The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:02, 7 August 2014 [1].


Mahan-class destroyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Pendright

The 18 Mahan-class destroyers incorporated notable improvements in design over their predecessors, including advanced propulsion machinery, more torpedo tubes, and superimposed gun shelters. They served in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. A few of them were devastated by the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, and others escaped unharmed. In the South Pacific, some of them took part in campaigns to retake the Santa Cruz Islands, New Guinea, Guadalcanal, the Philippine Islands, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and others. Ultimately, six of them were lost in combat, two were expended in postwar tests, and the remainder were eventually sold or scrapped. Together, the class earned 111 battle stars for their service in the war. This article just passed an A-class review.

In World War II, I served aboard USS Mahan and Cone. My tour of duty took me to the South Pacific and Europe from 1943 to 1946, when I was honorably discharged. Thanks to those who might find the time to review the article.

Pendright (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. This review was only transcluded to the FAC list on 1 July 2014. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking. I got rid of a few "spring"s, in one case substituting "April", which isn't stated but is strongly implied by the source. Please check whether you agree with this. WP:SEASON is good guidance that we shouldn't use seasons to denote times, unless the season is important (Autumn harvest etc). Examples like Hawaii are in places where (I believe) there are no seasons to speak of. Captions which aren't sentences don't need periods. I added the propulsion system to the lead. Looking good so far. I am looking forward to properly reading it. --John (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much John. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I agree with the substitution change. I’m on board with spring and summer and your point about captions is well taken.
However, an explanation is necessary about the sentence in the lead that contains your addition. This has been changed several times since my original version and now reads: “The Mahans were the first of many new destroyers to use steam turbines, a new propulsion system that was cheaper, faster and more efficient than reciprocating engines.” It should read: “The Mahans were the first destroyers to use a new propulsion system that was cheaper, faster, and more efficient than their predecessors.” I should have been more vigilant about the changes. A look at the last paragraph of the article’s Design section and the entire Construction section will help clear this up. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't you mention the propulsion system in the lead, if it's important? --John (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your question correctly, I did think it important enough to mention in the lead. My original wording (still intact 2 February 2014, passing GA status 15 December 2013) said: “The class introduced a new propulsion system that changed the technology for future wartime destroyers.” Although short, it seemed to meet the requirements of the WK: Manual of Style/Lead section, serving as an introduction and summary of an important aspect of the article. Pendright (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better to actually state the type of propulsion in the lead. --John (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have done so with that idea in mind. BTW, thank you for all the various fixes. Pendright (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sold or scrapped? --John (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both, according to DANFS - Pendright (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As a general comment, the article repeatedly refers to 'Auckland, New Zealand' - I think that the country only needs to be specified once. There are also other redundant geographical terms sprinkled through the article. As more specific comments, having so many ship histories is a real challenge for this article, and I'm not sure that they're up to FA standard at present. My comments on this section of the article are:

These were Japanese suicide aircraft. True, the word squadron has many meanings and may not be a good fit here. So, I substituted “a group of Japanese suicide aircraft” instead. In Kamikaze, Raymond Lamont-Brown notes (pp. 63-64) that the Kamikaze was organized into units, and deployed on a “standard best ratio” sortie formulation of five Kamikaze, three to attack and two escort aircraft. Group seizes could vary, depending on circumstances. Pendright (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added context - Pendright (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
US 3rd Fleet - fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assisted was my word of choice. The source actually says Drayton took part in the search, which is to say she participated in it. Pendright (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by John 1 June 2014 - Pendright (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You’re correct: regain is not the appropriate word here. I substituted, gain possession of - Pendright (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rohwer and Cressman both mention the sinking of Cushing, but nothing else. Roscoe describes the torpedo incident in some detail, which Is the source used. Pendright (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. And thanks too for recognizing the challenge of working with 18 individual ship summaries. Pendright (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes all look good to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, great to see a Wikipedia editor who was actually there! Brigade Piron (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and kind words. Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - only one photo needs to be addressed:

Please do, that would be very helpful - Pendright (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want to use the camouflage one? Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks! Pendright (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! - Pendright (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For my clarification, are you saying to weave a reference of each of these battles into the lead and then link them at that point? Pendright (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of "All 18 ships saw action in World War II, entirely in the Pacific Theater of Operations, including during the battles of Coral Sea, the Guadalcanal campaign, Leyte Gulf, [and anything else you want to include]. Their participation in major and secondary campaigns included the bombardment of beachheads, amphibious landings, task force screening, convoy and patrol duty, and anti-aircraft and submarine warfare."
And then "Six ships were lost in combat and two were expended in the postwar Operation Crossroads nuclear tests" or something like that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good! Pendright (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - please look it over - Pendright (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Subject to review, I believe I’ve cleaned up the items in question – except the one for DANFS. The term is unfamiliar to me, so would you be kind enough to explain it further. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of the work parameter for the DANFS entries. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Pendright (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning support. I tend to review these as a person who is unfamiliar with ships that don't have a Lido Deck, but I can't resist the FAC nominating statement ... thank you for your service ... a few quibbles ...
Lede
  • "Rear-Admiral" are you certain on the hyphen? Further ahead, you refer to Rear Admiral Daniel Barbey sans hyphen.
Hyphen removed from Rear Admiral - Pendright (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including during the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Battles of Santa Cruz Islands, Leyte Gulf and Iwo Jima." there seems to be a missing "and" before "the Battles". Which I'm not sure should be capitalized.
Inserted the word and - Pendright (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it’s worth, my notion for using upper case was the word Battles refers to official place names. Pendright (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, I have been inconsistent in using upper and lower case for the word battles. In my above comment, I hung my hat on upper case for the reasons stated. However, if you have something more to the point let me know and I’ll fix the inconsistencies. Thanks!
Pendright (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Substituted battles for Battles - Pendright (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Design
  • "to accommodate No. 3 gun ahead of No. 4." I think you should probably make clearer that No. 3 was moved, not eliminated, that all five guns were retained (I only was certain of this once I consulted the infobox). I take it that this is the subject of "This required relocating one 5"/38 gun to the aft deckhouse." a few lines down? This should probably be consolidated.
Done - If the changes are not what you had in mind, please let me know. Pendright (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The traditional destroyer machinery was replaced with a new generation of land-based machinery" can an example of the replaced machinery be given?
Done - Pendright (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the tripod foremast" suggest "their" replace "the" to keep the focus on the ships and avoid the change of subject.
Done - Pendright (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Displacement increased to 1,500 tons from 1,365 tons." this should probably be merged into the statistics in the next paragraph. I see the 1,500 figure is there already (properly with convert template)
  • Consider cropping the image at the foot of the infobox to remove the caption.
Armament
  • "twelve 21-inch torpedoes" I see a link in the infobox to that armament article. I would put one here as well.
Dome -Pendright (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dunlap
  • If most naval historians don't consider them a separate class, then is the word "class" properly applied to them? I should, as a textual note, try to reduce the use of the word "class" in the first sentence by the way.
A review of the source I used actually says some sources, not many sources as I stated. The publication has no further comment about these sources. I changed many to some, which would seemingly solve the matter. Pendright (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Construction
  • Was the propulsion system based on those used in the passenger liners? If so, then the technology was available to the US Navy, wasn't it? If so, then I would change the phrase to "used in the US Navy" or similar, as well as state that the basis of the technology was the system used in the Gibbs liners.
Some background – Traditionally, US Navy propulsion systems had been built by the Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Company, a British engineering company, who had a lock on US Navy propulsion systems. But in the early 1930s, the US Navy General Board decided it was time to change the propulsion systems for future classes of destroyers. In time, he board came up with new prototypes incorporating a new generation of destroyer machinery. This was a move away from the conservative characteristics of Parsons and major shipyards, and a move towards new developments in land based machinery by such firms as GE, Westinghouse, and Allis-Chalmers. This machinery was simpler and far more efficient than the old. The major builders were unwilling to abandon their traditional practices, and Steam Engineering looked elsewhere for design of new plants. Gibbs and Cox made a considerable impression with the design of a class of liners for the Grace Line, built by Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Corporation of Kearny, New Jersey. By contracting with small builders who did not build their own turbines, the Navy was able to encourage the incorporation of the new marine engineering technology – Gibbs and Cox proved to be the instrument of change. SOURCE: US DESTROYERS by Norman Friedman. This seemed like the best way to respond. If questions remain, please let me know. - Pendright (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ships in class
  • Conyngham "destroyed by sinking" is there a more artful way of putting this?
The source used, DANFS, simply says she was destroyed by sinking. I have over a dozen publications on destroyers; none of which go beyond 1945, except two or so that deal with design history. The Wikipedia article on Conyngham says she was destroyed by sinking on 2 July 1948 off the California coast. No citations or references to cob orate. Pendright (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to locate under Shaw? Pendright (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, it was in the table. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Service history--Cummings
  • "Trincomalee, Ceylon ... Sabang, Indonesia" watch for consistency in whether you refer to places by WWII-era or modern names. For example New Guinea/Papua New Guinea
Good point - thank you. Pendright (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ship operated off Okinawa during its invasion" What standard are you using to decide if battles referred to in the text should be piped to?
Not a consistent one! Fixed - Pendright (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flusser
  • "Hollandia Jayapura" You referred to this place using parentheses for the second name before. Later on, you refer to it just as "Hollandia". Not saying any of this is necessarily wrong, just drawing it to your attention.
Thank you, - Pendright (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Case
  • " Ponape Island" link?
Done - Pendright (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following repairs at Saipan, she patrolled between Saipan " I would replace the second Saipan with "there".
Done Pendright (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conyngham
  • "battle of Midway Island" definitely worth a link.
Linked under Case - Pendright (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by adding new material - Pendright (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cassin
  • "She reported to Pearl Harbor in April" Wasn't she already there?
Added new sentence and citation: She was salvaged and towed to the Mare Island Navy Yard and decommissioned. Pendright (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prisons of war from Japan." presumably prisoners.
Corrected spelling - Pendright (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Smith
  • "Battle of Santa Cruz". By a majority of five to three, you call this the "Battle of Santa Cruz Islands", although with one of the minority, you do not capitalize battle. Please check.
Upper cased the Battle of Santa Cruz in Mahan, Conyngham, and Preston sections. Also upper cased Battle of Midway in Conyngham section. Pendright (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nagasaki Harbor, Kyushu, Japan, in August 1945" I guess what I'm wondering is if there's anything to be said about Nagasaki's atomic bombing (I realize the ship did not participate in that, but it was plainly there soon after).
Frankly, there is nothing to be said - because the bombing is not relevant to the history of the ship. Pendright (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second thoughts: Another look at the Smith text suggested that some of it needed reworking. While doing so, I included a reference to the Nagasaki bombing. Pendright (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preston
  • "Afterward, the ship rolled onto her side and sank" I would strike the word "Afterward," Plainly it didn't happen before.
Removed - Pendright (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fanning
  • "Doolittle raid on their air strike against Tokyo." Are you sure on the plural?
Changed their to the - Pendright (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Munda Island" link?--
Linked - Pendright (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A short stay in the hospital took me offline for a time. Thank you all for your patience. Pendright (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe each of your comments has a response. Should any of the responses need additional work, I stand ready to do whatever is necessary.
Thank you for reviewing the article. Thanks too for your patience and kind words about my past service. Pendright (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Given Wehwalt's "leaning to support" and Pendright's conscientious effort to address all comments, I think we can safely promote the article now -- thanks all for your participation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More