Talk:History of the United States Navy/GA1

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

Reviewer:

• Since the US Navy was the largest at the time during WWII, shouldn't there be more on the subject?
  cup|former 03:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I would agree their should be more detail but not much, as that's the whole reason for splitting the article up into daughter articles. Thurgate (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I attempted to write about the highlights here - it may need an expansion or another further info link or two. Kirk (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The Great White Fleet also had to take most of their coal from Brit colliers, which showed that the USN had to develop a logistical chain to support its big ships. Should not that be mentioned, as logistics are also very important.
  cup|former 02:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Interestingly, the main article doesn't mention that fact; I'll see if I can add that sentence with a citation. I don't think I substantially rewrote that section and now that I think about it I'm not satisfied with that title - 1898-1914 should cover the Naval arms race and Battleship developments. I'll ping you when its ready. Kirk (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok I expanded and renamed this section. I didn't see the logistical question you raised answered in Miller or Howarth but that seems important, I'll keep looking. Kirk (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok this is done. Kirk (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • GJ.
• In such a large article there are bound to be a few dablinks:
  • Derna in section United States Navy (1794–1812).
  • Battle of Mobile in section American Civil War (1861–1865)
  • Columbia in section Rise of the Modern Navy (1898-1914)
  • Commitment in section Post-Cold War from 1991
• Rename Post-Cold War from 1991 to Post-Cold War (1991-present) or similar.
• You could cut the info about the Alabama, as there are some things that could be better used in this article.
  cup|former 02:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've seen the date stuff done both ways but I changed the heading, the dab links you mentioned, and cut the Alabama. Kirk (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename section ((!xt|United States Navy (1794–1812)}} Quasi-War (1794–1812) or something related to it, as the entire article article is about the USN.
  cup|former 02:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I went with Establishment of the United States Navy; I considered Birth of the United States Navy - is that ok?Kirk (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tis a little long on the TOC, go with Establishment of the Navy.
• Beyond that, there is little less to say. The citations are a little loose if you want to go beyond GA, you mainly use Miller. I'll pass this, and you can change the section header at your leisure.
  cup|former 04:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]