Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Mahan (DD-364)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

USS Mahan (DD-364)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because: Mahan was the lead ship of the Mahan-class destroyers. Commissioned in 1936, her design incorporated a number of betterments over previous destroyers. She took part in several major Pacific campaigns. In 1944 Japanese suicide planes overwhelmed Mahan in the Philippine Islands, where the ship was abandoned and sunk by a US destroyer. This article passed GA review in January 2014, and has since undergone some changes. Thanks to those who might find the time to review the article. Pendright (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Pendright (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC):

Support Comments: G'day, just a couple of quick suggestions from me at the moment: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • in the lead, I suggest tweaking the first sentence: "USS Mahan (DD-364) was the lead ship of the Mahan-class destroyers in the United States Navy" --> "USS Mahan (DD-364) was the lead ship of the United States Navy's Mahan-class destroyers."
Done - Pendright (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • in the References, what is the title of the wider work that "Chapter 1" is a part of?
Chapter 1 - U.S.S. Mahan D. D. #364 is the actual title of the work. It’s the personal log of Paul Fleshman, who served aboard Mahan from September1938 until August 1944. - Pendright (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've tweaked the ref to add the extra bibliographic details. Please check you are happy with the edit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Very good, thank you. Pendright (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Miller is listed in the References, but not used as a citation. I suggest either adding a citation to it, removing it, or adding it to a Further reading section;
The information related to Miller was removed from the article something ago, but I did not, obviously, remove Miller as the source. It has now been removed from the references. Thank you! - Pendright (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • if possible, I suggest cropping the images to remove the captions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I’m not sure I fully understand the suggestion. Pendright (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
G'day, sorry, I'll try to clarify. I'm suggesting that the text be removed from the image file so that all is left is the picture of the ship itself. For instance, in relation to File:USS Mahan 24 June 1944.jpg I'd suggest removing the text that appears in black and white at the top of the image – "Photo # 19-N-67752: Closeup view of USS Mahan, at the Mare Island Navy Yard, 24 June 1944" – and placing that text on to the image description page. I suggest similar action for File:USS Mahan bow 1944.jpg. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if it might be possible to remove the stamp digitally rather than simply cropping it, since that would produce a rather thin photo. @Adam Cuerden: might be able to answer this. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Very easily doable for the top label, but the bottom label will be a substantial amount of work; any chance we could get a higher-resolution image before I start? It's pretty much the same amount of work, but larger works better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd assume the photo is in NARA's holdings - we have a Wikipedian in residence who works there and might be able to lend us a hand. I'll ask him. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I am traveling right now (for Wikimania), but when I get back I'll pull [1], [2], and any Mahan photos I can find in [3] and see if there is anything I can do to have them digitized. Dominic·t 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that you'd be attending Wikimania ;) Thanks very much! Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Can you post on my talk page once they are digitized, please? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Adam, Parsecboy: I got back yesterday, and I found many photos of Mahan. I have uploaded the higher-resolution images scanned by myself of the image above, the photo it comes from (it is a slight crop), and three other photos of the ship. See below. I can't digitize a whole box, but let me know if there is a specific view you want me to go back and look for if these aren't enough. Dominic·t 18:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dominic: This is amazing. It might be nice to have File:USS Mahan 24 June 1944.jpg and File:BB South Dakota.jpg if NARA has them - which are the other two illustrations on the page - but this is amazing, and I'm going to start right now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I can get those, but won't be able to upload them until Monday. I actually had that first one in my hand earlier today. But I am out of the office through Sunday for a conference (including leading a Wikipedia editing workshop for archivists). Dominic·t 20:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dominic: No worries. It'll probably take me a bit to get the current ones done, anyway. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't know if you've noticed, Adam, but the 3rd photo is the uncropped version of the lead image - that would be nice to have cleaned up a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have indeed. I'm thinking Second, third, then any others I'm asked for, plus the remaining two images from the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "A US destroyer sank Mahan with torpedoes and gunfire" --> would it be possible to add a quick explanation as to why as this seems slightly counter-intuitive? I assume that this was done for a couple of reasons, possibly including the fact that if she remained afloat sensitive equipment could be captured/taken off her, and also that while floating she posed an obstacle to other ships transiting the area. I'm a footslogger, though, so I'm only guessing. Your explanation wouldn't have to be too long. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2014 (UT)
Done - The addition is short but I believe accurate. Pendright (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • It seems rather abrupt to jump from fleet training in 1937 to the Japanese striking at Pearl Harbor. Could you add some context for non-experts? Maybe a line or two about rising tensions between the US and Japan by 1941 and Japan's decision to launch a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and other targets.
Context added, with citation - Pendright (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Revised context - Pendright (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I reworked it a bit more, how does that look to you? Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice improvement - thanks! Pendright (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "En route to Noumea, New Caledonia, a Japanese submarine contact caused the battleship South Dakota and the destroyer Mahan, under Commander R. W. Simpson, to collide" - I think this should be reworded for a few things:
    • First, it might be better to separate Mahan's new commander from the collision - you might say something like "By [late 1942, or whenever he took command], Captain R. W. Simpson had taken command of Mahan."
    • It might need to be spelled out a little more - we both know that a submarine contact is a bad thing that forces one to take evasive maneuvers, and that's what caused the collision, but I'd wager that some won't. I also think it would be better to write about the collision more from the perspective of Mahan, since she's the subject of the article. Maybe something like: "En route to Noumea, New Caledonia, a Japanese submarine contact caused the American ships to take evasive action. In the confusion, Mahan and the battleship South Dakota collided; both ships were seriously damaged."
    • It would also be helpful to give the specific date of the collision - I assume it happened directly after the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands?
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The ships returned fire, shooting down eight of the ten planes; the remaining two escaped." - I assume without having scored any hits? It might be good to make that explicit.
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Japanese struck forcibly..." - would "forcefully" be a better word?
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made a few small changes, please check them to make sure they're ok. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 :(UTC)
Very good, thank you! Pendright (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments
  • For the image in the "Armament" section, it would be good to describe what is in the image, because there is a lot of armament shown, but it isn't even touched on even though it is in the "Armament" section. Furthermore, it might not even be a bad idea to maybe reword it so that it doesn't imply that it is the entire ship.
Changed per your comments. Pendright (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Throughout the text, you should have "|alt=" for all of the images, to assist persons who are unable to see the images.
  • I've gone ahead and added alt text to the images. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Vanquished at Lae..." I would suggest neutralizing the wording here in the text so that it doesn't read so dramatically.
Changed the word to defeated - Pendright (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "...before returning to the South Pacific to perish" Sounds a little ominous, and I don't think that it really belongs in the article because it feels like wording that should be in a book.
Removed the words to perish - Pendright (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I would suggest renaming "Fate" to something like "Sinking", per the above rationale.
Renamed Sinking _ Pendright (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Eplilogue" section also feels a bit like a book, so I am thinking that this could be reworded or just merged into the above section, since there really isn't much that makes it a separate section other than the quote.
Deleted the Epilouge section and included a reference to it in the Sinking section. Pendright (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • These are my comments for now, and I will add any more as I see fit. Otherwise, it's a good article, and I would have no problem supporting it in the near future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • In light of the above changes, I Support this nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.