Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mahan-class destroyer


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer

 * Nominator(s): Pendright (talk)

The Mahan-class destroyers incorporated some notable improvements in design over their predecessors. Included was advanced propulsion machinery that changed the technology for future destroyers; the mounting of twelve torpedo tubes, instead of eight, and installing superimposed gun shelters for the first time. Each of the eighteen-member class served in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II; participating in a host of engagements against Japanese forces. Some of the class was at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941; a few were devastated by the attack and others escaped unharmed. In the South Pacific, members of the class took part in campaigns to retake the Santa Cruz Islands, New Guinea, Guadalcanal, the Philippine Islands, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and others. Six of the eighteen ships were combat losses, two were expended in post war tests, and the remainder were eventually sold or scrapped. Together, the class earned 111 battle stars for their service in the war. This article passed GA review in December 2013. Thanks to those who might find the time to review the article. Pendright (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments  - mostly nitpicky stuff, I'm very impressed with the quality of the article: The displacement figure in the infobox should have a conversion (and specify which type of tons are used - we know it's long tons, but the average reader won't) I've made a few changes, mostly to fix formatting and add links and so forth. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I probably wouldn't repeat the two photos of Cassin and Downes at Pearl Harbor - I'd recommend using the first version, since it's cropped closer on the ships in question. You could use File:Uss Downes DD-375.jpg, since it's an interesting close aerial shot and it shows various aspects of the ship in good detail. Alternatively, if you wanted to keep another shot of the ship sunk at Pearl, you could replace it with File:Photograph of warships damaged at Pearl Harbor - NARA - 306534.jpg, which is interesting because it's another angle and shows more detail from Downes specifically.
 * Done – I settled on the first of your two photo suggestions for the reasons you described. Pendright (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Second thoughts: I wasn’t able to find any photos for the Case history, but she was at Pearl on December 7th and escaped damage. What do you think of using the second photo there, drawing the difference between those that were damaged and those that were not with the photo? Pendright (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tracked down a few photos of Case and uploaded them - you can see them in the USS Case (DD-370) article. I for one like the stern photo since it complements the bow photo of Mahan earlier in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Case's stern photo posted. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The horsepower figure and the boilers should go in the |Ship power= field in the infobox, also add conversion and a link for shaft horsepower
 * Done - Pendright (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - Pendright (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking at it some more, I think the columns for name and hull number should be reversed in the table.
 * I’m able to reverse the hull number and name in the table, but I’m not doing as well with reversing or changing the width of the columns. Pendright (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done - The columns for name and hull number have been reversed in the table. Pendright (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd link torpedo tube and torpedo in the body of the article.
 * Done - Pendright (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it might make more sense to have the Dunlap class section before the Construction section, since you go from talking about technical stuff in the Design and Armament sections, then building info, then back to technical stuff.
 * Done - Pendright (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't capitalize "Naval" (as in "Naval service") - it's only a proper noun when you refer to the US Navy specifically.
 * Now lower case - Pendright (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "USS Tucker was commissioned as a US Navy destroyer in July 1936" - was there a possibility she would be commissioned as a battleship? :P
 * Redundancy corrected – point well taken. Pendright (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd avoid slang terms like "battlewagon", and I'd similarly avoid uncommon words like "aviatrix" when "pilot" will be readily understood by most readers
 * I was unable to find any reference to battlewagon, so I assume you meant it as an example. But I did change aviatrix to pilot.
 * It was here ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Pendright (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you using two different editions of Chronology of the War at Sea?
 * Ignorance, for the most part: I took for granted that each was a distinct publication and did not look beyond that. I bought the coauthored version first and the current one a bit later. Pendright (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Pendright (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Hi Pendright, good to see you at A-class, I hope your Peer Reviews and Good Article Nominations have been going well. A-class is just a stone's throw away from Featured Article status and your very own day on the WP:Main Page, so I'm going to be a little bit fussy in my copyediting, to try to help you get past the (sometimes fussy) reviewers at FAC. Feel free to revert anything you don't like. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you convert tons to metric, sometimes not.
 * So far so good on prose per copyediting disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about halfway, at Mahan-class_destroyer. Hopefully someone else will pick up the copyediting work from there. These are my edits. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Pendright (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I finished up copyediting the article per my copyediting disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for improving the quality of the article. Pendright (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, it looks really good. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: impressive article. Well done. I have a couple of minor nitpick comments/suggestions, that do not impact upon my support:AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "The Mahan-class destroyers of the United States Navy were 16 destroyers..." seems inconsistent with the infobox "Completed 18". I understand that there is some discrepancy/disagreement about Dunlap and Fanning, so I'd suggest probably slightly tweaking the lead. For instance, perhaps this might work: "The Mahan-class was a class of destroyers commissioned in to the United States Navy in 1936 and 1937. The class consisted of 18 ships, although two, Dunlap and Fanning, are sometimes considered part of a separate class..."
 * inconsistent presentation: "16" v "eighteen" (e.g. numerals over spelling) in the lead;
 * I found and fixed a few instances of where ship names weren't in italics, please check if I missed any;
 * I tweaked a few myself, but where possible, if you mention an action at a location, I think the convention is to include the link to the battle/campaign article rather than the location, for instance Battle of Balikpapan (1945) rather than just Balikpapan;
 * spelling inconsistency: "Finchhafen, "Finschhafen" and "Finchhaffen";
 * this seems a little awkward: "...was demolished by one or more mines". To my ear demolished doesn't quite seem right. Perhaps this might be better: "The ship entered the harbor by the western entrance where she struck at least one mine" (or something similar?)
 * "steaming independently, when an Australian troopship rammed her" - do we know the name of the troopship? If possible, please add it here;
 * "A court of inquiry found the captain, the navigator, and the officer of the deck at fault for the collision" - were these Perkins' crew, or the troopship's?
 * "File:Photograph of the wreckage of the USS Downes, hit by bombs during the attack on Pearl Harbor - NARA - 306547.jpg": if possible, this image should cropped to reduce the effect of the whitespace. If you are not sure how to do this, please let me know and I will have a crack;
 * wording: "Late in November, the ship was bound from Milne Bay to Buna, steaming independently, when an Australian troopship rammed her." For me, the word rammed makes it sound intentional, so I'd suggest rewording slightly. For instance, perhaps this might work: "Late in November, the ship was bound from Milne Bay to Buna, steaming independently, when she collided with an Australian troopship." Either that or "when an Australian troopship accidentally rammed her";
 * "when rammed by an Australian troopship" (as above, probably use "collided with", or similar). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * AR, I think I've fixed all these that were in the text, except for changing links. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.