Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Naval Gunfire Support debate/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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:19, 13 October 2008.

United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

 * Nominator(s): TomStar81 (Talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the article is ready for a bronze star. This material was spun out from the Iowa class battleship article during the latters FAR a month or so back at the suggestion of as a way to reduce the size of the article. Since Iowa class battleship is already featured the material was already well sourced. It cleared A-class a few weeks back, but before I could get the article here school started and my priorities shifted, but we have lull week here so I am taking advantage of the downtime to go forward with the FAC. I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond have patiences, it is likely that school work has temporarily tied me up. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The article needs somebody to go through the prose; it's rough in places.
 * "...and a number of independent groups..."—vague.
 * Fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Check slash use.
 * "The debate has played out across a wide spectrum of media, including (but not limited to) " "including" is a subset term, so we don't need another phrase telling us that the list is incomplete.
 * Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Each side has presented different arguments on the best approach to the problem, but most of the participants usually advocate the continuation of the DD(X) program or the reinstatement of the Iowa-class battleships to the Naval Vessel Register." Inconsistent tense: "...has presented..." but "...usually advocate...".
 * Fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "...return to its traditional 313 ship navy." Hyphen needed.
 * seems to be a triple-length one now. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it is little dash. Is that better? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

These are just examples, get somebody to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "New Jersey remained in mothball fleet until the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of 1999 passed through the United States Congress 18 October 1998." There's a word missing.
 * Noted and Adressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Navy plan called originally called for the extension of the range." Opposite of the last point, there's an extra word.
 * Its been evicted :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "This move has drawn fire from a variety of sources familiar with the subject" "variety" adds nothing to the sentence.
 * Noted and Adressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All Noted and Adressed. I'll put a request in for a copyedit. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:NC, I don't think the letter D needs to be capitalized here. This doesn't appear to be a formal title for the debate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was hoping someone would bring this up; we had an interesting discussion over what exactly to name the article, adn this happened to be the version we stuck with. I think there ought to be some lower case letters in there though, the title does seem a little formal for a debate of no real name. The last time a few editers suggested either "United State naval gunfire support debate" or "United States Naval Gunfire Support debate", and I was hoping that maybe we can get some censensus on this point here before doing any major moving. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm maybe "The United States Navy's gunfire support debate", or is that too long and complex?? Otherwise, I'd go with "United State naval gunfire support debate". Cheers! &mdash; the _ ed  17  &mdash; 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Are the title words part of a publication or report? If not, I think lower case is required. It's rather long: why not "Debate on US naval gunfire support"? (Or "U.S." if you insist.) And why not abbreviate the country-name throughout? It's gobbles up lots of repetitive space.
 * There maybe some naming conventions invloved with regard to using "US" or"U.S."; a lot of our division pages and similarly themed units list use a "name (country) format, so I will see about cross checking.
 * There's no sense of when this debate started. I've read the first bit and am still unsure of what gunfire support is.
 * Research has shown this to be an on again off again debate that crops up whenever the USN does something involving its battleships, but it really took off in the 1990s after the Navy attempted to remove the battleships from the NVR. I'll see about tightening that up for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "a militarily useful destructive power that is lacking in the smaller, cheaper, and faster guns mounted by"; aren't the second and third words redundant? Tony   (talk)  15:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose they could be, but they were included originally to show the advantages of the guns on currently used cuisers and destroyers. I suppose we could cut them out without any real loss of content, although I think I will wait a day or two and see if anything else cares to weigh in on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just remove "militarily" myself. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Johnbod's suggestion was better than mine. So can you give us a sense that it's been an intermittent debate since after the second world war, with particular activity in the ?late 1980s and since the start of this century (or something like that)? US$78 million, without the space? I'm sure that's the standard way ... This nomination seems worth supporting, at least in terms of 1a. Tony   (talk)  02:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Current ref 2 (The Iowa Class..) is lacking a publisher.
 * Current refs 7, 8, 9, 10 need last access dates. (DANFS)
 * Fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as DANFS in the references.
 * I am not seeing any, although that doesn;t nessicarily mean they are not there. Do you have any specific numbers? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mainly, it was DANFS. I don't see any others now Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Current ref 13 (National Defense ..) is lacking a publisher
 * Fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes http://home.comcast.net/~shipsoftheusn/ reliable? (And aplogies if we've already accepted this... I don't see any notes on my cheatsheet about it)
 * Its been removed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will look into adressing your complaints shortly. The one thing I can tell you right now though is that the website you have question has never been officially been declared unreliable, however the FAR for Iowa class battleship established the source as questionable and I removed it accordingly. The material, as I noted before, is double cited, so this link can be removed without compromising sources. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes: the article is using that DANFS template that yields incomplete citations (those kinds of incorrect specialized templates are proliferating and should be corrected or shot on sight). Since it gives no accessdate, they need to be added.  Is the article capitalized correctly?  If not, please leave a note here so we can get everything in the right place before moving it and leaving dangling FAC pages.  See WP:MOS regarding pull quotes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I asked about the quotes back when Iowa class battleship was at FAR and the consensus among the commenters on the page at the time was that the quotes were fine the way they were. Here is the link, if you are interested. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The DANFS Templates have been updated and now reflect an accessdate. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments It's a bit dense for someone with no knowledge of the subject. As others have pointed out, NGS needs explaining - "ship to shore gunfire" might do it. The Navy finds the battleships "too costly" - do we have any numbers.  When has NGS been used in recentl decades?   The Lebanon I think.  Do no other nations still have the potential? Not even the Russians? Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Definition added. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the first point above has been dealt with, though it could still be clearer, and recent uses added. But much still needs to be done after nearly two weeks - a very quick copyedit of basic prose problems on a short section produced this diff. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have gotten to the link and such later, first I needed to establish that the newer sections were in fact needed in the article (No sense in pouring in hours of work if everyone thinks they are uneeded). Additionally, I informed everyone that I was in school for a reason; I can't be on here religiously checking the article and addressing all the complatents all of the time, and as it happened I had a research project last week that sucked up alot of my free time. The thing to take away from this is that I am moving to address the concerns as time permits, so have some patients with me. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, and the new sections certainly help the article, but FAC doesn't normally work like that, and you're running out of time. I'd do a peer review next time, & make sure you do FAC in vacation. Carefully buffed up it should be ok, but there's too much to do for this time. I still have unanswered points above, btw. Johnbod (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have worked miracles before, and I work them again here. All I need is to ensure that everyone's compaints are dealt with to teh best of my ability. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What seem to be a well-informed & useful debate on the article talk page raises issues, some touching on my initial comments above, that I think should be be covered. I'm ready to change my vote, but I think the article needs a period in dry-dock rather than repairs at sea to reach full FA fighting condition. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very pithy, I like it. :) I assume that the talk page comments you reference are in the Overplaying the thesis section and not the Sinking battleships with aircraft has what to do with NSFS? section?  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well all 3 of the September sections really. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have unilaterally removed the thesis paragraph, it will remain out the article until such time as I can adress the concerns raised regarding its use in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment While the situation is confusing, it now looks like two or three Zumwalt class destroyers will be built, so it's not correct to say that the program has been 'canceled' as the article does. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is correct: they have cancelled the program; however, this was done after the first two destroyers were already building, and as the cost of the cancellation was deemed to be more than the cost of the completion of the construction of thtwo destroyers already underc construction the USN has decided to allow DDG 1000 and 1001 to go forward as originally planned. A rumored third DDX destroyer may or may not be constructed, the funding has been alloted for its construction, but the Navy was at last check sitting on the fence with regards to go ahead with the construction of a third DDX or putting that money to work on other projects. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to say that the program has been 'curtailed' then? 'Cancelled' makes it sound like nothing will come of the program. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its now three DDX ships, and this is noted in the article. How about "scaled back"? sould that be acceptable? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I suggest "United States naval gunfire support debate" as the article title. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. With respect to naming, I'll add this here rather than tag it onto the ongoing discussion.  :NGFS is a military discipline, so I would suggest that Naval Gunfire Support is either all capitalised or none of it is.  I would also say that since it is Naval gunfire support then it's superfluous to identify it as USN.  My inclination is also that this is about a political debate, so I would lean towards something like Naval Gunfire Support debate in the United States.
 * To highlight on the point above as to when NGFS was recently employed militarily; Op TELIC on the Umm Qasr peninsula, Op CORPORATE on the Falklands. Putting my military professional head on, this debate is played out amongst retired old farts and politicians who have their own agendas.  The majority of serving warfare and related types recognise that the big battleships have had their day, military technical capability has moved on, doctrine has moved on and there is no longer significant value in this type of capability.
 * ALR (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment/Oppose Never done one of these before, so forgive me my ignorance. I know I'm supposed to bring up direct and exact reasons why this shouldn't be promoted but I am offering a vague one.  I don't think that (like ALR aludes to) this article fully represents both sides of the debate.  The language, layout and sourcing focus primarily on the "pro gunfire support" side.  I would prefer to see some input for air warfare and submarine warfare communities, as well as some historical background on the debate and effectiveness of that support.  I would also like to see some summary of soruces which discuss possible motivations beyond combat effectiveness for the proponents of NGS to make their case.  I'll check back with sourcing suggestions and specific comments, but I feel this needs to be addressed. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not supposed to; it was spun out from the Iowa class battleship article a few monthes back and thus carries disctictive pro-battleship tones throughout the article, in much the same way that the DDX articles is pro-DDX most of the way through. Prior to the article going independent it had no problems becuase the coverage was in the context of just these ships, but now we (Or more precisely I) have to go through and try to hammer out the bias and such in the article already. At the moment I am working a new angle, give me a week or two to see what becomes of it and then we move from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Like I said, I'll post here when I go looking for sources on the subject. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm revising my comment so it isn't an oppose as such. I haven't gone and looked for references recently, so it isn't fair to sit on an oppose for that reason.  The POV of the article has improved considerably, though I think there is more improvement to be made. Protonk (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And so it shall be made. One important thing to remeber though is that the article will continue to evlove on the matter past the end of this FAC, so it may in time have even more info than it does now. Just something to keep in mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * UPDATE After looking through a variety of sources both on and offline I have found evidence to suggest that this sort of debate has in fact taken place within the worlds large naval powers, however the extent of these debate does not IMO justify merging this article into a larger internationally-focus page. In light of this, I would petition the powers that be to have the article moved to either United States Naval Gunfire Support debate or United States naval gunfire support debate. I am typing this on the eve of morning class, so I will be off for an hour or two, but will resume working on the above comments and suggestions upon my return. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments I have found a few sources regarding the DDG 1000: US House, Senate Agree to Add 3rd DDG 1000, Will DDG 1000 Produce Any Ships at All?, and one in print but not online outlining how the Pentagon has "agreed to eliminate the operational requirements for the ship... where that leaves the program is unclear." I am hesitant to add updates to the article unilaterally while it undergoes FAC, but if we can agree on how to add, there won't be an issue. Also, USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) note that naval gunfire, including the big 16-inch guns, were used as recently as 1991, but also mentions that a number of missiles were launched. There is also a delightful tale about Iraqis surrendering to a Pioneer UAV controlled by the latter ship, whose appearance had become the precursor to a naval bombardment. Point being, despite the Tomahawks, the gunfire support of all calibers, big and small, had a significant impact on that recent war, and impacts on the arguments in the article. While I don't think a history of naval gunfire is appropriate, mentioning some recent use would help give the reader a more balanced and NPOV background about how necessary battleships might be.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These are being worked into the artilce. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted on the talk page, the article could benefit from a more pro/con approach to the alternatives to NGS. the air superiority section notes that planes can sink ships, but I think we can expand upon the vulnerabilities of other methods further. For example, larger cruise missiles can be shot down (as well as all aircraft), whereas shells are just about impossible to stop once they are launched; there are restrictions on range and endurance for all three alternatives. Exploring this a bit further would give readers a richer depth of understanding.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My recent edit stole borrowed some references from the above noted battleship articles, they may require some cleanup. Citation/reference formatting is one of my weak suits.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On point 1: Getting there. Be patient. Remeber that simply becuase the article's FAC has to end doesn;t mean that the article improvement has to end, if it isn't addressed before the FAC closes I will work with you all to address this after the FAC. On Point two: everything turned out fine, though I have reworded the material a little to drawn on a psyops angle. Well done though. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Oppose - formatting is nice and clean. "Recent developments" has the only image problem, and you might want to expand on the paragraph combined with trimming down the caption so as to not leave such a large gap. "Gun support" begins with a tiny two sentence paragraph without a citation. Please either expand or merge this with another paragraph and cite. Paragraph beginning "As noted above, the" needs a citation. The last sentences of the section, "Its expected performance is over 5800 m/s" need a citation. Many other paragraphs need citations, but the above is just an example of where. Each paragraph should have at least one citation at the end. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was expecting someone to bring this up :) These three section dealing with aircraft, guns, and missiles are very recent additions and the information is still being cited. I hope to have adequate citations - which I also define as at least 1 citation per paragraph - in the article by tommarow or Thurday at the latest. In any event though, thanks for commenting/opposing. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think AGF can be applied here to trust you in doing the above, so I am putting a conditional support in case I get distracted and don't have a chance to verify. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Linkchecker shows the two links to National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/15may20061514/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/hr109-452/title2.pdf) are forbidden access. Empirically, I found I was unable to access them. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thats not good, but Our teacher is just starting class today as I speak, so I am going to have to defer dealing with this until after class. I WILL find a replacement though, rest assured. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be fixed now. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't believe that this article currently places the subject in its proper historical location. That is, even though it is about a specific debate at a specific moment in time (now) there is no indication of this. Rather, it looks like this debate has always been going on and always will. I think you need to clearly spell out - at the very beginning of the article if not in its title - that this is a post-WWII debate or a 1980's debate or whatever. Witty Lama 06:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I tightened this up a little for you. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I just fixed two typos and some poor grammar. This article has potential, but needs to be thoroughly inspected for more "silly mistakes" before it can be made a Featured Article. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By this I assume you mean that article needs a copyedit to check and correct spelling and grammar mistakes. As fate would have it, this is the one thing I can not fix; my sp&g suck. I have petitioned for such a check, but have thus far come up empty. I'm sorry I am not able to better adress this concern, though I do apreciate your input on the matter. Was there anything else you saw that you were concerned about, or was this it? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that a lot of the content is still being continually re-worked and expanded... while spelling and grammar are always important, I think we should worry about the content before we pick apart dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s. I've been planning to give a thorough scrub with AWB and my own red pen once the content has been finalized, but not before; otherwise it would be like buffing a car's finish while it's still getting body work.  bahamut0013  ♠  ♣   23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Closing notes: excellent start and almost there, but a couple weeks of prose polishing should bring it over the hump. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.