Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Lexington (CV-2)/archive1


 * 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 GrahamColm 17:43, 10 October 2012.

USS Lexington (CV-2)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Continuing with the theme of battlecruisers converted into aircraft carriers as the result of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, I present the history of the American carrier USS Lexington (CV-2). Completed in the late 1920s, she and her sister ship, USS Saratoga, were instrumental in developing the Navy's carrier doctrine before World War II. Interestingly this included multiple successful attacks on Pearl Harbor during fleet exercises. The ship was not present at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked, but was heavily involved in attacking Japanese forces in the first half of 1942 until she was sunk at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May, the first American carrier lost in the war. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review a week ago and is in pretty good shape. Experience has taught me, however, that there are always flaws and I look forward to getting them fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and made a tweak. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Compare FNs 2 and 69
 * Clarified.
 * I get an error message when clicking on the Herts link, and it's missing publisher
 * Yeah, IO error streaming document; whatever the hell that means. Not sure what to do about it.
 * Don't duplicate full bibliographic info between the two ref sections, and especially don't use different formatting when doing so
 * Patterson and Polmar both need endashes in volume titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Why would File:Cv-2-2d.png not be OR?
 * Because it's data is derived from the hits mentioned in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the image. Images should be fairly accurate, of course, and this image represents reliably sourced facts. I'm not in love with the parallel magenta lines and the parallel red lines making it seem as if the hits were from the same two sources, but the general idea comes across okay. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you link publishers in web refs, link them all if they exist. Some may not have a wiki article but I know NYT does. Pls check others.
 * Pumpkin Sky  talk  19:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Linked NYT, there's no article for the Waterloo Daily Courier. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support and image check done. Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Binksternet comments
 * Why are there two quoted avgas capacities from the same source? Anderson & Baker, p 311.
 * I guess that the records are unclear because that's how Anderson & Baker present the data.
 * Should "since the ship had commissioned" be presented as "since the ship had been commissioned"?
 * Yes, good catch.
 * This sentence seems quite wrong in facts: "She carried a maximum of 6,688 long tons (6,795 t) of fuel oil, but only 5,400 long tons (5,500 t) of that was usable, as the rest had to be retained as ballast in the port fuel tanks to offset the weight of the island and main guns." The fuel in the port tanks could be replaced by sea water for ballast.
 * Perhaps those particular tanks couldn't weren't equipped to add sea water? I'm just reporting what A & B said about the situation.
 * Okay, I see the sources are in agreement. Friedman 1984 page 44 agrees that Lexington and Saratoga had to be ballasted "through most of their operating lives... at the expense of usable fuel oil" to balance the inherent list. Friedman says on page 49 that about 890 t of oil was used as ballast, "for a considerable reduction in useful fuel load." Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In adjoining paragraphs, there are two wikilinks for conning tower, one being a piped link to conning station. Do you want them both to be present?
 * Yes, the piped link refers to the secondary conning station.
 * At the time Heinlein reported aboard he was not "noted" but a future sci-fi writer.
 * The bit about Berrien being captain when Heinlein reported aboard is awkward, a loose detail. Perhaps the whole Heinlein sentence can be recast in this manner: "Future science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein reported aboard on 6 July as a newly minted ensign under Captain Frank Berrien."
 * To help the Heinlein bit seem not so out of place, it could be expanded with the fact that Heinlein experienced his first literary rejection aboard ship. He wrote a short story about espionage discovered at the Naval Academy and submitted it for a shipboard writing contest but it did not win. Cite:
 * Good idea.
 * At least some of the term "Cushman Dam No. 1." should be prevented from wrapping to the next line. I first saw it with the "No." at the end of one line and the "1." at the beginning of the next.
 * Added a non-breaking space.
 * The phrase "which subsequently ruled sunk" should probably be "which subsequently was ruled sunk".
 * Indeed.
 * The phrase "For this operation, she embarked 21 Buffalos" probably should say "For this operation, Lexington embarked 21 Buffalos", because Saratoga is mentioned just prior.
 * Agreed.
 * The phrase "The Japanese, however, landed on the island" should probably be "The Japanese, however, landed on Wake", because a discussion of the details of the attack on the Marshalls is just preceding.
 * OK.
 * The phrase "one Dauntless was shot down by the Zero" probably should end with "a Zero".
 * No, there was only one Zero flying at the time.
 * Aha! I see that now. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The rest of the above sentence says "after it had pulled out of its dive and several others were damaged." This is clunky.
 * How does it read now?
 * Yes, it is better now. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording is not so clear here: "This broadcast on a frequency very close to that of the American ships..." How about this? "The Japanese carriers put out a frequency very close to that of the American ships..."
 * I've rephrased it a bit, although I really don't see the issue as it was.
 * The rephrase is good. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase "doing little significant damage" could be trimmed to "doing little damage".
 * No, there was plenty of damage, but it was from splinters and negligible in effect on the ship.
 * Regarding this sentence: "The remaining bombs detonated close alongside and some of their fragments pierced the hull, flooding two compartments." The usual pattern of damage from bombs being dropped very near a ship is not "fragments" piercing the hull but massive pressure waves hammering the welded plates underwater, bending them and forcing them to fracture, allowing water to pour into the ship.
 * I understand, and I don't disagree, but that's not what Lundstrom says.
 * Why the disparity between 2,770 rescued and 2,735 evacuated? Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I suspect that Lundstrom is including the aircrew from the aircraft still in the air when she was badly damaged as rescued. He doesn't break it down in detail to be sure one way or another. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The observation the Navy "was not convinced when the class was being designed that aircraft could effectively substitute as armament for a warship" is correct, but it does not include Friedman's assessment that the predicted absence of foul weather aircraft operations was the key point in deciding to keep eight 8-inch guns. Guns were thought to be required for foul weather defense. Friedman writes that Lexington and Saratoga "demonstrated an ability to operate aircraft in weather conditions quite beyond what might have been imagined when they were designed." A bit about bad weather should be inserted. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea; I added a bit to the first sentence of the armament section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Fine work! Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


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