Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an article:

1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field).
4. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
7. Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
8. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).

Restrictions

1. An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
2. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.

Commenting

The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.

Demotion

If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators
	A-Class review		A-Class reappraisal
Closure takes place after minimum of five days	Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections	Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus	Keep • clear consensus to keep or • no consensus	Demote • clear consensus to demote
{{WPMILHIST}} on article talk page	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=kept	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=demoted • Reassess article and record new class
The MilHistBot will take care of the details. For detailed advice and manual procedure instructions see the full Academy course.

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

John S. McCain Sr.

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

John S. McCain Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The World War II admiral of Guadalcanal fame. "Slew" McCain and his son "Junior" McCain were the first father and son to become four-star admirals in the US Navy, although Slew's promotion was posthumous. (In fact, the only ever posthumous promotion to that rank.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D

This ACR seems malformed - the usual headings aren't in place.

This is a problem with our Template:WikiProject Military history. See Template talk:WikiProject Military history#A class preload boilerplate for deatils. MSGJ (talk · contribs) is working on it. In the meantime, I have added them manually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to offer the following comments focused on the World War II section, with the proviso that I'm going to be travelling without Wikipedia access for a month starting next week.

I only just got back from Poland and Paris. Have a great time! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• The material in the 'Mariana and Philippine campaigns' section explaining the system where the command teams alternated is a bit unclear - there's too much detail.

• This section is probably too long, which doesn't help readability.

• The engagement described in the final sentences of the para starting with "Task Group 38.1 sortied from Eniwetok on 29 August 1944" actually refers to the Formosa Air Battle, not raids on the Philippines.
• I'd suggest explaining the difference between a task group and a task force in the Third/Fifth Fleet
• It would be good to explain the nature of the relationship between Hasley and McCain. From memory, historians tend to note that they made a good team but had roughly the same blind spots.
• More broadly, the article doesn't really convey the importance of the role McCain held as the commander of the most important part of the most powerful naval force in the world in 1944-45 (yet almost always with a very strong minded commanding officer in direct control of this force).
• The para starting wit "After replacing the damaged ships" is a bit unclear, and doesn't really capture the fact that the Third Fleet was in the wrong place at the wrong time due to Halsey's misjudgements.
• I'd suggest noting the South China Sea raid
• The 'Okinawa campaign' campaign section seems overly brief and is a bit misnamed. It should also cover the series of attacks TF38 made against Japan in the last weeks of the war. Notably, McCain strongly opposed the Attacks on Kure and the Inland Sea (July 1945) and was probably right given the heavy casualties incurred attacking ships that the Japanese could no longer use due to fuel shortages.
• Did the British knight McCain in recognition of his collaboration with the British Pacific Fleet? Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Matterhorn logistics

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Matterhorn logistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As part of some work on Operation Matterhorn, I spun the section on logistics (my primary interest in it actually) off into its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

• Link to Salina (Sicily or Kansas, whichever one it is)?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Bishnupur (West Bengal)?

  Linked to Air Force Station Arjan Singh Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Louis Mountbatten?

  YLinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• "hangers": do we mean "hangars" here?

  Y Yes. Corrected.

• "a fuel pipeline to was": remove the "to"?

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• Link to FDR and Chiang Kai-shek?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• "25 Chinese yuan": provide inflation-adjusted value today?

  Y For the reasons stated in the article, and a few more, this is hard to quantify, but added it was worth about USD $1 in 2023. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Sichuan Province in the lead and body?

  Y Already linked in the lead. Linked in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• "19,000 sq. m.; 300,000 m3": convert to sq. ft. and cu. ft.?

  Y Seems a bit pointless, but added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Dutch East Indies and Palembang?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Wright Aerospace and Wright R-3550 Duplex-Cyclone on first mention?

  Y Linked Wright R-3550 Duplex-Cyclone on first mention

• Link to Oran?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• "An air echelons": "echelon" should be singular here?

  Y Yes. Changed to singular. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, adding my support. Matarisvan (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• All images have appropriate licenses (PD-USGOV).
• Suggest adding alt text. I could do it if you're ok with it. Matarisvan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Added alt text for all images, the image review is a pass now. Matarisvan (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Run the Internet Archive Bot on the page once?

  There are no dead references in the article, but ran the IABot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• All sources are from reliable publishers.
• Do any non-government, academic sources have any material we could add to the article? As of now we only have 5 of these. Have OUP, CUP, other university presses not published much on this topic? I don't mind it much, but this issue popped up at the Battle of Saipan FAC recently.

  I had no such problem with the Battle of Tinian. There is nothing on Matterhorn logistics specifically, but there are some books and articles about the B-29s in general, so I have added three additional sources.

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, excuse the double tagging. Anything in the following sources which may be useful? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Matarisvan (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks. Refs #3, #7, #13, #14, #20, #23, #30, #31: all ok. The source review is a pass, though you could consider including material from the 5 sources listed above and others like these. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The source review is a pass. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

HF

Hawkeye; I'm not seeing this listed at WP:MILHIST/ACR. I'll try to post a review by the end of the week. Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

Excellent work with this. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• I'd suggest noting the base in Ceylon in the lead

  It already says: "The creation of bases for the B-29s in India, Ceylon and China and their maintenance was a logistical undertaking of enormous magnitude and difficulty." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oops! I missed that Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd suggest briefly noting the debate over whether the B-29s should have been sent to India or Australia in the background section, especially as some work was done to upgrade bases at Darwin to accommodate them.

  Briefly mentioned this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• The background section could also note that Operation Matterhorn was seen as a gap filler until more efficient B-29 bases could be captured and brought into service in the Pacific; this helps to explain why such a logistically wasteful project was undertaken.

  That's what did happen; it is not what was intended at all. Added some details about why the operation was carried out.

• "Engineer-in-chief" - should the 'chief' be capitalised or 'engineer' decapitalised here?

  Decapitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Can anything be said in the Airbases section about how the Indian workers were recruited and what their experiences were? This section is currently heavily focused on the experiences of the Americans.

  I haven't got much, but I will add a little bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• The section on the base in Ceylon should note it was abandoned after a single raid (Operation Boomerang). The USAAF official history has a good quote on how wasteful this was that I used in that article.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• "And the contractors' personnel policies, if they can be so dignified, were blends of inefficiency and time-honored skulduggery." - it's not clear what this is in relation to?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Did the Japanese detect or attempt to disrupt the construction of airfields in India or China?

• I suspect that "cfowl" is a typo for cowl

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Adding assessments by historians would strengthen the 'End of Matterhorn' section. Chennault was right, but he was also self-serving and at times flaky so is a bit of an unreliable witness here. I imagine that historians have noted that while Operation Matterhorn was a colossal waste of resources it didn't really matter given the vast resources the US could call on. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have added an assessment by RAND that specifically targets logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - great work here. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

SPARS

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk)

SPARS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

I am nominating this article for A-Class on behalf of Pendright. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

SPARS is about the Women who served in the U.S. Coast Guard Women's Reserve during WW II. Created by the U.S Congress, it authorized the USCG to replace male officers and enlisted men with women at shore stations. Working with the top-secret LORAN project was its most unique assignment. LORAN was a land-based radio navigation system developed to monitor locations of ships at sea and aircraft in flight. Monitoring stations were able to calculate a ship's exact location by measuring the amount of time each signal took to reach a ship. Chatham, Massachusetts, was staffed by SPARS and believed to be the only all-female staffed monitoring station of its kind in the world. Pendright (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to review this soon. Please ping me if I haven't started in a week. Hog Farm _Talk 00:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• "when Executive order 8929 directed the Coast Guard to operate as part of the Navy" - it looks like Executive Order frequently has both words capitalized in sources

Upper cased - Pendright (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• "expedite the war effort by providing for releasing officers and men for sea duty and replacing them with women in the shore establishment of the Coast Guard and for other purposes. " - is this italicized portion a direct quote? If so, I think it would be clearer shown in quotation marks

Used iralics for emphasis:

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Italic type

Emphasis

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Emphasis

Italics are used for emphasis, rather than boldface or capitals. But overuse diminishes its effect; consider rewriting instead. With or without emphasis is fine with me. Pendright (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• "which was the Women's Reserve of the U.S. Navy" - I think this can be ommitted, since the prior paragraph has introduced the WAVES and the Women's Naval Reserve

Frankly, I see no real benefit in omitting it, or any real harm in not omitting it. The use of repetition in writing is not uncommon. There are no rules or prohibitions against the judicious use of repetition in article writing. Pendright (talk)

• "The legislation passed in late 1942, and was signed into law on November 23." - this has already been stated in the background section

Deleted in late 1942 Pendright (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• The article title is SPARS with all letters capitalized, but throughout the article it is consistently SPARs with the last letter lowercase

Explanation: In June 2024, at my request, the article was copyedited by the Guild of Copy Editors and the editor left this comment:

As part of my recent GOCE edit, I tried to unify the usage/formatting of the term "SPARS" (and variants). Looking through the sources revealed a variety of usage, even within articles produced by one organization (such as the USCG online newsletter "My CG", searching for articles tagged "SPARs" or "Spar"). So I made some choices, based on USCG usage, and came up with my own 'standard'.

Pendright (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

More to come later. Hog Farm _Talk 01:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Link Frank Knox?

Linked Pendright (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• " (Lt. (j.g.)—joined" - I think you're missing another closing paranthesis after the last one

Corrected: Lt. (j.g.) -> Lieutenant (junior grade) Pendright (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Standardize between MIT and M.I.T.

Fixed - MIT Pendright (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Is there anything that discusses why the SPARs were heavily from those sets of states? Was that the population centers in the 1940s, or was SPAR recruitment mainly focused in those areas?

These were the population centers at the time. Pendright (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• "she was still in active service with a complement of eight officers and 40 enlisted" - I'm not seeing here the 8 and 40 figure is coming from. This has 8 and 42

::Info-box: Complement ->

8 Officers

40 Enlisted Pendright (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! changed text, source, and citation info

Pendright (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC) Hog Farm _Talk 21:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Supporting although this is a subject that I don't really anything at all about, so this should be considered a surface-level review. Hog Farm _Talk 23:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Pendright (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments Reviewing by JennyOz

Placeholder for now... JennyOz (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pendright, sorry for delay, this is taking longer than I anticipated. (That's a testament to your engaging prose. I remember feeling likewise enchanted with WAVES.) I've added a few comments, a lot of naive questions really. I'll finish them tomorrow. Please don't feel any need to reply to each of my notes. Just use anything that is useful...

top

• add use ameng template
• add use mdy template

Good ideas! Pendright (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You decided not to add these? (You have them on WAVES) JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

<>Added - Pendright (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• File:SPARS - NARA - 515462 enhanced.jpg|thumb|alt=SPARS on parade in dress uniforms with the U.S. flag and that of the USCG|

SPAR recruitment poster used during World War II - remove line break between parameters

Thanks for the fix. Pendright (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

lede

• "Semper Paratus"—"Always Ready" - did you consider formatting this with the Latin language template ie as Semper Paratus ("always ready")? (I'm not necessarily suggesting that treatment in Stratton's direct quote later on)

No! Pendright (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand that exclamation. Does it mean No! you hadn't considered or No! you prefer not to format it? JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

<> Let me explain my No this way: You asked me this question, did you consider formatting this with the Latin language template ie as Semper Paratus ("always ready")? Thus, the NO. But after revisiteing the parenthetical part of your statement, (I'm not necessarily suggesting that treatment in Stratton's direct quote later on) I realized that, while unsaid, there is an implied suggestion to do it that I missed the first time around. So, now it's - Latin: Semper Paratu Pendright (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• and given the rank of lieutenant commander, - pipe link to Lieutenant commander (United States)?
• She was later promoted to captain. - pipe link to Captain (United States O-6)?

Both changed - Pendright (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• in the Biltmore Hotel - link Miami Biltmore Hotel?
• at MIT to monitor the location - I'd spell out that link ie Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). (There are many MITs around the world - to me, for example, MIT is the Melbourne Institute of Technology)

Both changed as requested - Pendright (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• the demobilization of SPAR personnel began. - do you want that line break there?

No, fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• this time as the USCG Women's Volunteer Reserve. - quotes instead of italics?

Sticking with italics - Pendright (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• approximately 200 of them reenlisting. - line break intentional?

No, fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

background

• This changed on November 1, 1941, when Executive Order 8929 - add issued by Pres FDR?
• allow women to serve in the USCG Reserve. [1] In - remove space before ref
• was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on November 23 - if you insert FDR per suggestion above, just use Roosevelt here?

All fixed - Pendright (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• in order to expedite the war effort by providing for releasing officers and men for sea duty and replacing them with women in the shore establishment of the Coast Guard and for other purposes. - is that verbatim ie should be in quotes rather than italics? (and prob needs ref directly following?)

Not verbatim Pendright (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, P3 of the USCG At War pdf has (in their own quotes) "expedite the war effort by providing for releasing officers and men for duty at sea and their replacement by women in the shore establishment of the Coast Guard, and for other purposes." So the only difference is the bit I underlined. I'm sorry but I don't understand why it's in italics. JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

<> Changed the italics to quotes. Pendright (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The director

• Dorothy C. Stratton (future director of the SPARs) had been - I'd leave the parenthetical hint out here. The heading is enough?

Removed - Pendright (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• She earned her M.A. degree from the University of Chicago and her PhD from - I think MA would be better here ie without dots per PhD for consistency (and per MOS:COMMONABBR)

Deleted - Pendright (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• encouraged Stratton to apply for a commission in the newly formed Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES) - it only has a shortened version just above, ie "Women's Naval Reserve" - maybe put full name at first mention, then here use WAVES? I'm a little confused sorry. The lede of WAVES has "United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve), better known as the WAVES (for Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service)" so is "Women's Naval Reserve" another alternative name ie needing the caps?

• Changed per comment - Pendright (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• If you read further, it will say -> known as the United States Naval Reserve from 1915 to 2005

• In her 1989 oral history article, Launching the SPARS, Stratton - add quotes around the article name per MOS:MINORWORK

Done - Pendright (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• the more nautical nickname of "SPARs" - ignorant as I am of military and naval terminology, I had to look up what is a spar to understand the nautical connection. You could add a link, something like (a spar is part of the rigging of a sailing vessel) maybe as a footnote?

Linked - Pendright (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Recruiting

• by the lack of SPAR personnel - initial lack of?

Done Pendright (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• SPAR recruitment information was sometime disseminated - sometimes? (or is that an EngVar thing?)

Went with customarily Pendright (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• former Women's Reserve officers Lyne and Arthur, they - I'd put their full names here ie Mary Lyne and Kay Arthur (especially considering Arthur sounds like a bloke)

former Women's Reserve officers -> I'd like to think this would answer any such questions? Pendright (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• During the two-year-effort - remove second hyphen

Fixed Pendright (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• one-fourth were rejected - a quarter or 25 percent?

Left Pendright (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• In her 1989 oral history article, Launching the SPARS, - quotes again around article name

Done Pendright (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Dorothy C. Stratton revisited the recruiting - just Stratton

Done - Pendright (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• She later became a Yeoman Third Class - pipe link to Yeoman (United States Navy)?

Done - Pendright (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Minority recruitment

• African American Women - lower case w in this heading
• were under the supervision of the Secretary of the Navy.[2] Frank Knox, the secretary, was vehemently - were under the supervision of the Secretary of the Navy,[2] Frank Knox, who was vehemently
• When Knox died in April 1944 - After Knox died

All fixed -Pendright (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thomas E. Dewey, criticized the administration for discriminating against African American women during a speech in Chicago - that's ambiguous? Thomas E. Dewey, during a speech in Chicago, criticized the administration for discriminating against African American women.
• African American women v African-American women, remove 2 x hyphenated for consistency?

There's still a hyphenated one in second para of Minority recruitment section JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

<>Removed - Pendright (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• black women recruits into their ranks. [8] In - remove space before ref
• In 2015, the U.S. Coast Guard honored 100 year old Olivia Hooker - add hyphens ie 100-year-old. Also, just Hooker?

All fixed - Pendright (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hispanic and Latino American Women - w
• who served in Washington, D.C. and New York - add geocomma after D.C.
• barracks in Long Beach, California. [26] - remove space before ref

All fixed - Pendright (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Native American Women - w
• No less than six women - at least six of the women recruited there were from...? Ie are you saying tribal nations women were specifically targeted for recruitment or were they six of all women recruited in Oklahoma?

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but needs tweak "At lesst six of all women" - lesst typo, swap "all" to 'the' JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

<>Corrected spelling and changed all to the - Pendright (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• June Townsend - rank?

Added - Pendright (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Officer training

• caption United States Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT - MOS:STATEABBR says not to use, change to Connecticut?

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is (WR) and (for the Women's Reserve) the same thing?

Removed - Pendright (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• would eliminate the need for further training - completely eliminate or minimise the need?
• in their civilian lifes, - life or lives or maybe this is another EngVar instance?

lives is the plural of life - Pendright (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Enlisted training

• at Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls, Iowa[40][41] But - insert full stop after Iowa

Done - Pendright (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Are those links to Biltmore Hotel intentional? ie as opposed to piping Miami Biltmore Hotel?

Linked text but mot image-Pendright (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• link trainer operators - are those, Link Trainer#World War II these? If so link and add caps?

Done - Pendright (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I blieve I have responed to all of the above comments - Pendright (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A little more to come, JennyOz (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JennyOz, any further comments to come from your end? Matarisvan (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pendright (and Matarisvan), I've been watching changes and will finish up tonight or tomorrow. Looking good! JennyOz (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added a five replies above. Sorry that I have to do this piecemeal. I'm down to Training. JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@JennyOz: Before I address your five points, let me say that you need not be sorry for the scheduling of your review. For my part, finish it as time permits. I'm grateful, as Wikipedia should be, that you would lend your time and talent to make SPARs a better article. Pendright (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment Pendright, made me feel less guilty! JennyOz (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

My five replies to your five replies - Pendright (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay Pendright, to speed things up, I've gone ahead and made some minor changes that I felt pretty sure about, rather than load up another long list of questions and comments. (I don't usually make changes myself in reviews. I know many reviewers do but I generally don't feel confident enough to do so.) I've explained the changes in edit summaries. Obviously, please undo any you don't agree with.

For the last bits I don't understand or suggestions, I'll add further comments here, hopefully tomorrow. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Pendright, my comments:

• "procurement... of personnel": "the recruitment" might be better than "procurement"?

@Matarisvan: Could you please identify for me the heading the above is referencing? If it's General recruiting efforts, which of the two procurements need fixing?

• We list Dorothy Tutte as the first woman enlistee in SPAR, do we know the first woman officer in the unit who did not transfer in from WAVES?

No, none of the sourcing used in the article tells us. Pendright (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• "The SPARs like the WAVES": "The SPARs, like the WAVES," may be better grammatically?
• "another part of training": add a comma after?
• "Oklahoma A&M University, Stillwater, Oklahoma": "Oklahoma A&M University in Stillwater, Oklahoma" may be better?
• "Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls, Iowa": "the Iowa State Teachers College in Cedar Falls, Iowa." may be better?
• Remove the link to Manhattan Beach in the Enlisted training subsection, since we have already linked it in the preceding subsection?
• Link to ionosphere and F region?
• Link Cape Cod?

All addressed - Pendright (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pendright, for the "procurement" phrasing, both occurrences need fixing, since personnel are not procured but recruited. Matarisvan (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed-with sentence verbiage still mirroring sources. Pendright (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I made this one pending change myself, so adding my support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the alt addition and review - Pendright (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• All images have appropriate Public Domain licenses.
• Suggest adding alt text for the LORAN chart.

Added - Pendright (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• All sources are from reliable publishers.
• For Johnson 1987, the spelling of the middle name should be Erwin, not Irwin. Also, consider linking to the article?

Corrected spelling - Pendright (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to Morris J. MacGregor?

? - Pendright (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Replace refs #26 and #27 with sfn tags, since we have listed the underlying web pages in the bibliography?

Replaced - Pendright (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Consider running the Internet Archive Bot on the page, since some refs are missing archive URLs?

Regrettably, the running of a Bot is not yet a part of my tool-kit—but I suspect that it is a part of yours.

• Add [6] as the URL for Lyne & Arthur 1946?

This is the URL in use now - Pendright (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Spot checks. Refs #9, #18, #25, #39, #43, #55, #66: all ok.

@Matarisvan: Except for a couple of questions, I believe I've addressed all of your source comments. Pendright (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pendright, the source review is a pass. The Internet Archive Bot is getting a lot of traffic now so I will run it tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: Thank you very much for your time and effort. Pendright (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Lockheed YF-22

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Steve7c8 (talk)

Lockheed YF-22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. I believe this article can be considered for A-class. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• GlobalSecurity.org is not considered a reliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY)
• The details in the Notes section require references
• Mullin (1992) is not used
• fn 53 and 58 say "William" instead of "Williams"
• Hehs, Mullin, Williams: location?
• I am not sure what issue Flight International (1990) refers to.
• fn 37, 45, 55: page numbers?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• That Global Security image is a direct scan from the print version of the Code One Magazine article written by Eric Hehs, I'll adjust the citation accordingly.
• I've added references in the second, more detailed note.
• I'll move that to additional reading, but it's sort of a shorter summary that Mullin would expand his 2012 writing on.
• Fixed.
• Code One Magazine is for Hehs is based in Fort Worth, Texas. Mullin's publication is by USAFA affiliated Mitchell Aerospace Institute based in Arlington, VA. Williams' book publisher is based in Norwalk, CT or London depending on distribution.
• Those are listed again under bibliography with the full citation, I've moved it to references as the more appropriate section.
• Page numbers have been added for the first two, the last one doesn't have a page number.

Steve7c8 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7, is the source review a pass now or not after Steve7c8's changes? Matarisvan (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. All good now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:YF-22A Advanced Technology Fighter.jpg, File:Two Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22s.jpg, File:YF-22 and YF-23.jpg, File:F-22 Raptor resumes flight testing - 030328-F-0000C-001.jpg, File:Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics YF-22 USAF.jpg - USAF images - PD in the United States - okay
• File:An air-to-air overhead view of the YF-22 advanced tactical fighter aircraft during a test flight DF-ST-92-09938.jpg - DOD image - PD in the United States - okay
• File:F-22 RFI.jpg - USAF image - a source would be nice
• File:Lockheed Faceted ATF.jpg, File:Lockheed Model 090P 300x172.jpg, File:Lockheed Boeing General Dynamics DemVal Proposal 300x359.jpg, File:F-22 design evolution 595 to 645 200x592.png, File:NATF-22 305x170.jpg - no-free image - has Fair Use rationale - okay
• File:YF-22 Lightning II "Rzuty" outline drawing.png - Wikipedian-generated image - PD - okay

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Steve7c8, saving a spot, will add comments soon. Also, if you could wikimail me the two sources required for the YF-23 article, that would be great. Matarisvan (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan, do you still intend on reviewing this article for A-class? Steve7c8 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Steve7c8, my comments:

• "The ATF would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon": Might "The ATF would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design" be better? "On the horizon" seems too embellishing.
• Link to air superiority fighter?
• Link to delta wings on first mention instead of second?
• Add a ref for notes 3 and 4?
• Link to Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and General Dynamics?
• Link to side looking airborne radar?
• "is a prototype air vehicle": "was" instead of "is"?
• "are spaced away from": "were" instead of "are"?
• "is applied to the airframe shape": "was" instead of "is"?
• "due to escalating cost and the design": Might "due to escalating cost and because the design" be better?
• Link to angle of attack on first mention instead of second?
• Link to radome?
• Add Federation of American Scientists as the website for ref #29?
• Consider removing ref #39, since no links for it are available?
• Add [https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=08890404&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA9371744&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs] as the link for ref #47?
• Add [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/04/24/lockheed-wins-huge-jet-contract/89170285-d2c6-4c36-bb23-74dfae672626/] as the link for ref #57 along with its archive URL?
• Add [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269064311_F-22_control_law_development_and_flying_qualities] as the URL for ref #62 along with the DOI listed there?
• Add archive URLs for refs #63 and #64?
• Link to Barton Gellman in ref #57?
• Link to Jeffrey K. Harris in ref #62?
• Add archive URLs for Hehs 1998, Mullin 2012, Mullin 2019?

Matarisvan (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of the changes and suggestions. Also, Federation of American Scientists wasn't the original publisher of the F-22 test pilot report, it was originally a paper presented at a Society of Experimental Test Pilots conference, and the FAS link is where it can be found. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem. Adding my support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Schierbecker

Hiking the AT. Connection may be sporadic. Apologies for any curtness or disorganization of replies.

• Lede should state that Lockheed was the prime.
• US or U.S.? Consistency needed.
• The distinction between WP:GENREF and "Additional sources" is not usually seen on well-developed articles. Might be better to merge the Bibliography and Additional sources.
• Personally my eyes tend to glaze over when an article contains too many dates. Maybe only mention the exact date if its important (and it's going to be on the test) Also does Halloween need to wikilinked?
• Would prefer less passive voice (e.g. not the Lockheed team was announced by Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice as the winner of the ATF competition.)
• delta wings and pilot-induced oscillation are wikilinked only on the second mention. wl "FY", "S-duct", "thrust-vectoring". YF119 and YF120 overlinked. Image captions could stand to have more wls. It isn't considered overlooking.
• Advise adding brief in-text description of the Packard Commission (e.g. that it was a commission of president Reagan.).
• "SR-71-like" needs an en dash per MOS:SUFFIXDASH
• Re: the accident: were any design issues identified and corrected as a result?
• Pratt & Whitney and General Electric had earlier been awarded contracts to develop the propulsion systems with the designations YF119 and YF120 Respectively? These engines were requirements for the selected aircraft? Furnished as government-furnished equipment? How and when was it determined to go forward with the YF119?
• Give nationality of SR-71/YF-12. Lockheed as designer seems relevant especially given that they proposed something like it.
• The top four proposals, later reduced to two, would proceed with Dem/Val. They selected four, then down selected to two? Who were the four? Or they had plans to select four contenders, but decided to only choose two?
• Because the requirement for flying prototypes was a late addition due to political pressure, awkward. consider rephrasing.
• The seven bids were submitted in July 1986. Were Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop, and McDonnell Douglas the only teams that submitted proposals? Which teams submitted more than one proposal? Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics each submitted a proposal or proposals? Article makes it sound like Lockheed was the only contractor that responded during the concept development. True? Mention that Lockheed developed the F-117.
• Sherman Mullin would credit the Lockheed proposal's system engineering volume for the top rank. confused about what this means. Mullin says Lockheed got the contract for its manufacturing capabilities? Implying Northrop did not?
• Having performed poorly during ATF concept exploration while also losing the ATB to Northrop who had a curved surface design, meaning more clear if this is split in two sentences.
• Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure Try: "Furthermore, under Congressional pressure, the U.S. Navy".
• Were there any differences in the stealth coating between the YF-22 and F-22?
• However, much of the scrutiny fell on Lockheed's Configuration 090P Scrutiny from whom?

Schierbecker (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Added statement that Lockheed is prime contractor
• Standardized on "U.S."
• As far as having two sections for generic references and additional sources, I think the latter is for works that's not directly cited in the body, but are useful further reading.
• I'll the importance of specific dates for other editors to judge, I personally don't think it's too cumbersome and having month and year is pretty generic, I feel.
• For PAV-2 crash, the issue is that the flight control system was immature and not ready for low-altitude demonstration flights. The YF-22s never flew after that and the F-22 air vehicle is also markedly different.
• The ATF engine effort was a separate parallel effort that pre-dated the ATF itself by a few years, and during Del/Val it was brought under the control of the ATF SPO. The ATF engine was also being competed which is why there were two YF-22s and YF-23s, one for each engine option. The winner of the engine competition would be announced alongside the ATF winner.
• The ATF SPO had originally planned to select 4 companies as finalists for Dem/Val, but this was judged too expensive and unnecessary, so they reduced it to two.
• I added the seven bidding companies as a note.
• System engineering, which involves your plans for conducting trade studies and requirements reviews, was an area that not many companies focused on at the time, but Lockheed did. It was only after being selected that the companies found out how much the ATF SPO valued system engineering plans in their proposals.
• Scrutiny on Configuration 090P from the design team.

Steve7c8 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• The ATF request for information (RFI) was sent out to the aerospace industry Passive voice. "The [SERVICE BRANCH] published the ATF RfI..." would be more appropriate.
• Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure eventually announced that it would use a derivative of the ATF winner to replace its F-14 Tomcat as the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) and called for the procurement of 546 aircraft. I take it that the Navy was reluctant to join the Air Force program? This could be more clear.
• "red-teamed" as a verb is confusing. Consider ways to rephrase. Alton D. Slay led the red team for Lockheed or the government? Not sure what "Systems engineering volume" means.
• stealth requirements were drastically increased passive voice again.
• [CITY] comma [STATE] comma.
• TBD. 173.243.167.206 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Fixed.
  • Yes, the Navy was somewhat reluctant to join NATF due to their experience with the TFX (F-111B) in the 1960s.
  • Alton D. Slay served as an independent consultant to "red-team", or pick holes, the proposal, which contains many volumes, including one for the systems engineering plan.
  • Fixed.

  Steve7c8 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Schierbecker, hope you're ok on the AT what with the ongoing hurricane. Whenever you're free and well, could you add any other comments you may have or your vote? Matarisvan (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe I addressed most of her feedback and incorporated some of the suggestions. That said (and I accidentally left this out in my earlier reply), for some of her points where she asked for additional context or clarification, I feel those fit better in the Advanced Tactical Fighter article where I did expand on them. Steve7c8 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steve7c8, I think you should wait for another reviewer since we need 3 supports for promotion and we have 2 now. Schierbecker might not be able to comment for some time since she is in Appalachia which was hit hard this hurricane season, hopefully she is ok and is in all likelihood not getting internet service. Matarisvan (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• Can we have a footnote for note 1? Also: since it is in the lead, it ought to be in the body somewhere
• "missileer" normally refers to a missile crew. I haven't seen it used this way before. Is it correct?
• "Lockheed's design team, lead by Bart Osborne under its Skunk Works division" -> "lead" should be "led". Also: "under" is awkward here; suggest "of" or "from"
• Link "supercruise", "thrust", "faceting", 'aerial refueling", "fleet air defense", "maiden flight", "radome"
• "radar range testing at Helendale, California" -> Parenthetical comma after "California".
• "resulting in engine thrust increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class" -> Delete "class"?
• "Due to Congressional pressure, the U.S. Navy joined the ATF program initially as an observer and in 1988 announced that it would procure a variant/derivative of the winning design as the NATF to replace the F-14." Hasn't this already been mentioned? Suggest moving "Furthermore, the U.S. Navy under Congressional pressure eventually announced that it would use a derivative of the ATF winner to replace its F-14 Tomcat as the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) and called for the procurement of 546 aircraft.[8]" down here. Also: what was the reason/rationale for this Congressional pressure?
• "The second YF-22A (PAV-2, s/n 87-0701, N22YX) with the P&W YF119 made its maiden flight on 30 October at the hands of pilot Tom Morgenfeld." -> Suggest "chief test pilot Thomas A. Morgenfeld"
• "the Lockheed design was also seen as more adaptable to the Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF)" -> "NATF" has already been introduced above, albeit with a different definition. Resolve this.

Looks very good. Only a few issues to resolve. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of the changes and suggestions. A few notes:

• I don't think the definition of faceting as defined in the main article is the same as for the design method for stealth aircraft.
• I'm not sure where to incorporate note 1 in the body, since it occurred well well into EMD, while this article primarily covers the Dem/Val phase.
• Missileer was how Lockheed described the CL-2016, per Hehs 1998.

Steve7c8 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Miyoshi Nagayoshi

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ahendra (talk)

Miyoshi Nagayoshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of the most underrated Japanese politician and warlord during Sengoku period. There are many modern historians reassessments about him now to points out his importance for his role during the end of Muromachi period Ahendra (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Ahendra, my comments. Please excuse my lack of usage of diacritics:

• Translate Shuri-dayu and Chikuzen no Kami?
• Mention the date of Nagayoshi's birth in the body as done in the infobox?
• Was he the governor of the Iga ikki, Iga province or Iga city in Mie prefecture?
• Does Hongan-ji here refer to the Hongan-ji shrine, Hongan-ji Nagoya Betsuin or Honganji-ha?

I will add more comments soon, this is a large article so it will take time to read through, I hope that is alright. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

hello.

Shūri-dayū, (i believe its mistranslation from someone translation, it should be Shuri-no-daifu) is etymologically senior assistant minister of justice. a position from Archaic Japan Empire office. Chikuzen no Kami is literally "lord of Chikuzen" its kind like noble titles

gonna do that

Iga Province obviously, Iga ikki was not officially recognized by the central government.. in this case by Emperor and Shogunate

Hongan-ji during Nagayoshi reign was more like umbrella term for entire Jōdo Shinshū followers here. as the split between west Hongan-ji (Higashi Hongan-ji) and east Hongan-ji (Nishi Hongan-ji) as the sect were more institutionalized were occured later in Edo period. other than that. i have not much knowledge about them, except of their rebellion activities during Onin war until Sengoku period Ahendra (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

USS Texas (BB-35)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)}

USS Texas (BB-35) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#USS Texas (BB-35) A-Class reappraisal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

For ease of reading the concerns raised by voorts were as follows:

• A1: The citation style is inconsistent. There are refs (including some bare URLs) mixed in with {{sfn}}s. Some claims are cited to irreputable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71) and primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
• A2: The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources. It also lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024. Additionally, given the sourcing issues, the article may not be factually accurate.
• A3: The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with "unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources". Unnecessary detail is when an article goes off on a tangent and becomes for a time about something other than the topic. Use of primary sources is acceptable, and so long as they are about the subject, is not unnecessary detail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. It's not always true that primary source use leads to unnecessary detail. But, if secondary sources haven't covered an aspect of something, there might be a WP:BALASP issue if primary sources are overused. Here, 18 out of the 116 (or ~16% of) references are to primary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have initiated work on this article. I have finished the biblio formatting and hope to get this rewrite done soon, hopefully within a month from now. Matarisvan (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D

I'll be travelling for a month without Wikipedia access from the end of this week, so will only comment (mainly on the World War II section which I'm most competent to comment on) rather than vote on whether the article should be delisted. My comments are:

• The DANFS references should be replaced as it's no longer considered to be a reliable source. It should be straightforward to do this for an article on a very famous battleship.
• The multiple notes and citations in the lead are undesirable, and the notes are unreferenced
• There's too much detail on the current restoration work on the ship in the lead
• The construction section should cover the context in which the ship was ordered (e.g. why was the USN ordering battleships at this time? What role were they intended for? Was Texas ordered as part of a broader program, etc)
• "At that point in the war, the doctrine of amphibious warfare was still embryonic. Many Army officers did not recognize the value of prelanding bombardments. Instead, the Army insisted upon attempting a landing by surprise" - I don't think that this is correct, and illustrates the limitations of DANFS. The US Army was hoping that the French in North Africa wouldn't fight and didn't want to fire the first shots as a result. This was a largely successful strategy.
• "Texas was one of only three U.S. battleships (Massachusetts and New York) that took part in Operation Torch" - this doesn't read well, and "only" is a bit odd given that three battleships is rather a lot!
• I'm not sure if the para on Walter Cronkite is needed: this is much more significant to the article on the journalist than that on this ship.
• Why was Texas still escorting convoys through the North Atlantic in 1943 and 1944? The Royal Navy had largely ended the use of battleships for this purpose in the North Atlantic by this time as the remaining German surface fleet was focused on Norway and the convoy routes to the Soviet Union.
• The 'Rehearsal' section would benefit from a trim and a better title
• The 'Battle of Cherbourg' section doesn't really say what the outcome of this engagement was
• It would be good to say more about the experiences of the ship's crew
• The '1988–1990 dry dock period' section is too detailed
• The 'Dry berth project' section seems over-long
• Ditto the 'Leaks' section Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)