Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Thomas C. Kinkaid


 * 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.


 * Promoted -MBK004 07:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomas C. Kinkaid

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Still adding to the articles on the South West Pacific Area. Kinkaid was MacArthur's naval commander. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Page ranges in citations require endashes.
 * Cite #77 requires a publisher.
 * I am a little concerned about the significant use of Wheeler 1995. Are there any other sources that could be used to break up the dominance of this source?
 * Wheeler is the only source for early biographical information. I have tried to suplement it where possible. Once we get to World War II, Wheeler ceases to be the major source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of extra references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The toolbox reports three disambig links: Battle of Santa Cruz, Georgetown and Third Fleet.
 * File:Daniel E. Barbey.jpg requires alt text.
 * The toolbox reports three disambig links: Battle of Santa Cruz, Georgetown and Third Fleet.
 * File:Daniel E. Barbey.jpg requires alt text.
 * File:Daniel E. Barbey.jpg requires alt text.


 * Support -- passed this at GA some time ago and, having re-read and checked recent mods, I think it deserves to progress to A-Class -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * no dab links, ext links work, images have alt text (no action required);
 * images appear to be correctly licenced (no action required);
 * the image "File:Daniel E. Barbey.jpg" should probably be edited to add categories, description, etc. - but this doesn't really affect this review;
 * I think this is because the image was originally uploaded to Commons. I've added categories.
 * watch out for overlink, for example in the Solomon Islands section "South Dakota (BB-57)" is linked three times (similar issue with Hornet, Enterprise, Harder [submarine]);
 * This is an artefact of the ships template.
 * I'd suggest not using the template on subsequent mentions (only on the first), but its not a warstoper for me. It might get raised at FAC, though, but its your call. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Early career section, "promoted to Lieutenant in..." (rank should be lower case here per Manual of Style (capital letters);
 * in the Early career section, "...now a Vice Admiral, who then ordered ..." (Vice Admiral should be lower case as per above);
 * in the Southwest Pacific section, "promoted to Admiral on 3 April 1945" (same as above);
 * there is some mixture of British and US English, for example "defences" (British), "honor" (US).
 * ✅ The article is supposed to be in American English, but the spell checker does not pick up these things.
 * there is some mixture of British and US English, for example "defences" (British), "honor" (US).
 * ✅ The article is supposed to be in American English, but the spell checker does not pick up these things.
 * ✅ The article is supposed to be in American English, but the spell checker does not pick up these things.
 * Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments
 * Images look good
 * Barbey is in the Bibliography but not the References. Same for Hoyt and Lundstrom 1984.
 * ✅ They are now.
 * The Morison books look a little odd because they're arranged by time frame rather than publishing date like the rest of the authors of multiple works. Can we standardize this?
 * Lead, "an admiral of the United States Navy". Is "of the" common Navy terminology? From my lay(wo)man's perspective, "in the" would make more sense.
 * ✅. Yes, but changed anyway.
 * Early life, "moved to Philadelphia, Norfolk, Virginia, Annapolis and Georgetown, Washington, D.C.. " Why states for some and not others?
 * ✅. Some places are better known than others. Made consistent.
 * Early career, "20-foot (6.1 m) Rangefinder" Why is Rangefinder capitalized? Later in the paragraph it is "range finder", note the capitalization and spacing.
 * ✅. The former was caused by the article link; de-capitalized. The latter is actually quite correct, as it reflects a US/British spelling difference; but changed to be consistent.
 * Between the wars, "a narrowly technical article". What is "narrowly technical"?
 * ✅. Deleted "narrowly". The intent was to compare and contrast Kinkaid's two articles. The debate over the 6-inch vs 8-inch gun involved a lot more than Kinkaid's article implied. In the end, the whole issue was largely moot because during World War II torpedoes and aircraft dominated surface warfare.
 * Coral Sea and Midway, "destroyers of both carriers.[20] Carrier warfare was in its infancy, and the American carriers neither carried adequate". Carriers, carrier, carriers, carried. Repetition.
 * Later life, "The Australian government chose to honor Kinkaid with an honorary Companion of the Order of the Bath, which was presented by the Australian Ambassador in Washington at a ceremony at the Australian embassy there on Australia Day, 26 January 1948". Australian, Australian, Australian, Australia. Repetition.
 * ✅. Re-worded to remove repetition.
 * I've read up through the Early career section, and it looks fairly good so far, with just minor comments/issues. More later. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Addendum: I have finished reading through the article and added the rest of my comments above. Overall a nice article, although a little jargon heavy in a few areas. Once the above are taken care of, I will be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a series of corrections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response. Everything looks good, so I've changed my vote to support. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a series of corrections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response. Everything looks good, so I've changed my vote to support. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


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