Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Illinois (BB-65)

The following discussion is preserved as an

archive

. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Illinois (BB-65)

After recently expanding this article from a Stub to B-class along the lines of the other canceled

• Comment A few things I see that may help improve the article:
  • Find a cite for the NROTC note; that can probably be accomplished by checking the University of Illinois' webpage. Without a cite I fear that information may come under the larger heading of popular culture, and that will create problems down the line.
  • If I were you I would consider removing the second to last battleship paragraph; in this particular case the information there isn't particularly notable to the ship.
  • Check to see that all information in the ship table is correct; I usually find one or things carried over from the last ship I happened to be working on.
  • See if you can find out anything about why Illinois wasn't considered for a rebuild; I doubt anything will turn up, but you never know what you may discover without really meaning to (NOTE: I won't hold this suggestion against you if nothing turns up).
• Other than that, everything looks to be in order. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NROTC cite: I have taken a look at the webpages for the university, the stadium, and the university's military science department with no luck in finding any blurb at all about the bell, let alone the traditions associated with it. The bell and its location are notable, but do I need a cite for it even with the picture? I have also left a message at the talk page of the editor who added the information to the article. Hopefully it isn't original research, because the bell itself is notable. Thanks a bunch, Tom.

Second to last paragraph: Removed.

Ship Table Figures: I haven't seen any irregularities.

Why no rebuild?: Unfortunately I don't have access to my library of maritime history books for another week, and the university library is severely lacking in this subject. I would guess that since the Illinois was only 22% complete when canceled compared to the 73% of Kentucky, that would be a major factor along with cost of completion. NOTE: This is just speculation, but it probably isn't far from what really happened.

-MBK004 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Comment. As soon as you cite the University of Illinois information at the end of the article, I'll change this to a support. Cla68 07:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the above part that Tom has raised.Tom has found your cite.-MBK004 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Found an NROTC cite for the bell. Everything else appears to be in order. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found it very irritating to have all the common properties of the Iowa class repeated in conjunctive form: "Illinois’s main battery would have consisted of nine 16 inch (406 mm)/50 caliber Mark 7 naval guns, which could hurl 2,700 lb armor piercing shells some 24 miles (39 km). Her secondary battery would have consisted of ten 5 inch (127 mm)/38 caliber guns, which could fire at targets up to 9 miles (14 km) away....". Since the ship never received its armament, I think a reference to the Iowas should be enough. --Stephan Schulz 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do the others who have reviewed and lent their support feel about this?-MBK004 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under normal circumsances I would agree with you and support the reccomendation that these refernces to the armament be removed; in this case though, the armament information helps the article by giving it more meat than it would otherwise have. I therefore do not see a reason to remove the information in this case since there is no service history for the ship. Thats my opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an

archive

. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.