Talk:USS Mahan (DD-364)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist
 * Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
 * Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Comments: This is a well-written article, but I do have some concerns that need to be addressed before passing. First the prose:
 * Disambig links:OK
 * Reference check: 1 issue
 * 1) uboat.net: USS Mahan  (info) [uboat.net] - 403 Forbidden
 * 2) Link deleted. Pendright (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The second USS Mahan (DD-364) " - What's the first Mahan? Is this relevant?
 * 1) The words first and second are informational at best, and are not relevant to the subject(s) at hand. The word second has been removed. Pendright (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Mahan was disabled by the attack, abandoned and sunk by a US destroyer." Too much in this sentence for clear context. Possible confusion with friendly fire.
 * 1) Mahan was disabled by the attack and abandoned. She was on fire and exploding; nothing could be done to save her. A US destroyer sank Mahan with torpedoes and gunfire. Pendright (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "She was powered by General Electric geared steam turbines," I'd put "powered by two General Electric..." just for clarity. Trivial if not.
 * 1) Done  -   Pendright (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Mahan was built by United Dry Docks (successor to the Morse Dry Dock and Repair Company) in Staten Island, New York. Her keel was laid down on 12 June 1934 and she was launched on 15 October 1935, sponsored by Kathleen H. Mahan (the admiral's great-granddaughter)." Needs inline cite.
 * 1) Done  -  Pendright (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The ship departed for Caribbean and South American ports within two months of her commission, combining her initial training and shakedown cruise with a goodwill tour. She remained in the Atlantic until July 1937, then headed to the Southern California coast for fleet training before steaming to her new station at Pearl Harbor." Inline cite
 * 1) Done  -  Pendright (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Fully repaired, Mahan left Pearl Harbor on 9 January 1943 for the South Pacific. In subsequent months she escorted convoys between New Hebrides and the Fiji Islands, performed patrol assignments off New Caledonia, and engaged in operations in Australian waters.[9] By August her base of operations was Milne Bay, New Guinea, one of two staging areas (Buna, Papua New Guinea, was the other) to retake the Japanese-held northeast coast of New Guinea. " - Inline cite please
 * 1) Done  -  Pendright (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Vanquished at Lae, the Japanese pulled back to Finschhafen (chosen for the next attack on New Guinea by the American-Australian offensive). On 21 September an assault force under Barbey left Buna, New Guinea, (escorted by US destroyers) and stopped at Lae to pick up an Australian infantry brigade. Additional US destroyers were attached to the force, preceding the convoy to the rendezvous point. On 22 September, before daylight, the amphibious force stormed the beach at Finschhafen; by noon, all troops were ashore. As the destroyers began to withdraw from the area ten Japanese torpedo planes winged across the water, targeting Mahan and five other US destroyers. The ships returned fire, shooting down eight of the ten planes; the remaining two escaped." - pepper with inlines because they are very specific claims.
 * 1) Done – Added four new citations and changed the reference of the fifth citation.  Pendright (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "On 14 December 1943, the amphibious force led by Barbey mustered at Buna, New Guinea, in preparation for the landing at Arawe, New Britain. With it was a bombardment group, composed of Mahan and four other US destroyers. Setting sail on the 14th, the force dropped anchor off Arawe early the next morning and Mahan and her sister ships bombarded the Japanese shore defenses at the main landing point. The shelling from the 5"/38 guns and the bazooka-fired rockets sent the Japanese into retreat, and by mid-morning the beachhead was secured. Christmas 1943 found Mahan steaming with Barbey's amphibious force to Borgen Bay, near Cape Gloucester, New Britain. The entrance to Borgen Bay was risky, with uncharted waters; Mahan and Flusser were picked to sound out the channel and mark the way. They moved through the channel, with two minesweepers laying buoys in their wake. The force shadowed the buoys, and made its way through the passage." - Again, because it is so specific.
 * 1) Done - added four more inline citations.  Pendright (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Mahan's fate was set in motion in" - I don't like this, borderline editorializing, right?
 * 1) Fixed - Pendright (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Mahan had met her Waterloo at the Battle of Ormoc Bay" - The waterloo comment is not necessary.
 * 1) Fixed - Pendright (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope I have satisfactorily addressed your concerns. If not, I stand ready to do so. Thank you for reviewing the article. Pendright (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Now with those little issues out of the way, I'd like to ask about the commanders of the ship. They are seemingly absent, but the Navsource page does list them. Would it be appropriate to work them into the article? I think it would be a nice touch, but this is up to you. It doesn't meet or break the GA criteria and I could probably pass it without issue, but these fixes will make it that much better. Going to place this on hold now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree, it would be a nice touch. And I’d be willing to give it a try.  In my experience at Wikipedia, albeit limited, the destroyer articles I’ve come across never or seldom integrate skippers into articles.  So to get off on the right foot, could you refer me to a few ships that have?  Pendright (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really active at Milhist, but I go by the rule of thumb that if it is reliably sourced and relevant to the article that it be included. A quick infobox containing its command and wedged in somewhere is completely optional, but I can't fail this for not having something like that. I just think it serves as a better article for its inclusion - even in plain prose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've give the infobox idea a shot - thanks! Pendright (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Second thoughts - The idea of the ship infobox is to provide a standardized template for general characteristics and career information. See Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide. In practice, this seems to be pretty much the case. For my part, this would preclude the use of an infobox for listing ship commanders.

As you stated, there is no requirement that a destroyer article include all of its former commanding officers. From what I gather, this notion is widely held. I also gather that some editors use the Cos whom they believe notable, and work them into the text. (I believe the word notable is a subjective one, much like the word relevant.)

I see two choices to accommodate your suggestion: work the notable commanders into the text (the ones that served during the war), or establish a new section in the article called Commanding Officers, under which would be listed the COs. Pendright (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Its really up to you, I don't worry to much about such things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I opted for the wartime commanders. The skippers who had served aboard Mahan during World War II have all been worked into the article: Commander J. B. Waller, the first skipper, is mentioned in the opening paragraph of the Construction and service section. Pendright (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Commander R. W. Simpson, Construction and service section, (paragraph four).
 * Lieutenant Commander L. T. Smith, Construction and service section, (paragraph five).
 * Commander E. G. Campbell, Fate section, (last paragraph) and Epilogue section.


 * Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)