Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65)

366:

ignored. How would feel?...And for the record replies to an FAC would go directly on the FAC page, not on the FAC talk page. Its your responsibility to check back on that page to see if the nominator has addressed the issues present, and you are suppose to check back and update your oppose as needed. From where I sit, numbers 2,3,4 and 9 were fixed last year and still no post assessment tweaks to your comments. Reviewers who object at FAC are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. That written right into the opposition section.

952:

and BB-66 order and moving of USS Montana from BB-65 to BB-67. With Montana while its was designated as BB-65 the sources(that I could read) indicated that the order for the ship was dropped in priority for 2 extra Iowa class after the events at Midway. IMHO (without access to source 3,4,5 which appear to also cover this information) the focus on USS Illinois being called USS Montana is inconsistent with sources as it was only BB-65 designation that they have in common. Source 3 the link has died so you'll need to re-establish.

937:

material related to the battleship when designated USS Montana since that would leave the article uncomprehensive. On the issue of the armament: I have the section arrayed as they are now because I thought that this method would be simplier to understand, but I would be willing to remove the entire section and its subsections and consolidate the information into a paragraph or two under the sections "USS Montana" and "USS Illinois". Would that be better?

537:" (your words, not mine) Up until now, you have not posted such a reaction other than something like "I have updated the article." This "addresses" none of my objections in and of itself. These comments do. Please continue to do so in the future and feel free to put them directly after each point I made to clearly show the progress. You have done this with other editors' comments. I do not understand why this is such and issue with mine. 83:), this article is being reinstated to the FAC que after the previous nom was closed without any chance for comments on the newly uploaded version of this page. This newer version of the article has addressed some of the previous complaints raised regarding the article's length and content. Comments and suggestions are welcome for this newer version, as are any questions you may have regarding this nom. This is a 1846:(continued from above, not a separate oppose) I have stated my opposition to this article in the past, but many of my original problems seem to have been either taken care of in the article or changed. I am disappointed that my comments were not addressed on this page and request that they be done here in the future (any format for a response, including comments after each problem, are acceptable and appropriate). 819:-- you make your point as good as the others, but a few suggestion would go a long way toward helping me bring this article up to FA status. I already know about the spelling and the grammar problems, and those are beyond my ability fix becuase my spelling sucks. Unless I log on through the university systems on their computers I have no accsess to mozilla or the spellchecker within it. 2836:

Although her sister ship Kentucky (BB-66) was considered for a rebuild to make her into a guided missile battleship (BBG)—by removing the aft turret and installing a missile system—at the time of her cancellation, Kentucky was 73.1% complete with construction halted at the first deck. By contrast, the Illinois was only 22% complete and thus was not afforded the same option.

2175: 2126: 2029: 1998: 1967: 1927: 2204: 2090: 1899: 2587:" Wikilinks needed for "Empire of Japan" Again, poor use of the word allow. They aren't merely permitting something, they are "enabling". As for the "striking arm", I think the Army, Marines, and Air Force might disagree on their role being stated this way, though battleship use was certainly down with the advent of carrier operations. 1525:

butload of sites from which I draw information for articles here) have yet to be located and readded to my favorites folder, therefore requests for information regarding certain aspects of this article (or any other article I have actively contributed to since 2004) will likely be met with a slow response. PS: Happy New Year, all!

2266:" How on earth does changing an order make a ship faster? How can an order "allow" it to do so. Before the order was it not permitted to go as fast? Are there some speed limit signs I missed the last time I was on the high seas? How does an order give something an ability? How does it increase a number guns? Rephrase accordingly. 2397:" What does this have to do with the USS Illinois? (I know contrast later, but it doesn't need to be in the lead). Did you really just use the word "floated" in an article about a Navy ship? A bit informal of an informal word choice there, but I must admit excellent use of a pun (this ship did "float" while the Illinois didn't). 569:". It is not clear that it was ever afloat. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? 2329:" She actually "lost" nothing except on paper. Orders change all the time. It's like saying I wanted a car with a 5 lite engine, but at the last minute, I got one with 4 liters. I "lost" nothing. Your word choice is inappropriate here. In short, comparing the two classes is appropriate, but this phrasing isn't. 1452:

Found your additional citations, they were from a book I own. The part about her being the 5th of the six authorized battleships could prabably be cited several times over, the Naval Vessel Register and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships would support this claim as well via stated dates.

1271:

I know it's usual to have a section called background but I object - a possible solution is the splitting up of that section into more useful sections -section called "context"/"similar battleships" and a section called "construction" instead - maybe one called planning as well - currently very bad

760:

Despite TomStar81's loving attention to the article over the past few weeks to the point where it is well written and has high clarity I can't see why the subject matter would merit a seperate article let alone an FA. In most histories of the USN the partially completed keel and frame (it was never a

365:

I have been waiting for two and one-half week for an answer from you. That's more than 14 days, sir. Suppose for a moment that situation was reversed, that you were the one waiting for answer from me, and having not gotten one left three messages on my talk page looking for one only to be (seemingly)

1004:

is by far the hardest to write for because the battleship was never consider for any sort of post life rebuild. I do believe that given the chance I can make this work, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered nominating it. Notability requirements for an incomplete ship should not be brought up here; the

951:

User:Dwarf Kirlston comments also indicate that the article layout is disorganized so maybe looking at chronologically would assist that. Discuss Montana class design including armament, then discuss Iowa class the armament particulars of that, this is a significant factor in the choice of the BB-65

855:

concerned about this. Are you saying you want us to give this article featured status even though you know it has spelling errors? Surely you can't be serious. What school do you attend where a simple dictionary is not available? Go through and check each word if you need to/ Please don't come to an

359:

and extending across both our talk pages. In its original format it was intended to be critical of BQZip01's response to myself (or lack there-of), and was intended as an "if x, then y" argument on the latter's rfa page. Although not a part of this FAC originally, I will concede a point in BQZip01's

2512:

The increase in Montana’s firepower and armor came at the expense of her speed and her Panamax capabilities, but the latter issue was to be resolved through the construction of a third, much wider set of locks at the Panama Canal, which would have enabled Montana to transit between the Atlantic and

1202:

The information is still there; the armament sections were not well recieved with the community and this nessicitated a rewrite of the article to deal with the objections. As for the sp&g objections, I will try to address the issues to the best of my limited spelling ability. BTW, thank you for

901:

some questions, firstly the prose is inconsistent in tense making it difficult to follow whether the ship was built or not, along with swapping between names USS Montana and USS Illinois, according to linked articles Montana was designated BB-67. Part of this confusion in prose stems from having a

659:

tags to the stuff that needs cited and I will see to it that the material gets cited. The article does make references to the ship being a hulk, I must admit that I am not aware of any distinction made between hulk and floating; if this is incorrect for the article and its context, it will be taken

648:

Her sister is an Featured Article, and all five of the never laid down Montana class battleships have their own articles. If Danfs has an entry for the ship then it meets minimum standards for being here on Knowledge (XXG). A lot of the article is based on the information leading up to creation and

931:

As I write this I am (albeit slowly) working through the article to try and get it harmonized, as you noted the tense is off in places and the article switches from the class and conversion templates to the old style one cite per unit method, both of witch need to be addressed. On the Montana note

732:

classes) the North Carolinas and South Dakotas were only armoured to withstand the 16"/45 calibur guns, while the Iowa class was designed only to resist the original 2,240 lb shells originally developed for the 16"/50 and thus were inedequetly armored against the "super heavy" 2,700 lb shells they

2779:

The way I interpret this is protection from torpedoes, naval mines, and her own intended ammunition of 16"/50 heavy shells. This is touched on in the parent class article, but the Iowa class armour scheme was somewhat inadaquet for the battleship class. I can add to that info to the article if it

2609:

It was for this reason that the United States accepted certain shortcomings in the armor for their North Carolina-class battleships, South Dakota-class battleships, and Iowa-class battleships in favor of their additional speed, which enabled these battleship classes to steam at a comparable speed

2492:

She would have fielded three more 16 in (406.4 mm) guns than those mounted aboard the Iowa-class, a more powerful secondary battery of 5 in (127 mm)/54 caliber DP mounts, an increase in armor that was to enable Montana to withstand the effects of the 16 in (406.4 mm) caliber guns and the 2,700 lb

1187:

per above. An article with so many English problems should not be an FA. My English is not very good but I can see problems in the lead. For example, change "this gained an eight" to "this gained her an eight" and "where as" is used wrongly. Also, the reference after "at the time of cancellation"

403:

Then why did you oppose instead of comment?...Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made.

2835:

She was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 12 August 1945, but her incomplete hull (at the time 22% finished) was retained along with her sister Kentucky until 1958 when both incomplete ships were broken up. She was scrapped in her dry dock on the builder's ways starting in September 1958.

1524:

With the exception of a few missing codecs needed for playing certain video files (namely, those I pirate from my pc games) I am now 100% done with setting up and installing the computer. There is one small matter though that should be wieghed with this: my previously saved websites (including a

1421:

I checked the voodoo site information very carefully before using it here, the information is reliable (by which I mean that it agrees with other books/web sites). I will double cite that for you if it will make you feel better. Thanks you for your copy-editting help as well, I apreciate it very

134:

in line with an FA-quality article. It still isn't there, but you've clearly done your homework...speaking of doing your homework, I assume your exams are over? Enough chit-chat, let's get to the meat of the article (I'm not going to hit everything, but I will try to give at least one example of

1803:

I replaced three instances of stand alone measurements with US and Metric measurments, and reconfigured all instances inches to in to match the mm measurements in the articles, I also removed the " you commented on. I did not see anything governing the use of non-breaking spaces with regards to

936:

are radically different, I do not have all the needed parts to place the new version out to be seen by all. To be honest it had not occurred to me that the current article namespace version of the Montana class battleships did not address these issues. I am none to keen on outright removing the

2515:" See previous for more info. By linking USS Illinois and BB-65, it seems to me you have exclusively eliminated the USS Montana. There is no need to include such information here. Is "move" the right word? You mean "sail"? This sentence is very long. Please shorten or break into two sentences.' 2291:

Raul, thanks for your input. For the sake of clarity, my issue is not so much with the comparisson, but the word choice. It should read something like, "This change resulted in an increased maximum speed for the BB-65 due to a reduction in armor..." It the change from Montana to Iowa "allows"

1359:

based on what I've read in the sources the sections 1 thru 3 are very intertwined, though I'd think 1/Background & Design - which covers the issues of treaty restrictions, Panamax design compromises and the first use of the formula in battleship designs. 2/Construction - This covers the

932:

you left: our current version does indeed note that Montana was assigned the hull number BB-67, but I have been working on bringing the Montana class article up to featured status and the associated research for that yielded this new evidence. At the moment our Montana class article and the

208:

References need some work. You need to include all pertinent information: author, publisher, title, date of publication, date of access (for websites only, not books), page numbers, etc. These all need to be within Knowledge (XXG) standards (proper italics, wikified dates for ALL citations,

1405:—I tried to address multiple issues on this page, but it may need more tweaking by an experienced editor. I'm a little dubious about the Voodoo World reference, as it gives no sources for the data and it doesn't look like a professional site. Is there a cross-reference that could be used?— 761:

completed hull even) would merit at best a para but more likely a footnote. As someone else here observed there is not enough to say about this ship that never was to merit an FA. For mine the article should be merged with other unfinished vessels in the class or an overall class article.

1084:

Sleep actually, working 22 hours days to pass school is extremely taxing on the brain and other associated mental facilities. Aside from the lack of sleep I am happy to be back. BTW, I am working on tweaking the article to address some of these concerns, so everyone keep your eyes open.

1544:. It's perfectly possible to have an FA on a battleship which was never built. The design work can be fascinating and the response of other nations to even an unbuilt ship can be important. However, not this one: there is not enough to say about this ship which cannot be said about 2584:

The Essex-class carriers were proving vital to the war effort by allowing the Allies to gain and maintain air supremacy in the Pacific Theatre of World War II, and were rapidly becoming the principle striking arm of the United States in the ongoing effort to defeat the Empire of

1336:

Your scheme sounds good - If I might propose - 1st heading:Background/Context/*in terms of pre-WWII/in terms of novelty of Battleship design/in terms of costs of war that never mattered in actual battle -2nd: US Government/Command/Ordering -3rd:Design -Construction and Funding

1640:

OMG, I hope it never makes the front page: referring to ships as women so publicly would be an embarrassment for the project. However, I don't mind the change of location for the discussion of the sexist language, and as I've said elsewhere, I think it's quite a good article.

856:

FAC and waste time the time of fellow editors for simple things like spelling. That is not what an FAC is intended to be. As a further suggestion, cut & paste into Microsoft Word and hit "F7"; it'll do a grammar and spelling check. It isn't the best, but it will help.

381:

Respectfully, what specifically has been addressed? I haven't seen anything to indicate what has been altered. I have no intention of re-reading the entire article over and over every time you make a single change just to see if you addressed my objection. Please specify.

1780:

and whatever else. The one that stuck out at me was 16-in. Should it not be expanded to inches? You need between numbers and units. 2700 lb jumps out at me. The same goes for "5"/54 (12.7 cm)". I think the " should be expanded as some readers might not understand

1360:

ordering/reordering(inc priority to Aircraft carriers, anti aircraft platforms after Midway/Coral Sea), building costs wleding vs rivet/weld 3/Scrapping - as is. This only my thoughts as to Dwarfs suggestion, it doesnt change my support for the articles promotion.

3057:

Again, I can not adress that issue here becuase it is a differnce of opinion between us and what constitutes an FA. Nonetheless, I thank you for the specific examples provided, and will continue to work on addressing the issues present to the best of my knowlage.

1861:

Seeing others' interest in this subject (especially Raul's), I think it is appropriate to re-re-re-clarify my objections and specify any additional problems that have occurred as a result of edits after my second initial review (<user mutters as he re-reads::

879:

ability to correct, not that I think spelling can be overlooked on an FAC because it can't. If push comes to shove I will petition the leauge of copyeditors to review the article and correct the spelling. On a similar note I am glad to see you came back.

608:

The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming

1950:

and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations

1746:

Hardly censorship, I had been arguing for that from the moment it was put there. Have a look at the talk page and at the link at the bottom to where the conversation is continuing. Don't try and slur the character of Raul please, it is unbecoming.

1598:

about an article having "not enough to say"; only that the article be comprehensive on the topic. To be comprehensive it must include some material that may be redundant with the articles on the Iowa or Montana class BB's. It clearly satisfies the

2233:

This will be done working from the top down, getting into the technical aspects, and then diving into the overall layout (and realize this is being done as a courtesy, not because I feel it is a requirement). It should also be noted, that I

564:

This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. It is also possibly inaccurate. It keeps describing the item as a

2312:; however, the move away from the Montana-class layout left BB-65 without a reduction in the heavier armaments and without the additional armor and that were to have been added to BB-65 during her time on the drawing board as USS Montana. 2375:

I assume the Navy cancelled the battleship; usually official reports stipulate when second ro third parties alter or cancel USN construction orders. Since assupmtion is the mother of all screwups I will look into tracking that down for

1169:

withdrawing support for this article as it changed since supported this. IMHO this FAC should be closed as unsuccessful while its regrettable given the efforts of the contributors the issues arent going to be immediately addressable.

611:- Whether or not it was ever launched has nothing to do with what pronoun to use. My own opinion, and Knowledge (XXG) policy, is to go with whatever common english usage is -- in which case, both "it" and "she" should be acceptable. 971:

It seemed quite well written and researched, but I just don't think it is notable enough to make the grade. There are lots of ships that did get built and have a real history, why on earth put so much work into this white elephant?

2502:

noted, but not addressed. Its not that I do not want to adress this, its just that we see things differently on this point, and I prefer to see it here for ths sake of comprehensiveness, IMHO it helps the article by making it well

3208:. The rigourous FAC process has improved this article, making it worthy of the little brass star. I would create a stub article to fix the red link in the "Design" section, but other than that I give this article a thumbs-up. 1019:

Not to nitpick, but you mean Featured Topic instead of featured list. And, the requirements for such only require a majority of the articles in the topic to be featured, but all FA-class is a good goal for such an endeavor.

2238: 2235: 63: 2276:

The ship was ordered as a Montana class ship (big guns, heavily armored) but the order was changed to an Iowa class (fewer guns, less armor). Less ship mass = more speed. This was fairly straightforward to me.

1784:

Other than that, count me as a support. I think the other objections are mainly questioning the notability which is a non-issue in my eyes. It is well-written and comprehensive as far as I can see. Well done.

1005:

article has been here for years and no one has every complained about its notability at SHIPS, MILHIST, or any other project; nor for that matter has anyone every filed a notability based afd for the article.

2725:

Like Kentucky, Illinois differed from her earlier sisters in that her design called for an all-welded construction, which would have saved weight and increased strength over a combination riveted/welded hull

2442: 2364:

that was left behind. "broken up"? Is that a technical term? It makes it sound as if it just fell apart due to pressure or deterioration. In reality, it was disassembled by workmen and sold for scrap, right?

1708: 2755:

armor for added torpedo and naval mine protection (the newer scheme would have improved Illinois’ armor protection by as much as 20%); however, this was rejected due to time constraints and Illinois was

317:

responsibility, not mine. I have tried to keep your comments as intact as possible while removing extraneous comments not applicable to this FAC. If I misworded something or misquoted, it is entirely by

2350:" Who cancelled it? Congress? The President? The Navy? The War Department? This is the danger of using passive voice. It doesn't directly state what happened. Try "In August 1945 Congress cancelled..." 3168:

While the article is short I believe it meets all the criteria for a Featured Article, although it does need date accessed for web refs. I made two minor edits to the article reading it for this FAC.

3017:

Half of the sections are the references/footnotes and external links. Ergo, it is not "substantial" This is actionable through an expansion of the material. (See the next item for more information)

1626:

Raul654 has bought in on this FAC (see fatuity above). He likes the article therefore the chances are that not only will it get past this process but we'll see it on the front page sometime soon.

2495:" Again, the difference in ships is specifically limited to theoretical differences between classes of ships and would be more appropriate in the class articles. It just isn't needed here, IMHO. 2691:

Ours, of course. This figure needs to be taken with a grain a salt, but by adjusting 125 million on the consumer price index the total price comes to approximately 1.8 billion in 2008 dollars.

2308:

Adherance to the Iowa-class layout rather than the Montana-class layout allowed BB-65 to gain eight knots in speed, carry more 20 mm and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, and transit the locks of the

1103:

A new version has been put up in an effort to address some of the FAC complaints received here. Comments on this new version are welcome, as are any other comments or questions you may have.

2414:

I hadn't put those two words togather, but now that you mention it is a great pun. Perhaps "proposed" would be a better word. In any case that sentence was deleted from the introduction.

1120:- Although I thought the older versions were adequate, I must say that you've done wonders for the article. As always, I've also corrected your "horrible" spelling above. :) - 300:

Don't take criticism of an article so personally. I know I've been somewhat guilty of that in the past too, but try to detach yourself from a piece of work you don't even own.

1436:

I'm am still looking for your additional citations, but my real life commitments are starting to catch up with me, so there may be a long pause between requests and actions.

2387:" Why? cost I assume? political pressure to spend money elsewhere? Too much work to do? Not enough time? why not enough time/money? Caught in a post-wartime drawdown? etc. 1000:

Its part of a plan to create a featured list for the Iowa class of battleships, to do that requires that the articles be FA-class. Of the six battleships in the Iowa class

2816:" "scrapped" implies the ship was sold for scrap metal, but she wasn't. What is the difference here between the two verbs? Why was it cancelled after the atmoic bombings? 175:

the first ships of the Montana-class, a larger, slower, upgunned class of battleship with an improved armor belt intended to protect her from her own compliment of twelve

2875:. According to the AP, the bell previously resided in a Washington museum until finding its new home with the Fighting Illini football team in 1982; since then, the bell 2162: 2612:" "It was for this reason" = wordiness. Try "Accordingly". "certain" shortcomings? why not just "shortcomings? Again a long sentence that could be reduced in wordiness. 2534:

By 1942 the United States Navy shifted its building focus from battleships to aircraft carriers after the successes of carrier combat in both the Battle of Coral Sea and

2678:" $ 125 million in what country? what timeframe? $ 125 million adjusted for 2007? 1930? 1945? Why "roughly"? how rough? A little informal. Do you mean "approximately"? 1552:. It's an article worth having but because of the inevitable limitations in scope it will never be an example of Knowledge (XXG)'s best work and so shouldn't be an FA. 2999: 2292:

nothing, but results in an actual change. "Allow" implies that the shipbuilders are now permitted to do something, when, in fact, they were directed to do something.

236: 213: 3191:

I think most of the people do not support this nomination because tha article is too short, but in my opinion, even if it's short, it meets all criteria for FA. --

702:...a larger, slower, upgunned class of battleship with an improved armor belt intended to protect her from her own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns. 586:- FAC is not AFD. If you think it should be deleted or merged, take it there. Until then, we're going to assume it's a notable and potentially featurable article. 3249: 40: 906:

when the vessel wasnt completed. Armament should covered in the various designs, without the detailed sections about the design bofor & oerlikons guns

3075:

Please understand this is not necessarily exhaustive and I reserve the right to add more to it. In short, I don't feel this meets the standards of an FA.

356: 2789:

Funding for the battleship was provided in part by "King Neptune", a hereford swine who was auctioned across the state of Illinois as a fund raiser, and

2563:

As a result the construction of the U.S. fleet of Essex-class aircraft carriers had been given the highest priority for completion in the U.S. shipyards.

2106:(c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See 2264:

This allowed her to gain eight knots in speed, the ability to transit the locks of the Panama Canal, and to increase the number of anti-aircraft guns.

2949:

I thought I had this addressed earlier, but with the addition of newer material I will go back and check to ensure non breaking spaces are present.

741:

and her sisters from her their own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns (and by extension, the 2,700 lb ammunition used in those guns).

30: 17: 407:"...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms 1228:

calling a section Fate both seems that it will descibe in detain the fate of more than just a bell seems to imply a fatalistic universe -bad tone

247: 2473:" She isn't "alive" at all. Please remove colorful language. What is a "dreadnought" battleship? Perfect time for a wikilink if I ever saw one. 2158: 1595: 826: 875:

I have done that before, and even then I do not get all of the spelling and grammar errors. What I am saying is that the spelling is beyond

821:

I think the article is comprehensive; I have stated before that this is part of series on the topic and (ideally) should be read along with

724:

Battleships in any nations fleet were usually armored to withstand guns of their own size. Of the ships using 16-inch guns during WWII (the

488:

Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

2360:" Amazingly nonspecific. The hull "remained" where? Was it just the hull? The picture provided does not seem to indicate it was merely the 2293: 434:

Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"

199:

Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"

733:

actually used during the war (it is for this reason that some people consider the Iowa class to be battlecruisers and not battleships).

183:

Act "clear" anything? What was the Second Vison Act? Was something else stopping it? These kinds of problems can and should be avoided.

80: 1983: 404:

Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list:

1333:

Any scheme would be better than just "Background" and "Scrapping" as content headings - (background to what? -the scrapping???). -

3126:

has now opposed this FAC twice (here and the first oppose). Only one should count and one should probably be struck for clarity.

3005:

Question:do the conversion templates support this layout scheme? If they don't I will go back and replace such instances by hand.

2241:. Note that any incredulity on my part is for dramatic effect only to emphasize the problem and more clearly define the issue. 338: 146:

had cleared the way for construction of the four South Dakota-class fast battleships and the first two Iowa class battleships (

1389:

my objection. - I believe comprehensibility could also be improved (per proposal above)- I will probably re-review later on.--

594:

FAC. And to echo the comment I made there, there are only so many ways you can describe something that never really happened.

360:

favor with regards to these comments and there relevancy here, as these to shed light into my mental state regarding this FAC.

598:- a possibly valid point, but I know of no word other than "hulk" to describe an unfinished ship. Can you suggest something? 2769:" 20% more what? Strength? coverage? protection from shockwaves? corrosion? Split into two sentences and remove parenthesis. 1660: 800:

and really does not look FA quality - (this comment is actionable - action being would be "improving article to FA quality")

3234: 3212: 3200: 3183: 3159: 3141: 3109: 3087: 3067: 2972: 2301: 2286: 1831: 1813: 1794: 1756: 1741: 1721: 1692: 1674: 1654: 1635: 1614: 1589: 1575: 1561: 1534: 1516: 1499: 1478: 1462: 1445: 1431: 1416: 1397: 1367: 1347: 1319: 1282: 1262: 1238: 1212: 1197: 1177: 1163: 1145: 1131: 1112: 1094: 1079: 1063: 1045: 1031: 1014: 995: 981: 959: 946: 920: 889: 868: 838: 810: 770: 750: 717: 695: 673: 641: 620: 578: 549: 510: 479: 452: 425: 394: 375: 292: 113: 96: 3037:

we have stubs that are certainly comprehensive, given the body of knowledge, but have no business being a featured article

2793:

ultimately responsible for raising $ 19 million in war bonds (equivalent to about $ 200 million in 2007 adjusted dollars).

352: 2154: 1947: 140::#Excessive wordiness/passive voice/improper number conversions (mind you these are the opening sentences in the body): " 2898:

Cumulative meaning they start from zero and stop when they hit the number of points the team currently has on the board.

2046: 3036: 1659:

Well, many articles that refer to ships this way have already been on the front page. Is that an embarrassment? (See:

1490:

I got a new PC for christmas, so my contributions here may decrease somewhat shile I get everything back up to speed.

2107: 3196: 1875:

For the sake of crystal clarity, I will state each general problem here and then cite all specific examples below:

678:

The article (like the above) is full of egregious spelling errors which should be eliminated. Have you tried using

2191: 2150: 1943: 2053: 1952: 272:

In short, it isn't ready yet. I have no intention of nitpicking and showing every possible problem. Please read

3047:

article and this page be converted to a re-direct. As a stand-alone article, I feel it fails this requirement.

2297: 2065:

The lead is 3 paragraphs while the body is 7 paragraphs. With an article this short, the lead could be shorter.

1858:

I too have been known to get edgy in FACs, so I'm willing to overlook this with no malice towards said editor.

1549: 1394: 1344: 1279: 1235: 807: 2385:

Because Illinois was only 22% complete at the time she was not considered for any significant rebuild programs

1507:

I got my PC more or less set up, so barring any unforseen incidents I should be free to surf the net at will.

2676:

Like her Iowa-class sisters, Illinois was to cost $ 125 million and take roughly 30 to 40 months to complete.

584:

This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway.

1737: 1631: 766: 713: 691: 637: 574: 1600: 1258: 3230: 2953: 2190:

It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see

2074:(b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see 933: 273: 74: 2814:

Illinois construction was canceled and then scrapped after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

2700:

Her keel was laid down at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 15 January 1945.

2471:

BB-65 began life in mid-1930s as the USS Montana, the lead ship of her class of dreadnought battleships.

2395:

while several proposals were floated to complete her sister ship Kentucky as a guided missile battleship.

3192: 3044: 2220: 1545: 1036:

A featured topic does not need all the articles to be FA. It's OK if you have a few GAs in the topic. --

822: 2146: 2014: 1851: 1453:

I beleive the spring book from the Naval board could also be used to cite the information if you wish.

346: 309: 3225:. There's nothing wrong with short articles IMO (though the ones I work on tend to end up bloated). -- 57: 2639:

I felt the development section to be a better place for that information. I can move it if you wish.

2590: 2427:

sister ship USS Kentucky (BB-66), Illinois was still under construction at the end of World War II.

2404: 2056:

that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;

1887:(a) "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. 1603:

criteria, so it belongs on wikipedia. I see no logical reason to sustain this argument by The Land.—

3173: 3131: 3063: 1809: 1530: 1512: 1495: 1458: 1441: 1427: 1390: 1364: 1340: 1315: 1275: 1253: 1231: 1208: 1174: 1160: 1141: 1108: 1090: 1059: 1010: 977: 956: 942: 917: 910: 885: 834: 803: 746: 669: 371: 332: 109: 92: 3148: 3123: 3098: 3076: 2961: 2610:

with the Essex-class and provide the carriers with the maximum amount of anti-aircraft protection.

2435:

hull remained until 1958 when it was broken up...while several proposals were floated to complete

2142: 1777: 857: 538: 499: 468: 441: 414: 383: 342: 281: 3221:

I think that this article fully meets the FA criteria and clearly demonstrates the advantages of

1733: 1627: 1585: 1557: 1189: 1037: 762: 709: 687: 649:

the events surrounding her early construction work; this is common. If you see inaccuracies, add

633: 591: 570: 3222: 737:

would have been the first U.S. battleship to feature an improved armor belt intended to protect

2886:

rung by NROTC members in a cumulative manner when the football team scores a touchdown or goal.

3226: 2282: 1717: 1571: 991: 616: 70: 2913: 2400: 2219:. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs, incorporated into the 1670: 1608: 1472: 1410: 1193: 1127: 1075: 1041: 1027: 2706:

P,P? or simply eliminate the second usage altogether. That's what Wikilinks are for, IMHO.

1188:

should be after a comma or full stop. What happened to the new version with more info? --

259: 2845:

Ive scrapped nearly all of the section since it was confusing. Kentucky was not completed.

1827: 1790: 1752: 1687: 1649: 679: 2651:

She would now be the fifth of the six authorized ships of the Iowa class of battleships.

2525:

changed moved to sail per your suggestion and broke up the sentence per your suggestion.

1804:

percentages or monetary values, and thus left those measurements alone. Is this better?

3209: 3169: 3127: 3059: 2681: 2441:" Serious overuse of the pronoun "her". Please vary your usage at least a little bit ( 2110:

for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the

1805: 1526: 1508: 1491: 1454: 1437: 1423: 1361: 1311: 1250: 1204: 1171: 1157: 1137: 1104: 1086: 1055: 1006: 973: 953: 938: 914: 907: 881: 830: 742: 665: 367: 328: 105: 88: 148:

those with the hull numbers BB-61 and BB-62). The latter four battleships of the class

1822:

I added in a couple you missed. That does it for me, can't see any reason to oppose.

1581: 1553: 2702:" "laid down" should be "laid". Do we really need "Philadelphia" twice? Perhaps PNP 1915:(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details. 660:

out forthwith. The other FA-class articles all use She over it, even the incompletd

192:...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed.... 3023:

I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject,

2657:

poor verb choice. "would now be"? how about "was designated"? or something similar

2309: 2278: 2211:

I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject,

2075: 1713: 1567: 987: 612: 604:

An old or unseaworthy ship used as a prison or warehouse. Often used in the plural.

2941:

Violation of 2. Specifically [[Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

313:

with regards to the article. Please post such answers here in the future. This is

2873:

at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in an article published in 1983

2554:

My apologies, I thought they were already in the article. This has been adressed.

1156:

after the more recent rewrite, I've also done some copy editting when reviewing.

1665: 1604: 1468: 1406: 1122: 1070: 1022: 653: 566: 255: 632:

by any definition. In any event even the article's proposer conceded that one.

2910:

References still missing needed information (like access dates for websites).

1906:

This article is not well-written because it is not of a professional standard.

1823: 1786: 1748: 1680: 1642: 793: 683: 266:" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. 135:

each...realize that you need to check the entire article for these problems).

1884:

It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.

87:, in its current form about 80% of the articles content was written by me. 1068:

Featured list and all the articles had to be FA-class. Need some coffee? -

498:

and has been struck accordingly, but please be more clear in the future).

2145:

and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct

705: 495: 2513:

Pacific Oceans without the need to move around the tip of South America.

2223:

article as a wonderful addition, and this page converted to a re-direct.

599: 3097:

Left unanswered comments for now until all points have been addressed.

3043:

easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs and incorporated into the

1707:

Discussion of the use of female pronouns to describe the ship moved to

1566:

Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid.

986:

Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid.

239:, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, 220:

between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of

2493:(1,224.7 kg) ammunition she and her Iowa-class sisters were to carry. 2111: 2097:

Half of the sections are the references/footnotes and external links.

1709:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65)

790: 3248:

Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in

2629:

No mention of Iowa-class specifications in its design section. Why?

2036:

Note that this does not apply to edits made to satisfy FAC requests.

1732:- Raul's comments are allowed to stand - those of others get moved. 39:

Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in

2017:

and that its content does not change significantly from day to day.

2013:(e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing 708:

but this seems to be taking the precautionary principle too far.

461:

Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.

2984:

Units of measurement|Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (numbers)]]

2927:

numbers and their units of measurement. For example, instead of

2838:" So was the Kentucky sold for scrap or completed? I'm confused. 2544:" Add commas for readability, but excellent sentence otherwise. 2361: 204:

Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.

2565:" Again, passive voice. Who gave the carriers highest priority? 1776:

The conversions and numbers need to be properly formatted per

588:

A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been.

2992:

Spell out source units of measurements in text; for example,

590:- this sounds very similiar to the feedback I got during my 250:, avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}) in headings. 194:" serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms 1385:

the organization has substancially improved, as a result I

2935:, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2751:

Engineers considered retaining the original Montana-class

228:, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 121:(see additional clarification at the bottom of this page) 2888:" In a cumulative manner? What the heck does that mean? 664:; I see no reason why this one should be any different. 2449:. You don't need "sister ship" in the paragraph twice. 2358:

but her hull remained until 1958 when it was broken up.

2994:

the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth

241:

the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth

177:

16"/50 caliber 16-inch (40cm)/50 caliber Mark 7 guns.

3147:

Second instance annotated accordingly. Fair enough?

2439:

sister ship Kentucky as a guided missile battleship.

1982:(d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views 1249:

also removed a duplicated sentence in that section.

1203:

coming back; I apreciate your comments on this FAC.

1730:

Comment on the pronoun (note sp) move (censorship?)

1661:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Ships#Featured_Articles

1310:Do you think that would help the orginization any? 1852:hostile and threatening manner I have been treated 1467:One or more book citations would be fine. Thanks.— 3242:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 796:in hoe town get close to it. - bad organization - 628:Whatever this thing was it certainly was never a 606:- an unfinished ship is certainly not seaworthy. 69:With Special permission from Deupty FAC Director 3250:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates 2861:seemed to indicate that the bell was donated to 2716:Linked to both and added an in for good measure. 2327:The cost was the loss of her additional armor... 327:The following stems from a conversation between 41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates 3252:. No further edits should be made to this page. 2348:Her construction was canceled in August 1945... 1942:(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are 934:as yet unfinished version sitting in my sandbox 704:mean" I know the US military are notorious for 43:. No further edits should be made to this page. 3223:Knowledge (XXG) not being a paper Encyclopedia 2431:construction was canceled in August 1945, but 2159:criteria for the inclusion of non-free content 913:10:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Strike see below 2826:Ostensably nothing, but I will check be sure. 307:to you and the other editors, I am reposting 29:The following is an archived discussion of a 8: 2730:used on the four completed Iowa-class ships. 280:I hope that helps in fixing up the article! 158:were not cleared for construction until 1940 142:The passage of the Second Vison Act in 1939 165:and at the time the two battleships with h 154:hull numbers BB-63, BB-64, BB-65, and BB-66 18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates 248:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (headings) 3000:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (numbers) 1596:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article criteria 533:the nominators reaction to those comments 494:What does this mean? Is it gone or not? ( 237:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (numbers) 216:, there should be a non-breaking space - 214:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (numbers) 596:It is not clear that it was ever afloat. 3258: 2919:There should be a non-breaking space - 1136:And as always, I am thankful for it :) 2996:. Specifically, an example is 16 in. 2680:Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically 2589:Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically 2399:Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically 827:Armament of the Iowa class battleship 491:It should be out of the article now. 243:. Specifically, an example is 700 lb. 7: 2217:inappropriate for a featured article 1287:Perhaps the following scheme then: 1223:Objection continued despite changes 726:North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa 24: 1871:...<user continues typing: --> 789:this article so bad not even the 169:ull numbers BB-65 and BB-66 were 126:First let me start off by saying 2459:Out of the lead in its entirety. 2306:Rearrange the sentence to read " 2202: 2173: 2124: 2088: 2027: 1996: 1965: 1925: 1897: 1580:That is a nonsensical argument. 2339:Rephrased per your suggestion. 2157:images or media must meet the 1850:I am also disappointed in the 1245:Changed that section title to 1: 2998:Violation of 2. Specifically 2912:Violation of 2. Specifically 2239:my first comprehensive review 1854:with regards to this review, 1517:01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 1500:09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1463:01:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 1446:02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 1432:18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1417:17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1398:15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC) 1368:11:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC) 1348:10:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC) 1320:23:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 1283:21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 1263:14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 1239:14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 1213:10:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 1198:09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 1164:06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 1146:20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 1132:18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 1113:06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 1095:04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 1080:02:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 1064:02:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 1046:09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 1032:02:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 1015:01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 982:00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 960:13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 947:11:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 921:06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 890:09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 869:08:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 839:07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 811:23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC) 798:doesn't look comprehensive - 751:07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 718:00:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 696:00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 674:23:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) 579:23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC) 293:17:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC) 114:21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC) 97:21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC) 3235:10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 3213:15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) 3201:18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 3110:23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 3068:06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 2973:23:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 1866:...<user shakes head: --> 1615:17:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 1479:20:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 535:every time a change is made. 310:what you put on my talk page 150:, those designated with the 3184:05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3160:18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3142:05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 3088:19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 2780:would make you feel better. 2575:The USN; citation provided. 2302:21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 2287:19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 2151:acceptable copyright status 1832:11:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 1814:03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 1795:21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 1757:22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 1742:22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 1722:21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 1693:04:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 1675:04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 1655:04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 1636:22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 1590:21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 1576:21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 1562:16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1535:10:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1178:15:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 996:21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 771:03:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 642:23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 621:21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 550:00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 511:00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 480:00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 453:00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 426:00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 395:07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 376:07:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 31:featured article nomination 3282: 1601:Knowledge (XXG):Notability 66:(14:00, 15 December 2007) 2859:article published in 1983 2244:So, without further ado: 3245:Please do not modify it. 1594:There is nothing in the 1550:Montana class battleship 52:04:36, 22 January 2008. 36:Please do not modify it. 2854:...an Associated Press 2767:Iowa-class hull design. 2483:Reworded and wikilinked 2447:way to this discussion) 2114:format is recommended.) 1984:fairly and without bias 1869:only in Knowledge (XXG) 1864:"second initial review" 1054:...Yeah, what'd I say? 410:It isn't there anymore 2667:Removed it altogather. 2163:be labeled accordingly 128:excellent additions!!! 3045:Iowa class battleship 2542:the Battle of Midway. 2221:Iowa class battleship 1546:Iowa class battleship 823:Iowa class battleship 276:for more information. 179:" How did the Second 3029:inappropriate for a 2954:User:BQZip01/FA Tips 902:separate section on 274:User:BQZip01/FA Tips 258:in this article IAW 173:originally slated as 103:Nominate and support 58:USS Illinois (BB-65) 3039:. This information 2742:Noted and adressed. 2538:to a greater extent 700:What on earth does 467:struck accordingly 464:These were merged. 440:struck accordingly 413:struck accordingly 2905:Technical problems 592:Operation Downfall 437:It has been fixed 357:BQZip01's rfa page 3265:Smith 2007, p. 1. 3180: 3138: 2960:how to fix this. 2762:along the regular 1953:where appropriate 1265: 3273: 3266: 3263: 3247: 3193:Eurocopter tigre 3178: 3157: 3136: 3107: 3085: 3019:Violation of 3b. 2970: 2922: 2890:Violation of 1a. 2818:Violation of 1a. 2797:Violation of 1a. 2771:Violation of 1a. 2734:Violation of 1a. 2732:" Note wordiness 2708:Violation of 1a. 2659:Violation of 1a. 2631:Violation of 1a. 2614:Violation of 1a. 2567:Violation of 1a. 2546:Violation of 1a. 2517:Violation of 1a. 2475:Violation of 1a. 2451:Violation of 1a. 2389:Violation of 1a. 2367:Violation of 1a. 2352:Violation of 1a. 2331:Violation of 1a. 2268:Violation of 1a. 2210: 2206: 2205: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2047:style guidelines 2035: 2031: 2030: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1973: 1969: 1968: 1948:reliable sources 1933: 1929: 1928: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1690: 1685: 1652: 1647: 1256: 866: 658: 652: 609:ceremony/launch? 547: 508: 477: 450: 423: 392: 290: 219: 48:The article was 38: 3281: 3280: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3243: 3177: 3149: 3135: 3122:I believe that 3099: 3077: 3049:Violation of 4. 3012:Layout problems 2962: 2938: 2920: 2443:not related in 2203: 2201: 2174: 2172: 2125: 2123: 2089: 2087: 2045:It follows the 2028: 2026: 1997: 1995: 1966: 1964: 1926: 1924: 1898: 1896: 1688: 1681: 1673: 1650: 1643: 1130: 1078: 1030: 858: 656: 650: 539: 500: 469: 442: 415: 384: 282: 231: 217: 171:intended to be 85:self nomination 61: 34: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3279: 3277: 3268: 3267: 3257: 3255: 3254: 3238: 3237: 3174: 3163: 3162: 3132: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3052: 3051: 3021: 3014: 3013: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3003: 2987: 2986: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2944: 2943: 2937:61 cl 2936: 2917: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2893: 2892: 2882:traditionally 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2840: 2839: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2821: 2820: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2800: 2799: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2774: 2773: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2737: 2736: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2711: 2710: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2686: 2685: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2662: 2661: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2640: 2634: 2633: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2617: 2616: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2595: 2594: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2570: 2569: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2549: 2548: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2520: 2519: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2497: 2496: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2478: 2477: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2460: 2454: 2453: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2409: 2408: 2391: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2370: 2369: 2354: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2334: 2333: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2294:131.44.121.252 2271: 2270: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2250: 2249: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2116: 2115: 2108:citing sources 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2080: 2079: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2058: 2057: 2052:(a) a concise 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2019: 2018: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1988: 1987: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1957: 1956: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1917: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1889: 1888: 1881: 1880: 1848: 1847: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1817: 1816: 1798: 1797: 1782: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1669: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1538: 1537: 1519: 1502: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1400: 1387:Strike-through 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1351: 1350: 1338: 1337:-4th:Scrapping 1335: 1323: 1322: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305:External Links 1303: 1300: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1285: 1267: 1266: 1242: 1241: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1126: 1115: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1082: 1074: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1026: 998: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 926: 925: 924: 923: 893: 892: 873: 872: 871: 844: 843: 842: 841: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 722: 721: 720: 646: 645: 644: 602:defines it as 600:The dictionary 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 398: 397: 363: 362: 355:) begining on 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 301: 278: 277: 270: 269: 268: 251: 244: 233: 230:61 cl 229: 210: 206: 201: 196: 137: 136: 123: 122: 116: 60: 55: 54: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3278: 3262: 3259: 3253: 3251: 3246: 3240: 3239: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3185: 3182: 3181: 3171: 3167: 3161: 3158: 3156: 3154: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3140: 3139: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3111: 3108: 3106: 3104: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3086: 3084: 3082: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3035:. After all, 3034: 3032: 3026: 3022: 3020: 3016: 3015: 3011: 3010: 3004: 3002: 3001: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2985: 2982: 2981: 2974: 2971: 2969: 2967: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2950: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2942: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2918: 2916: 2915: 2909: 2908: 2904: 2903: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2891: 2887: 2885: 2881: 2878: 2874: 2871: 2867: 2864: 2860: 2857: 2851: 2850: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2837: 2832: 2831: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2810: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2798: 2794: 2792: 2786: 2785: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2772: 2768: 2766: 2763: 2759: 2754: 2748: 2747: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2729: 2722: 2721: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2696: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2684: 2683: 2677: 2673: 2672: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2647: 2641: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2632: 2628: 2627: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2605: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2593: 2592: 2586: 2581: 2580: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2547: 2543: 2541: 2537: 2531: 2530: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2509: 2508: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2494: 2489: 2488: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2467: 2461: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2452: 2448: 2446: 2440: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2420: 2419: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2407: 2406: 2402: 2396: 2392: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2381: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2368: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2344: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2313: 2311: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2260: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2242: 2240: 2237: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2209: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2193: 2192:summary style 2189: 2180: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2131: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2104: 2095: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2072: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2050: 2049:, including: 2048: 2044: 2034: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2003: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1972: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1954: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1940: 1932: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1904: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1870: 1865: 1859: 1857: 1853: 1845: 1842: 1841: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1772: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734:Albatross2147 1731: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1694: 1691: 1686: 1684: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1653: 1648: 1646: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1628:Albatross2147 1625: 1622: 1616: 1612: 1611: 1606: 1602: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1523: 1520: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1486: 1480: 1476: 1475: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1413: 1408: 1404: 1401: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1381: 1380: 1369: 1366: 1363: 1358: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1342: 1334: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1304: 1301: 1298: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1288: 1286: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272:organization. 1269: 1268: 1264: 1261:was added at 1260: 1255: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1162: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1119: 1116: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1083: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1003: 999: 997: 993: 989: 985: 984: 983: 979: 975: 970: 967: 961: 958: 955: 950: 949: 948: 944: 940: 935: 930: 929: 928: 927: 922: 919: 916: 912: 909: 905: 900: 899: 895: 894: 891: 887: 883: 878: 874: 870: 867: 865: 863: 854: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 818: 814: 813: 812: 809: 805: 801: 797: 795: 792: 787: 786: 782: 772: 768: 764: 763:Albatross2147 759: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 710:Albatross2147 707: 703: 699: 698: 697: 693: 689: 688:Albatross2147 685: 681: 677: 676: 675: 671: 667: 663: 655: 647: 643: 639: 635: 634:Albatross2147 631: 627: 624: 623: 622: 618: 614: 610: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 582: 581: 580: 576: 572: 571:Albatross2147 568: 563: 560: 559: 551: 548: 546: 544: 536: 534: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 512: 509: 507: 505: 497: 493: 492: 490: 489: 487: 481: 478: 476: 474: 466: 465: 463: 462: 460: 454: 451: 449: 447: 439: 438: 436: 435: 433: 427: 424: 422: 420: 412: 411: 409: 408: 406: 405: 402: 401: 400: 399: 396: 393: 391: 389: 380: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 361: 358: 354: 351: 348: 344: 340: 337: 334: 330: 325: 324: 316: 312: 311: 306: 302: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 291: 289: 287: 275: 271: 267: 265: 261: 257: 252: 249: 245: 242: 238: 234: 227: 223: 215: 211: 207: 205: 202: 200: 197: 195: 193: 188: 187: 186: 185: 184: 182: 178: 176: 174: 168: 164: 163: 157: 153: 149: 144: 143: 133: 129: 125: 124: 120: 117: 115: 111: 107: 104: 101: 100: 99: 98: 94: 90: 86: 82: 79: 76: 72: 67: 65: 59: 56: 53: 51: 44: 42: 37: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3261: 3244: 3241: 3227:Nick Dowling 3218: 3205: 3204: 3188: 3187: 3172: 3165: 3164: 3152: 3150: 3130: 3124:User:BQZip01 3119: 3118: 3102: 3100: 3080: 3078: 3074: 3048: 3040: 3030: 3028: 3024: 3018: 2997: 2993: 2983: 2965: 2963: 2957: 2940: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2911: 2889: 2883: 2879: 2876: 2872: 2869: 2865: 2862: 2858: 2855: 2853: 2834: 2817: 2813: 2796: 2790: 2788: 2770: 2764: 2761: 2757: 2752: 2750: 2733: 2727: 2724: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2679: 2675: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2630: 2613: 2608: 2588: 2583: 2566: 2562: 2545: 2539: 2535: 2533: 2516: 2511: 2491: 2474: 2470: 2450: 2444: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2422: 2398: 2394: 2388: 2384: 2366: 2357: 2351: 2347: 2330: 2326: 2310:Panama Canal 2307: 2267: 2263: 2248:Prose issues 2243: 2232: 2216: 2212: 2207: 2178: 2129: 2093: 2076:section help 2054:lead section 2032: 2001: 1970: 1930: 1902: 1874: 1868: 1863: 1860: 1855: 1849: 1843: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1729: 1706: 1705: 1682: 1664: 1644: 1623: 1609: 1541: 1521: 1504: 1487: 1473: 1411: 1402: 1386: 1382: 1356: 1332: 1270: 1246: 1227: 1222: 1221: 1184: 1153: 1152: 1121: 1117: 1069: 1021: 1001: 968: 903: 897: 896: 876: 861: 859: 852: 816: 815: 799: 788: 784: 783: 757: 738: 734: 729: 725: 701: 661: 629: 625: 607: 603: 595: 587: 583: 561: 542: 540: 532: 530: 503: 501: 472: 470: 445: 443: 418: 416: 387: 385: 364: 349: 335: 326: 314: 308: 304: 285: 283: 279: 263: 256:weasel words 253: 240: 225: 221: 203: 198: 191: 189: 180: 172: 170: 166: 161: 159: 155: 151: 147: 145: 141: 139: 138: 131: 127: 118: 102: 84: 77: 71:SandyGeorgia 68: 64:previous FAC 62: 49: 47: 35: 28: 2952:Please see 2728:of the type 2642:Development 2600:Good point. 2236:this is not 1293:Development 1257:—Preceding 686:turned on? 254:Get rid of 2921:  2622:Addressed. 2591:WP:PEACOCK 2405:WP:PEACOCK 1944:verifiable 1302:References 851:Tom, I am 684:spellcheck 496:it is gone 218:  3210:Coemgenus 3176:<: --> 3170:Ruhrfisch 3134:<: --> 3128:Ruhrfisch 3060:TomStar81 2112:meta:cite 2015:edit wars 1806:TomStar81 1778:WP:MOSNUM 1527:TomStar81 1509:TomStar81 1492:TomStar81 1455:TomStar81 1438:TomStar81 1424:TomStar81 1312:TomStar81 1296:Scrapping 1247:Scrapping 1205:TomStar81 1138:TomStar81 1105:TomStar81 1087:TomStar81 1056:TomStar81 1007:TomStar81 974:Excalibur 939:TomStar81 882:TomStar81 831:TomStar81 817:Sustained 791:slinkyies 785:Objection 743:TomStar81 706:own goals 666:TomStar81 368:TomStar81 329:TomStar81 318:accident. 106:TomStar81 89:TomStar81 3031:featured 2923:between 2503:written. 2208:Not done 2155:Non-free 2147:captions 2094:Not done 1946:against 1903:Not done 1582:The Land 1554:The Land 1002:Illinois 904:Armament 662:Kentucky 353:contribs 339:contribs 305:courtesy 264:arguably 130:This is 81:contribs 50:promoted 3219:Support 3206:Support 3189:Support 3166:Support 3153:BQZip01 3120:Comment 3103:BQZip01 3081:BQZip01 3033:article 2966:BQZip01 2958:exactly 2914:WP:CITE 2805:Got it. 2765:with an 2401:WP:LEAD 2279:Raul654 2141:It has 1879:General 1774:Support 1770:Comment 1714:Raul654 1624:Comment 1568:Raul654 1522:Comment 1505:Comment 1488:Comment 1403:Comment 1383:Comment 1259:comment 1154:Support 1118:Support 988:Raul654 862:BQZip01 758:Comment 739:Montana 735:Montana 730:Montana 680:Firefox 626:Comment 613:Raul654 543:BQZip01 531:...and 504:BQZip01 473:BQZip01 446:BQZip01 419:BQZip01 388:BQZip01 343:BQZip01 286:BQZip01 2931:, use 2856:report 2760:built 2585:Japan. 2462:Design 2143:images 1844:Oppose 1689:(talk) 1651:(talk) 1542:Oppose 1422:much. 1290:Design 1190:Kaypoh 1185:Oppose 1038:Kaypoh 969:Oppose 898:Oppose 728:, and 562:Oppose 341:) and 260:WP:AWT 224:, use 119:Oppose 3175:: --> 3133:: --> 3041:could 2933:61 cl 2868:ROTC 2758:being 2753:-type 2682:WP:$ 2423:Like 1824:Woody 1787:Woody 1749:Woody 1679:Yes. 1365:garra 1357:My 2c 1299:Notes 1254:garra 1175:garra 1161:garra 957:garra 918:garra 911:garra 682:with 303:As a 226:61 cl 209:etc). 181:Vison 16:< 3231:talk 3197:talk 3064:Talk 2956:for 2929:61cl 2884:been 2870:unit 2655:VERY 2403:and 2376:you. 2362:hull 2298:talk 2283:talk 2255:Lead 2179:Done 2161:and 2149:and 2130:Done 2033:Done 2002:Done 1971:Done 1931:Done 1828:talk 1810:Talk 1791:talk 1753:talk 1738:talk 1718:talk 1683:Tony 1645:Tony 1632:talk 1610:talk 1586:talk 1572:talk 1558:talk 1531:Talk 1513:Talk 1496:Talk 1474:talk 1459:Talk 1442:Talk 1428:Talk 1412:talk 1391:Keer 1362:Gnan 1341:Keer 1316:Talk 1276:Keer 1251:Gnan 1232:Keer 1209:Talk 1194:talk 1172:Gnan 1158:Gnan 1142:Talk 1109:Talk 1091:Talk 1060:Talk 1042:talk 1011:Talk 992:talk 978:talk 954:Gnan 943:Talk 915:Gnan 908:Gnan 886:Talk 853:very 835:Talk 825:and 804:Keer 794:hoes 767:talk 747:Talk 714:talk 692:talk 670:Talk 638:talk 630:hulk 617:talk 575:talk 567:hulk 372:Talk 347:talk 333:talk 315:your 246:Per 235:Per 222:61cl 212:Per 132:more 110:Talk 93:Talk 75:talk 3027:is 3025:but 2925:all 2877:has 2863:the 2791:was 2445:any 2437:her 2433:her 2429:Her 2425:her 2215:is 2213:but 2194:). 1872:). 1867:... 1862:--> 1856:but 1781:it. 1671:004 1666:MBK 1663:) - 1605:RJH 1548:or 1469:RJH 1407:RJH 1395:ton 1393:lls 1345:ton 1343:lls 1280:ton 1278:lls 1236:ton 1234:lls 1230:.-- 1128:004 1123:MBK 1076:004 1071:MBK 1028:004 1023:MBK 808:ton 806:lls 262:. " 3233:) 3199:) 3151:— 3101:— 3079:— 3066:) 2964:— 2939:. 2880:is 2795:" 2704:in 2653:" 2300:) 2285:) 2165:. 2153:. 2078:); 1830:) 1812:) 1793:) 1755:) 1740:) 1720:) 1712:. 1634:) 1613:) 1588:) 1574:) 1560:) 1533:) 1515:) 1498:) 1477:) 1461:) 1444:) 1430:) 1415:) 1339:-- 1318:) 1274:-- 1226:- 1211:) 1196:) 1144:) 1111:) 1093:) 1062:) 1044:) 1013:) 994:) 980:) 945:) 888:) 877:my 860:— 837:) 829:. 802:-- 769:) 749:) 716:) 694:) 672:) 657:}} 654:cn 651:{{ 640:) 619:) 577:) 541:— 502:— 471:— 444:— 417:— 386:— 374:) 284:— 112:) 95:) 33:. 3229:( 3195:( 3179:° 3155:— 3137:° 3105:— 3083:— 3062:( 2968:— 2866:N 2852:" 2833:" 2812:" 2787:" 2749:" 2723:" 2698:" 2674:" 2649:" 2607:" 2582:" 2561:" 2540:, 2536:, 2532:" 2510:" 2490:" 2469:" 2421:" 2393:" 2383:" 2356:" 2346:" 2325:" 2314:" 2296:( 2281:( 2262:" 1986:. 1955:. 1826:( 1808:( 1789:( 1751:( 1736:( 1716:( 1630:( 1607:( 1584:( 1570:( 1556:( 1529:( 1511:( 1494:( 1471:( 1457:( 1440:( 1426:( 1409:( 1314:( 1207:( 1192:( 1140:( 1107:( 1089:( 1058:( 1040:( 1020:- 1009:( 990:( 976:( 941:( 884:( 864:— 833:( 765:( 745:( 712:( 690:( 668:( 636:( 615:( 573:( 565:" 545:— 529:" 506:— 475:— 448:— 421:— 390:— 370:( 350:· 345:( 336:· 331:( 288:— 232:. 190:" 167:H 162:. 160:, 156:) 152:( 108:( 91:( 78:· 73:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index