Talk:USS Florida (BB-30)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Florida (BB-30)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "She displaced 21,825 long tons (22,175 t) as designed and up to 23,033 long tons (23,403 t) at full combat load. " -- I presume she was designed to have a full combat load. As worded it sounds a little like this isn't the case.
  • Basically, the difference is between normal and wartime loading - the ship necessarily has more ammunition, fuel, stores, and such aboard (and the crews are usually larger) during combat operations.
• "Both ships landed a contingent of a thousand marines and bluejackets to begin the occupation of the city on 21 April. Over the next three days, the marines battled rebels in the city and suffered 94 casualties, while killing hundreds of Mexicans in return." -- Inconsistent use of numerals versus words, considering numbers over 10 are usually numerals.
  • Changed to "ninety-four"
• For consistency's sake, I think you should redlink 2nd Battleship Division since 1st Battleship Division is linked.
  • Done.
• "Florida was the only ship of the American contingent not to be quarantined for the virus" -- So did this mean no one on her crew was infected, or that what?
  • Yes, Florida was the only ship of the unit to avoid contamination with the virus.
• "Under the terms of the London Naval Treaty of 1930, she was to be disposed." -- What kind of terms specifically? Was she too heavy, or were there too many battleships in the fleet and she was downsized?
  • The treaty specifically listed Florida, Utah, and either Arkansas or Wyoming to be demilitarized (see here for the text of the treaty).
• There are no dab links or duplicate links. External links all appear to work. All images appear to be properly licensed.

Placing the article on hold pending fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 00:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Great work! Passing the GA. —Ed!^(talk) 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Date error

• At the end of the WWI section, the article states the ship left the United States on "12 December", then has it arriving in Brest, France on "13 December". Presume one of those dates is incorrect, or it's a very fast ship.

Slofella (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Good catch - it's fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

subheadings

I've come across material to add to this article on two occasions over the past year or so, and on both occasions I've split out post-service events into a separate section when expanding that part of the text. Both times, Parsecboy has very quickly removed the new headings and stuffed all that material back into the inter-war section.

The "Inter-War Period" sub-section of the "Service history" section starts with events from 1919 into the 1920s, but it also includes the ship's decommissioning and breaking up in 1932 and the long and interesting tale of the ship's bell being moved around the University of Florida campus and eventually to a museum in 1992. A lot of that info fits neither under "service history" nor "inter-war", which is why I split it out into a new section. Is there a reason why it should all be put back together again? Most readers find it easier to read articles when they're properly headed and labeled. --Zeng8r (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no benefit in splitting up a coherent paragraph into one- and two-sentence subsections – all it does is break up the narrative. If we followed your logic that every topic required its own subsection, we might end up with an article that looks like this.

Regardless, thank you for your additions on the fate of the ship's bell. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There absolutely is a benefit. Headings and subheadings are supposed to improve readability and make it easier for readers to find specific information in an article. If someone is looking for info regarding Florida's bell, for example, they're not likely to begin looking for it in the Service History / Inter-War Period section since that info does not fit under either description. Even worse, you've created a final paragraph that begins with the ship returning to service after a 1926 rebuilt, continues on to its decommissioning and dismantling, and ends with its bell being installed in a museum 70 years later. Whew. Ask any English teacher - that's poor writing.

Anyway, I could throw some Manual of Style links in here if I thought it was a big deal. It's not. However, that last paragraph is an overstuffed mess, imo, and your reasoning for leaving it like that doesn't make much sense. Zeng8r (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We're writing a basic narrative, not making an argument here – there's no need for paragraphs to have a single idea in them. Again, that line of reasoning would produce the atrocity I linked above. And for the purposes of this article, the fate of the ship's bell is an ancillary detail. The vast majority of the very few people who read this article are looking for information about the ship. They're not trying to dig up information on a random bell they happened across in a museum (or remember seeing in a football stadium years ago).

An "overstuffed mess" is by far preferable to choppy one and two sentence paragraphs that require the reader to jump around to follow a basic narrative. That is what damages readability. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A good paragraph in information text consists of a topic sentence plus supporting sentences that flesh out that topic. When you move on to a new topic, you start a new paragraph. And the purpose of subheadings is to help readers find the information they are seeking. Naturally, this means that they should be precise and accurate. These are basic writing skills, and they should be applied in any text which means to impart information, including Wikipedia articles.

That last paragraph is a collection of unrelated topics covering 70+ years of history. That's poor writing, and that's what makes non-fiction text less readable. And your sandbox example is just silly. Should I copy and paste the entire article into a single huge paragraph and then claim that that's what you're proposing? -Zeng8r (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're hung up on high-school rules for writing your 5-paragraph essays, but that's simply not a hard and fast rule. Topic sentences are only sometimes appropriate – the mark of a good writer is to be able to recognize when they are not.

Perhaps they're unrelated to you, but that does not mean what you say is an objective truth. They deal all deal with the fate of the ship – she served briefly after the refit but was discarded after the LNT, with the ship's bell being the only major artifact that survives. As for the sandbox, it illustrates what you seem to think about having paragraphs that contain only one topic – if being scrapped after LNT is unrelated enough to her final years in service to warrant a separate one-sentence paragraph, then surely so is the info on her construction and her initial years in service. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

costs

@Parsecboy How many articles on ships do you want me to list in which the construction costs are given? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You know that's not an argument, right? Here are the primary problems with presenting cost figures: they cannot be adjusted for inflation, or be easily placed into context, so they are not useful. Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So all those who give construction costs are wrong and you are right ? In addition, here 7.4 million US dollars in 1911 so at the completion of the Florida correspond to 2023 rounded 23 million dollars. This is really not rocket science. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Moreover, didn't your dad ever hit you with that old chestnut, "if your friends all jump off a cliff, would you follow them?" The fact that your argument is not a valid one is not rocket science.

Do you know how inflation is calculated? Do you know how military projects like this are paid for? Do you understand why using CPI-based inflation adjustments is not correct for projects like this? I hate to burst your bubble, but this is not as simple as you seem to think it is. Parsecboy (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If you want a (relatively) brief explanation of the problems with trying to adjust for inflation with projects like a warship, see this thread with input from a few economists and economic historians. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh boy You know, I haven't just been doing this since yesterday either. So please spare yourself these lectures that are not necessary at all. If you think the numbers are wrong, go ahead and check it out. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the non-answer. If you aren't interested in actually addressing the issue, undo your revert and find something else to do. Parsecboy (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Well here is one thing you might should think about. Instead of just editing you may could have send me a message of why it was done. That would save us both some time, don´t you think ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So your defense of your behavior is that I didn't notify you in advance? How does that make any sense? Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Parsecboy well point for you. But anyway i don´t see the reason why the inflation should be given in the first place. The given cost wat that date was just 6,4 mio thats it. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

And what does $6.4M mean to the reader? To a modern reader (especially one familiar with the multi-billion-dollar aircraft carriers built today), $6.4M sounds like a bargain. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Aren't you assuming that the reader is a little too uneducated? Why should an interested person not be able to imagine that $6.4 million were worth more in 1911 than today ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Economics are not well understood by the general populace. You don't seem to understand the complexities at play here, despite my having pointed them out - why do you expect the average reader to?

Consider this: how long have you been writing articles here? How many have you written from top to bottom? Do you know how long I've been here, and how many I've written? Which of the two of us do you think has more experience on how any of this should be done? Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So you think the average reader does not know what inflation is and that back then $6.4M were worth more than today ? Do you really think argumentum ad verecundiam will help ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the public education system in the US? The average person in the US is not well-educated; 83% of survey respondents couldn't identify Afghanistan on a map a few months after the US invaded the country; 40% of the country believes the last election was rigged; a significant swath either believes that climate change isn't happening, or if it is, it's not a result of our activities. What is the basis for your belief that the average reader could correctly place the number you want to include in context?

As for arguments from authority, good, we've established your grasp of logical fallacies is as tenuous as your handle on economics. The argument is only fallacious when the position of authority is irrelevant to the matter at hand. You might as well be trying to tell me it's equally fallacious to say "I'll only have open-heart surgery from an experience surgeon, I won't let that barista with a steak knife anywhere near me?" C'mon, friend, think through the implications of your arguments before you make them. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's clear from the previous discussion that Parsecboy linked that adjusting figures for inflation is confusing to everyone and should not be included. There is a parameter for original cost in the infobox and the guidance states The financial cost of building the ship, usually at the time of construction and using the currency of either the orderer or the builder. If other values are used (e.g. conversions), they should be specified and, if necessary, further discussed in the article. This figure of $6.4 million seems to fit that criteria and should therefore be included currently. However, I find cost figures frequently to be uncertain as to if they are just for the hull or if they include armament or ammunition etc therefore I would suggest that the cost parameter is removed from the infobox and any figures can be given in the prose together with any further explanation as to exactly what they comprise Lyndaship (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with the basic principle that because the field exists, it should be filled. The contrary point - that the field should be filled only if it makes sense to do so - is what underlines WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS, for example. We don't enter every single daughter of a minor notable who christened a ship simply because that name was recorded somewhere. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually we do have nearly every sponsor in the infobox thanks to DANFs but I agree we shouldn't. Point here though is when would you consider it appropriate to have a cost in the infobox? I say never as it always needs qualifying as to what that cost represents hence my suggestion that the parameter should be removed Lyndaship (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well at first there are more than the US speaking english and second the statemant I´m longer here than you is no proper argument. If you would prove that you have studied economics, then you would be an expert and then your objection would be justified. But the only thing you brought up is that most Americans are supposedly too stupid to know that 100 dollars was worth more 100 years ago than it is today. But as I wrote, there are a few more people in the world who speak English and are perhaps not so uneducated. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but one need look little further than the politics in Canada or the UK to see that those countries are little better off - how many Brits got suckered by the Brexit campaign, hmm?

And even if we stipulated that most readers are a bit better educated than I'm suggesting, your argument (that $100 today is worth less than $100 a century ago) is a strawman (in that I'm not suggesting that is beyond the grasp of readers). My point is this specific amount cannot easily be adjusted for inflation, nor can it easily be placed into context here, in an encyclopedia article written for general readers. In other words, is there a place for the figure? Sure, in a specialist source - an article on the growth of naval expenditures in the early 20th century, perhaps - but the place for that is JMH, not here.

Still, you do not understand. Economics is not the field at issue here. The disagreement here is how to write encyclopedia articles for general audiences. That is where I am eminently more qualified than you are, and why your logical fallacy argument falls short. Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to read what Lyndaship wrote above.And as for writing articles for a general audience, wow so really that you think you can objectively judge what's right or wrong about it because you supposedly know what's going on in the minds of the readers, I'm sorry if I say it like that now, but maybe you'll come off your high horse a little bit. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I did read what Lynda wrote, I even responded to it.

You probably ought to read WP:NPA; if you have nothing further to add to this discussion, I suggest you move along. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You consider that a PA ? You have patronized me all the time and that should not have been personal ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that you don't understand a matter of fact is not an attack on someone's character; telling someone to "come off your high horse" is. It really is that simple. Are we done here? Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the proverb It's not what you say, but how you say it. ? Just think about it. So now we done here! Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)