships. DANFS only says that Nevada came within gun range of the home islands, so she may not have conducted any bombardments. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you be able to add cites and page numbers for those books to the end of that sentence? I'll add a note explaining it, but that would be awesome. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unfortunately Nevada isn't mentioned by Morison after the chapters on Okinawa, so all I could provide is the pages where he lists the BBs which bombarded Japan - would this be helpful? Nick Dowling (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that's what I wanted. :) I'll shove them in a note that explains that she did not hit Japan. ...like <ref group=A>"''Nevada'' did not hit..blah blah... . See: ________"</ref> —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I'll post the refs in a new section below. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the ship's armament in the infobox seems to be missing the various post-refit changes. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardment of Japan references

Samuel Elliot Morrison's Victory in the Pacific describes the three following BB bombardments of Japan. The edition is: Morison, Samuel Eliot (2002). Victory in the Pacific. reprint. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. pp. History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. ISBN 0252070658.. USS South Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, two CAs and nine DDs bombarded Kamaishi on 15 July 1945 (pp. 312-313). USS Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, two CLs and eight DDs bombarded Muroran on 16 July (pgs 313-314). On the night of 18 July USS Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Alabama and HMS King George V bombarded Hitachi (pgs 315-316). Richard B. Frank lists all these bombardments on pg 157 of Frank, Richard B. (1999). Downfall. The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 01410-01461. and adds a bombardment of Hamamatsu on the night of 29-30 July by USS South Dakota, Indiana and Massachusetts. Neither book mentions Nevada as operating with the 3rd Fleet, though neither provides a task list/order of battle so its quite possible that she was operating with the 3rd Fleet but was kept in reserve. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll add this in sometime today. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I promise that I will get to this! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done a few days ago. Thanks again! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dziban303

Minor nitpicks

In the article is states "In particular, using oil gave the new class an engineering advantage over the earlier coal-fired plants," but it doesn't state why this is an advantage over coal-fired powerplants. I think some explanation of why oil is superior should be included.
- Is this satisfactory?
In "Attack on Pearl Harbor," it states "...but the other exploded within the ship near the gasoline tank." Perhaps adding something in about why the ship carried gasoline (for the scout aircraft and motor launches, I'm sure).
- ...except that I don't know why—I don't have that book! I'm not the one that added that info...
Speaking of scout aircraft, there's no mention of them in the article other than in the infobox. What kind did she carry? Considering the difference in the "as built" and "1942" references in the infobox, was this done after she was refit after the Pearl Harbor attack, or some time prior?
- My bet is prior...either as built, or at the latest in the '29 refit...I'll look into it.
The Bikini atomic experiments are linked twice in the article--once in the introduction and once in "Post War." I'm not totally opposed to linking twice if the links are that far apart, but I confess that I don't know if the policy allows it.
- Yes it does. :) As long as they aren't overlinked!
All around, an excellent article. Dziban303 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Looks like I've got some work to do. :D —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]