Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Triton (SSRN-586)/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:58, 10 April 2010.

USS Triton (SSRN-586)

 * Nominator(s): Marcd30319 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... the USS Triton completed its shakedown cruise on 11 May 1960, which included the first submerged circumnavigation of the world, fifty years ago. Triton was commanded by Captain Edward L. Beach, a highly-decorated U.S. naval officer and best-selling author. This article has just undergone a MILHIST A-class review. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to our collaboration. Marcd30319 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. No dab links, external links and alt text look good. Ucucha 16:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I find nothing lacking the in article. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question why does the sentence "The late Admiral Lent had been the earlier Triton's first commanding officer" require 5 citations to its accuracy?GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up:The other four citations dealt with the search for the original ship's bell that went missing during Triton's 1962-1964 overhaul. I have removed these citations as being extraneous to the overall quality of this article.  The citation from Captain Beach's book on the submerged circumnavigation is sufficient.  Thank you for inquiring. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This still needs quite a bit of work IMO. A few examples:
 * The Contruction history section says that the sub was launched by Louise Will, but the info box says Louise Willis.
 * Typo corrected. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "In 1993, she was towed to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to go through the Nuclear Powered Ship and Submarine Recycling Program, with this process initiated effective 1 October 2007." Very awkward
 * Revised to read: In 1993, she was towed to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to go through the Nuclear Powered Ship and Submarine Recycling Program.  Effective 1 October 2007, ex-Triton landed on the keel resting blocks in the drydock basin to begin this recycling process. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both reactors shared the same ship compartment." How could that be, if one was at the front and the other at the back?
 * This is how it was described by Captain Edward L. Beach's book Around the World Submerged, but I have deleted this sentence to avoid any future issues. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Triton's dual-reactor plant served a number of operational and engineering objectives ..." It may have met some objectives, but it didn't serve them.
 * Corrected. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "... specifically the high speed requirement to meet its radar-picket mission, which continue to be sources of speculation and controversy to this day." What is "continue" relating to here? The mission, in which case it ought to be "continues"?
 * Corrected. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Design work on a nuclear-powered radar picket submarine began in 1954–1955.[20] It would have a three-level hull ...". There's a lot of this kind of use of the subjunctive. Why "would have", rather than "had"?
 * Corrected to read: Design work on a nuclear-powered radar picket submarine (SSRN) began in 1954–1955. As initally designed, it would have a three-level hull, with its Combat Intelligence Center (CIC) located on the middle level.
 * Subjunctive abatement: Done. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Triton's made her first dive ..."
 * 'Corrected.
 * "Work on the Triton at Electric Boat was delayed ...". Why the Triton?
 * Deleted: "the" Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "During this period, the rising threat posed by Soviet submarine forces increased the Navy's demands for nuclear-powered attack submarines ...". What period? As the opening sentence of the Overhaul and Conversion section it looks like the period being discussed in the period of Triton's overhaul and conversion.
 * Revised: Moved to Initial deployments section. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Triton was the only non-Soviet submarine designed with a two-reactor propulsion plant, with her S4G reactors being identical seagoing versions of the land-based S3G reactor prototype, both of which comprised the Submarine Advanced Reactor (SAR) program, a joint venture between the U.S. Navy, Atomc Energy Commission(AEC), and General Electric." Bit of a word salad there.
 * Revised to read: Triton was the only non-Soviet submarine designed with a two-reactor propulsion plant. Her S4G reactors was an identical seagoing versions of the land-based S3G reactor prototype.  Both reactors comprised the Submarine Advanced Reactor (SAR) program, a joint venture between the U.S. Navy, Atomc Energy Commission(AEC), and General Electric. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Since the Navy no longer had any plans to use Triton radar picket capability ...". Should this be "Triton's radar picket capability?
 * Revised to read: Since the Navy no longer had any plans to use Triton's radar picket capability... Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Finally, Triton was the name of one of the submersibles used in the Submarine Voyage attraction at Disneyland which operated from 1959 to 1998." And this is relevant how?
 * This is under the Cultural references section. The Disneyland Submarine Voyage attraction honored a number of pioneering nuclear submarines (i.e., USS Nautilus (SSN-571), USS Seawolf (SSN-575), USS Skate (SSN-578),  USS Skipjack (SSN-585), USS George Washington (SSBN-598), USS Patrick Henry (SSBN-599), and USS Ethan Allen (SSBN-608)) and therefore, it is appropriate and relevant as a cultural reference. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Query: What is the current status of this FAC review? I have responded to all issues raised thus far, corrected any subjunctive, typographical, or grammatical errors, and replied to the question regarding the Cultural references section. What issues remain to be addressed? Thank you for your assistance. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself, I'm still not entirely happy with this article, but I'm not quite unhappy enough to oppose its promotion. I gave a few examples above, here are a few more:
 * "After operating for only two years in her designed role, the Grumman WF-2 Tracer airborne early warning aircraft made her obsolete as a radar picket submarine." The expectation raised in this sentence is that the Grumann WF-2 is the subject of the opening "her", but it becomes clear at the end of the sentence that "her" refers to the sub. It's tiring to read stuff like that.
 * Fixed. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "A unique submarine, she also had the distinction of being the only non-Soviet submarine to be powered by two nuclear reactors." Not quite sure about this. What was it that made her unique?
 * Triton is unique because she went around the world submerged on her maiden voyage, a significant historical operational achievement, and she was the only non-Soviet submarine to be powered by two nuclear reactors, a significant engineering attribute. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, unique in our naval articles denotes that the vessel or boat in this case was not the member of a ship class and was the single ship built to the design. For some FAs that use this terminology, look in the infoboxes of SMS Von der Tann and SMS Seydlitz. -MBK004 04:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "To meet its radar picket roles, Triton's main air search radar initially used the AN/SPS-26 ...". Wasn't that just the one role?
 * Noted and corrected. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "As built, Triton featured a knife-like bow, with a bulbous forefoot, to enhance her surfaced sea-keeping, as well as possessing a high reserve buoyancy ...". The tenses seem to flop about here. "Featured ... as well as possessing"? What's "as built" trying to tell me? Were the features being described here modified later?
 * Corrected. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Triton's first commanding officer, Captain Edwrad L. Beach ...". Was that really his name?
 * Corrected. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, I think this article still needs a good deal of tidying up, not just fixing up the specific issues raised here; they're just examples of the kind of things that need to be looked at. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08586.htm a reliable source?
 * I think that NavSource is a good on-line place to start researching U.S. naval vessels, but I can substitute verifiable sources for both NavSource references cited below. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael Mohl (2006). USS Tambor (SS-198). Submarine Photo Archive. NavSource.org: This source was added by another contributor who was acting in good faith.  This NavSource link showed a photograph of a Torpedo Data Computer (TDC) from World War Two.  The source of this photograph and accompanying text was from U.S. Submarines Through 1945, An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman (Naval Institute Press, 1995) and partial text courtesy of chinfo.navy.mil.  I will swap this source out for Friedman book. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * USS Triton (SSRN-586). Submarine Photo Archive. NavSource.org: This source was added by another contributor who was acting in good faith. It duplicates what is available in the on-line USS Triton entry of the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships at the U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command in Washington, DC, and I have substituted this with the DANFS. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Likewise http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7mlsg_voyage-to-the-bottom-of-the-sea-mut_shortfilms
 * See below. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gone. Marcd30319 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And http://www.fancast.com/tv/Voyage-to-the-Bottom-of-the-Sea/3435/595461908/Mutiny/videos?
 * These two sources were used only because the Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea TV episode "Mutiny", broadcast on January 11, 1965, cited in this article is available for viewing there. If the original teleplay from this episode was available, I would have cited that as the source.  Since is now readily available, I used these two online services.  Also, I used both online services to avoid any suggestion of favoritism.
 * Gone. Marcd30319 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So you've replaced the last two? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. Marcd30319 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, I have two problems here, one is that the sites aren't actually the reference you're wanting, you're wanting to cite the episode itself, which is relatively easy to do. Secondly, are these sites authorized to host the episode? We're not allowed to link to copyright violations, so the sites need permission to host the episode. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can use this reference to cite the episode in question (Anchors, Jr., William E. (March–April 1992). "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea". Epi-Log 1 (1): 23) and delete Fancast and DailyMotion although Fancast does list Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea in a press release so licensing with 20th Century Fox is very likely. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions and support. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Sorry I'm late to the party. I understand Malleus's comments to mean he's looking for more copyediting before he can support; I'll give it a shot, but please feel free to tell me if you'd prefer I not make edits, I know it can be stressful for people to fiddle with something you've put this much work into when it's sitting at FAC.  Please check my work. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the party. I am the principal contributor to the article under FAC review.  I am not going to going to split semantic hairs with any editor-reviewer, but I will look at the alterations.  My objective is to have this article ready for consideration as the Featured Article of the Day for May 11, the 50th anniversary of end of the first submarged circumanvigation.  Good luck and thank you.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to hold it up, I'm here to speed it up; if reviewers have a positive reaction, then I'm heading in the right direction. I don't see anything in the reviews so far that suggests this is going to take a while.  A quick response to "split hairs": there are a lot of us who scratch our heads in puzzlement that the human race seems to be so attached to its tribal instincts; most wives will confirm that their husbands act like cave-men, and social scientists started doing a great job of describing the related phenomena in the 1990s; see for instance Pinker's How the Mind Works.  We all have tribal instincts when it comes to judging what kind of work is important: spearing an animal or busting someone's head open seem at least "interesting" to everyone; arguing about how best to tell the story of these things strikes a lot of people as not a real job, more like being fussy or self-important or worse.  But my position and the position of a lot of FAC reviewers (and you can disagree) is that there's a way to write so that a wide readership will easily and precisely understand what we're saying.  There are useful guides to follow, such as AP Stylebook, Chicago, and the combined wisdom (if you like) of everyone who's commented on language questions on Wikipedia.  I'm not going to be perfect, and you can revert any of my edits, but I can increase the odds that people will support at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if SHIPS has any official position on calling a ship "ex-Triton". In my Google search, pages such as this one (probably talking about a different Triton) suggest that "ex-Triton" means the ship used to be called Triton but now has a new name; "ex-triton" doesn't pull up many hits with the intended meaning.  I've looked through all the FA USS ships and all the nuclear sub articles beginning with "A", and none of them use the "ex-" terminology to refer to a decommissioned ship or hulk.  How many sources use that term as opposed to "Triton", "the former Triton" or "the hulk"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The term ex-Triton was used in official correspondence about the ship from the public affiars office at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Naval Sea Systems Command. Also, the ships going through Ship-Submarine Recycling Program are referred to as ex-ships (e.g., ex-Long Beach, ex-Triton) in the "U.S. Naval Battle Forec Change" section in the annual Naval Review edition for the U.S. Naval Institute.  Therefore, this seems to be a comman practice by the U.S. Navy.  Please note that Triton was striken from the Naval Vessel Registry (NVR) in 1986 and following that entry in the article, I started referring to the ship as ex-Triton.  Think of the removal of a warship's name from the NVR as being the same as removing the name of a deceased person from a community's tax rolls and local telephone directory.   I hope this clarifies.  Marcd30319 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's plenty of support for the term. I'd still like to keep my edit in the lead removing the "ex" terminology (because ideally, the lead shouldn't present any terminology that requires much thought on the part of the reader), but keep the "ex" terminology everywhere after the lead.  I'll try to be consistent with my edits; it should the "the ex-Triton". - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with this. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I get that "intelligence information, electronic surveillance, and fighter aircraft interception control" might in fact mean distinct things ... but do they really? Wasn't this just radar looking for ships and aircraft (and missiles, if the radar was sensitive enough)? - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. For example, during its submerged circumnavigation of the world, Triton carried out photographic reconnaissance of the various locations encountered  during the voyage.  This is intelligence gathering.  The same can be said of her deployment to the Arctic to monitor the aftermath of the Soviet super H-bomb detonation, which probably included collecting air samples to provide data from the fallout.  Both Norman Friedman's U.S. Submarines since 1945: An Illustrated Design History and the article on Triton by Largess and Horwitz made particular note of the electronic gathering capabilities of Triton given its large Combat Intelligence Center (CIC).  And according to Largess and Horwitz, Triton did carry out air traffic control missions using its replacement BPS-2 air search radar.  I hope this clarifies. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replying to Trekphiler's reversions: "purpose-built" is "chiefly British", although of course these days British English and American English are converging faster than ever before. This article is American English.  The question of whether to say "X-class ships" or "Xs" comes up a lot, and we at WP:SHIPS generally take the position that the former is better; that's what the sclass template is for.  Since so many naval sources say Xs, I'm not dead-set against it, but to anyone other than a naval buff, it doesn't sound right; you don't say for instance "the Endeavors" to mean all the space shuttles that were designed at the same time as the Endeavor, only one of which is called Endeavor.  Regarding SSR as an "introduced" term, just saying it doesn't introduce it, we would also need to define it, if it means something different than the designation for radar picket ships. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, stopping for now, although I didn't get very far. I'm not opposing, but I can't support at this stage, per my comment immediately above. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Three weeks, without consensus to promote, closing. Also, will the nominator please refrain from overuse of bolding, which makes the FAC hard to read.  Please address concerns, and come back to FAC in a few weeks.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


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