This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wwoods (talk | contribs) at 21:53, 13 April 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:53, 13 April 2004 by Wwoods (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)An event in this article is a March 27 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
This looks sad indeed by comparison with Royal Navy entry
Yes, indeed, nothing of the history of the navy, growth of US sea power, current strength, role in the current global conflicts. And what is here is poorly organized. lots of good stuff on individual vessels and types, but nothing to tie it all together. I know this is weak, but I really don't know enough to fix it. It's a job for a gob. Ortolan88 May 02.
Looking at it with an eye to the 3/27 featuring, it seems that the submarine warfare is disproportionately detailed and technical, should be replaced with a 2-paragraph summary and the full details go elsewhere (not sure of good article title tho). To some extent, this article is itself a "Main Page" for things watery, so its emphasis should be more on leading readers to in-depth articles of most interest, rather than being the repository of all in-depth material. Stan 07:25, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Um, the picture of the Monitor vs. the Virginia was supposed to illustrate "During the American Civil War, the Navy was an innovator in the use of ironclad warships,...". That seems like a reasonable subject for a picture, though maybe a bigger one, say 300 px, would be better. --wwoods 21:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)