Talk:USS Iowa (BB-4)

Census

When the USS Iowa (BB-4) was in Bremerton, Washington shipyard for refit, the crew was enumerated in the 1900 US Census> MILITARY AND NAVAL special census. It starts with the National Archives microfilm Series: T623 Roll: 1842 Page: 86, and goes through page 91.

Update Sep 9 2009

I saw the changes and will try to use the same style when I can. Looking much better. Wondering -- sometimes it says "ship arrived in New York on 3 February 1901" etc (example made up) but does it help things to be that specific? Or is that what makes this FA material (specificity?). My sense suggests "She went to New York in early 1901" is sufficient but wondering what the choices are here. Also I'm thinking all the commissioning/decommissionnig stuff is somewhat boring -- how about some kind of table showing years of active service, and perhaps a line or two of text saying something like "during these years, BB-4 went in and out of service periodically for upgrades" or somesuch. Wondering what the preferences are here. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Added more information with references; still need to switch "Patriot Files" reference for DANSA (?) source. Picked off a diagram from a NY Times article using a .pdf editor and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Take leads from similar high-class articles like USS Connecticut (BB-18) (another pre-dreadnought). You certainly want to be as specific as possible—some parts may be more boring, but you don't want to leave out crucial information either! :-) For all of the commissioning/decommisioning stuff, perhaps you could start a paragraph saying "Over the next few years (____–____), Iowa cycled between active commissioning and the reserve fleet." and then go back and forth between active/not active. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

USS Connecticut BB-18 looks beautiful. What a great article. Yes, I'll try to work on BB-4 more tomorrow probably the morning; what struck me is how much detail there is about the ship itself. Thanks for your help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

UPdate Sep 10

Much more information added; wondering if I focused too much on the Spanish-American war (and not enough on Iowa)? Switched references from Patriot Files to DANFS. More facts added. I think I've exhausted the NY Times sources for now (although perhaps different search terms may yield stuff I've missed). What I think now would be great is more pictures. The article needs better formatting too. Plus, many boats are Vixen instead of with a double bracketed link. I worked quickly so there are probably lots of errors, and I'm not sure the subheads are the best arrangement. Kind of wondering what's the best plan for now; I may be able to work on it tomorrow morning but I'm not sure at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Added picture of USS Iowa extracted from NY Times article. Somehow one of the other pictures is mixed in with the reference section. Will try to fix in future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Update Sep 12

added more pictures but now they're all badly organized, rarely near the text. A better plan needs to happen somehow to get them all looking nicer, perhaps taknig a few out or else arranging them in a better format?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticed a typo -- "Real Admiral Sampson" ---> "Rear Admiral Sampson"--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ed, if you need my help, let me know when and how to contribute.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re images: taking a few out would be good. I should be alright on my own; I just need uninterrupted time to write it. :-/ (thought I would have a bunch today, but I was wrong) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree about peer review. If this is what others want? Or does it need more work. Agree too apictures but which ones get the ax?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My vote for pictures ax-worthy are "Newly built USS Iowa...", ""crewmen peeling potatoes...", and "Radio gear". Should we chop these picturres out; I like the one with the bullet holes, and the one in the seagoing drydock -- cool.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Seagoing

This article states that Iowa: "is notable for being America's first seagoing battleship." The Indiana-class battleships, indeed the first Texas and Maine too, certainly were seagoing (as in able to go sailing on the open sea), so it is unclear what distinction is being claimed here, although it is conceded Iowa certainly had much better sailing characteristics, not to mention a lot more freeboard. The "coast-defense" in the original appropriation acts for the Indianas had more to do with trying to appease those who feared the Navy was going to go off with its new battleships and engage in overseas mischief than anything else.

Poor Captioning

There's a photo in the article captioned: "USS Iowa (BB-4) fires its guns during the battle of Santiago" In fact, Iowa is the only ship in the photo not firing its guns - shot shows the crew watching other ships in battle firing. Iowa's guns at that moment are silent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Launch

Hi all, I've found a PD photo of the ship's launch here. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The commissioning, recommissioning, and decommissioning sections of the infobox are poorly written and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEarth1974 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Dead reference link

Reference 27 returns "Page not found" as of 07/22/2017