Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Massachusetts (BB-59)


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

USS Massachusetts (BB-59)

 * Not promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): TomStar81 (Talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am looking for feedback on how the article can be improved ahead its FAC, whenever that may occur. This article is currently under the spotlight, hence the construction template. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome. Note that as this is part of the spotlight effort I am one of only several people that have worked diligently on the article, so others may move to address the issues raised here. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * No problems reported with dismabig links. One external link reported as dead, please check and advise. Several images are missing alt text, please add this to the article's images forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - just two quick things I noticed:
 * I have added three cite needed tags to segiments that require a reference in the article.
 * Got them cited now.
 * Endashes are required between date ranges used in the article, and page ranges used in citations.
 * I think I have found and added endashes where they were needed. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments This is a good article, but needs work to reach A-class. Aside from the need to provide some extra citations, my comments are:
 * I'm rather uncomfortable about the extent to which DANFS and other USN websites have been used as sources. There's no shortage of books on the USN and its battleships in World War II which can be drawn on (the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II is an obvious starting point). These sources would also be helpful in expanding the article from its current relatively short (for an article on a BB!) state.
 * The para on Jean Bart doesn't seem necessary - this material (eg, that she was an incomplete but combat-capable ship) could be summarised in one sentence.
 * The 'Operational area of Massachusetts in 1943-44' map is a bit misleading given that the area highlighted is New Caledonia, not the ship's area of operations. As the map doesn't name any of the locations identified in the article it's not of much use - are better maps of the South Pacific available on Commons?
 * The small para on 1943 seems a bit short - can this be expanded?
 * Hollandia isn't 'an island' - it's a town in New Guinea
 * Was Massachusetts the centrepiece of the task group she operated in in 1944? - if not, labeling it as 'her' task group is a bit wrong
 * The coverage of Typhoon Cobra seems excessive, and doesn't mention Massachusetts - did she sustain any damage?
 * OK, I see that she's mentioned in the final sentence. Given that the Typhoon doesn't seem to have had a big impact on her, one or two sentences seem appropriate.
 * The phrase 'veterans and citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' is too flowery and vauge. How did they raise the money? - was it through donations, or did the state government pay (or both).
 * Why was equipment stored aboard the battleship?
 * Was she really a 'salvage yard'? 'Parts hulk' is probably the better term, and even that may be over-stating things.
 * How did she move to Boston in 1998 - I assume that she was towed, but this isn't specified
 * The statement that the ship is currently "mostly unaltered, adhering to her World War II era configuration" seems to clash with the previous statements that large amounts of equipment was stripped from her in the 1940s and 1980s
 * I don't think that you should say that she's one of 'only' eight US battleships to be preserved - this is a remarkable number given that every other World War II era battleship worldwide was either sunk or scrapped Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Selected replies:
 * I've got a book in mind for the project, but so far have not been able to find it. More will be added sooner or later, more sooner than later I hope. Ed may be able to help, I will ask him.
 * On the matter of Jean Bart, her para in the article came about do to this. We can yank it if necessary, but if at all possible I would proefer to trim and incorporate.
 * Typhoon Cobra para mentions Massachusetts at the end; last line.
 * Equipment stored on the battleship - by this I assume you mean the stuff salvaged for the Iowa reactivation? If that be the case it was due to the similarity of the Iowa and SoDak classes.
 * A tug moved her to Boston - I have images to prove that. I am looking into tracking down a name or a company or something of that nature; give me a few days and I will get back to you on that.
 * Unaltered I take to mean when compared to the Iowa class, which were physically rebuilt several times when reactivated for duty.
 * Lose the only. Got it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by doncram
 * Looks good...
 * I added the NRHP/NHL inventory/nomination document, and NHL summary webpage link, but have not reviewed those sources for whether there is additional useful material to add to this article.
 * Thanks.
 * As I've noted on another one or two BB articles, I find the claim that there are 8 battleships intended to be preserved as museum ships to be confusing / not worthy of discussion in an article about one of the museum ships, as here. It is again confusing to be listing 6 battleships, when 7 would be expected in a list of the others.  The footnote clarification to convey that all 8 are donated but in fact there are only 7 which are museum ships, because the Iowa is whatever, detracts from this article, which should be about the Massachusetts.
 * The problem here though is that the article is supposed to touch on all aspects of the subject it covers, and this aspect comes under the museum ships header. Its not necessarily important to Massachusetts per say, but to the idea that there are other battleship museums in the United States this line is important. If consensus develops to remove the mention I will do so, but to me this then creates an absence of coverage for the article in the museum ship section. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just tried in this edit reducing the coverage in the main text (and eliminating one of two "Notes" in the Notes section of the article). I don't mind some mention, but it's all too salient, and there's no reason in this article to set up a mystery about why u list 6 six ships and then explain about a "missing" one.  My edit changes to just a list of the 7.  Mentioning the 7 still should perhaps be in a See also section, as it seems a bit like "advertising" for the seven other articles.  Or could one link to a battleships article section that mentions them all, be used instead of 7 links?  My edit was just one reducing suggestion, feel free to revert or edit as you wish. doncram (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That works, although I would have waited for at least one more person to agree with you before changing anything. In my mind I adhere to a policy that one user's suggestions are good but if two or more users agree on the same points then its a must fix item. Just so you know, I would have gotten to it eventually had that been the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * More later... doncram (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Can we get 16"/45 caliber Mark 6 gun linked into this article now that it has been written (Also, adding an appropriate infobox to that article would also be nice)? -MBK004 15:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I built the article off a red link from this one, so the link should already be there. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Yep, found it: its on the first line in the second paragraph in the construction section. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, I forgot to mention in the infobox. -MBK004 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. I can fix that :) Give me a sec...TomStar81 (Talk) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Is that better? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional support
 * Please clarify that Charles Francis Adams was not the current Secretary of the Navy in 1941 in the Construction section.
 * "From 12–14 October, she protected forces hitting Formosa." Please rephrase to something more professional.
 * "this result in the removal of all the WWII era anti-aircraft guns" in the footnote is awkward.


 * A few clarification and style issues, but nothing that can't be fixed and can block it from getting A-Class. – Joe   N  00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking over my comments again I realized one of them didn't make much sense, but I would like to know that the others will be fixed. – Joe   N  21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joe. I believe that I have addressed your concerns, though I may have introduced a new one with the addition of rs. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  23:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. – Joe   N  20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Were the .50 cal guns mounted on the ship the standard M2 type? If so, it should be linked.
 * A total of nine full broadsides&mdash;all nine guns&mdash;and thirty&mdash;eight partial&mdash;varying between three and six guns&mdash;were fired, with five hitting Jean Bart. seems overly complex&mdash;I think there's a few too many mdashes in that sentence.
 * In reference to the Truk raid, the line That raid not only inflicted heavy damage on Japanese aircraft and naval forces, but also proved to be a stunning blow to enemy morale. probably needs a cite other than DANFS (specifically the morale bit).
 * Is Hollandia (currently known as Jayapura) necessary? The lead of that article explains in detail the name changes for anyone who clicks the link.
 * In reference to the typhoon, unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives sounds a bit melodramatic when it's revealed that the ship only had one sailor injured and a couple of planes lost. I'd say either add a line about the ships that were sunk and men killed and say that Massachusetts fared better, or just cut the "fight for their lives" bit.
 * Ironic that you would mention the this because I was compelled to trim that section due to above comments. It originally read as follows: On 18 December 1944 the ships of Task Force 38 unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives when Typhoon Cobra overtook the force– seven fleet and six light carriers, eight battleships, 15 cruisers, and about 50 destroyers –during their attempt to refuel at sea. At the time the ships were operating about 300 miles (500 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea. The carriers had just completed three days of heavy raids against Japanese airfields, suppressing enemy aircraft during the American amphibious operations against Mindoro in the Philippines. The task force rendezvoused with Captain Jasper T. Acuff and his fueling group 17 December with the intention of refueling all ships in the task force and replacing lost aircraft. Although the sea had been growing rougher all day, the nearby cyclonic disturbance gave relatively little warning of its approach. Each of the aircraft carriers and the fleet flagship USS New Jersey (BB-62) had weathermen aboard; despite this, none of these individuals or staffs were able to give Third Fleet due warning of the impending typhoon. On 18 December, the small but violent typhoon overtook the Task Force while many of the ships were attempting to refuel. Many of the ships were caught near the center of the storm and buffeted by extreme seas and hurricane force winds. Three destroyers, Hull, Monaghan, and Spence, capsized and sank with nearly all hands, while a cruiser, five aircraft carriers, and three destroyers suffered serious damage. Approximately 790 officers and men were lost or killed, with another 80 injured. Fires occurred in three carriers when planes broke loose in their hangars and some 146 planes on various ships were lost or damaged beyond economical repair by fires, impact damage, or by being swept overboard. At the time of the Typhoon Massachusetts was sailing with the Third Fleet's Task Group 38.1 and reported one injured sailor and two planes lost as a result of the Typhoon. This was deemed to be too much information, so I was asked to trim it. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's my suggestion as to what should be there:
 * On 18 December 1944 the ships of Task Force 38 unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives when Typhoon Cobra overtook the force&mdash;seven fleet and six light carriers, eight battleships, 15 cruisers, and about 50 destroyers&mdash;during their attempt to refuel at sea. At the time the ships were operating about 300 miles (500 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea. Although the sea had been growing rougher throughout the 17th, the nearby cyclonic disturbance gave relatively little warning of its approach. Each of the aircraft carriers and the fleet flagship USS New Jersey (BB-62) had weathermen aboard; despite this, none of these individuals or staffs were able to give Third Fleet due warning of the impending typhoon. On 18 December, the small but violent typhoon overtook the Task Force while many of the ships were attempting to refuel. Many of the ships were caught near the center of the storm and buffeted by extreme seas and hurricane force winds. Three destroyers, Hull, Monaghan, and Spence, capsized and sank with nearly all hands lost, while a cruiser, five aircraft carriers, and three destroyers suffered serious damage. Approximately 790 officers and men were lost or killed, with another 80 injured. Fires occurred in three carriers when planes broke loose in their hangars and some 146 planes on various ships were lost or damaged beyond economical repair by fires, impact damage, or by being swept overboard. Massachusetts weathered the storm much better; she reported one injured sailor and two planes lost.
 * I've only trimmed a some of the less relevant information, but a good deal of it is, because the reader should have more context that what's there currently. Nick D, what do you think about my suggested version? Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it's still too long, especially in comparison to the coverage of most other events Massachusetts was involved with. The article is about the ship, so coverage of events she was involved with should be tailored in accordance with the events impact on her. I think that the article's current two sentences on this is fine, and I've just struck out my comment above now it's addressed. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Parsec, would that paragraph be of use in Typhoon Cobra (1944)? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  01:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Ed - It might be useful, if the relevant information can be parsed into the article. Of course we shouldn't just plop it in the middle or anything.
 * I think this issue illustrates a larger problem; the article needs a lot more detail than it currently has. As Nick points out below, it neglects the most important aspect of the ship's participation in Leyte Gulf. I think this article would be well served by additional sub-division and significant expansion of the service history. I would recommend, for instance, a "Battle of Leyte Gulf" section; the island hopping in the central Pacific can probably be all in one section, and maybe a "Operations off Japan" section at the end. This ship had a very active career during the war, yet it's just about half as long as the article for SMS Seydlitz, which only took part in a handful of fleet advances during its career. I'm not trying to force the way I write articles (i.e., the formatting choices I've made) on anybody, but I do think readers need more context in order to get a good picture of what was going on and when, especially for the parts of her career when she was primarily employed as fleet defense. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * She spent most of April fighting off air attacks, while engaged In the operations at Okinawa, returning to the area in June, when she passed through the eye of a typhoon with 100 kn winds on 5 June. is jumbled up and I can't tell exactly where to split the sentences. Also, was there any damage done to the ship/casualties from the typhoon?
 * Once these (and some of the other things pointed out above) are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Nice work everybody! Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look into the rest of your comments as I am able to, and see about adjusting the content per your suggestions. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have address your second and third points . Cheers Parsec, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  23:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The references rely far too much on DANFS and Navy historical sources. I have brought this issue up before with some of the Iowa articles and find it hard to believe that there are not more book references that can be found to support battleships. I could understand an 80' yard patrol boat not having book sources but not for ships that were considered capital ships. While it's not a requirement, I don't think ship articles going for A Class or higher should have text from DANFS included. --Brad (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, the book I'd recommend for this would be . I've never seen it, but I have the other two in the series, and those are extremely detailed, both in design histories and ship careers. From what the others cover, I assume that it covers the two North Carolina-class battleships, the four South Dakotas, the six Iowa-class battleships, and the five Montana-class battleships. I don't have access to it in a library at the moment, though that will change when I go to college (I would just need time to write, which may not happen); would you happen to have a copy in a library near you? (check using the OCLC link above) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  23:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I spent most of Tuesday going to the libraries around town, and largely struck out for Massachusetts on both the micro and macro level. El Paso has too much of an army history to have a large navy collection; even the special collection departments were of no use (note that due to summer time scheduling and the ongoing construction for Tier 1 status I am unable to gain access to special collections at UTEP until next week at the earliest). I was expecting an oppose on the DANFS citation grounds, to which I counter that this is a RS as far as Wikipedia is concerned and the article is not exclusively reliant on the DANFS cites. As to Brad's comment on Battleships: there are a number of books out there that cover battleships, but we are talking about individual battleship histories. Their is a fundamental difference between the two; its like looking for books and the civil war and looking for books on cover operation conducted by Union troops from State X. The info is there, but the more specific the information required the less apt is to be readily available in the qualities needed. I want to make it clear that I do understand what you are saying and I do believe that we need to ween ourselves off of the internet for these ships, but that is only going to work if we have a readily available pool of alternative sources to go to, and at the moment I have no such pool here. Ed, UTEP does have that book, but its currently just beyond my grasp; I would need at least four more days to get to it, and even if I can get to it I start school Monday and would have to balance school with the work load in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sucks. I am about to go from balancing work, tennis and wiki to balancing college, work and wiki; school starts on Monday for me as well. I'm not sure if I will have the necessary time to make a trip to Marquette's library&mdash;it's not in my university's library, of course, making my car-less life difficult&mdash;and add the necessary information and citations. If I do, however, I'm sure you'll notice on your watchlist. ;-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article provides a good example of DANFS' limitations. DANFS coverage of the ship's role in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which has been incorporated into the article almost word for word is "While part of TG 38.3 she took part in the Battle for Leyte Gulf 22 to 27 October, during which planes from her group sank four Japanese carriers off Cape Engano". While factually correct, this doesn't mention the fact that the four carriers were a bait which the Japanese successfully used to lure the fast carrier force (including its escorting fast battleships) away from Leyte Gulf, enabling the main body of the Japanese fleet to come dangerously close to attacking the amphibious transports at Leyte. When this was realised Admiral Halsey was forced to turn his battleship force (including Massachusetts) south as they approached gun range of the Japanese carrier force, and dash for Leyte. As such, the key factor in Massachusetts' role in the battle wasn't that she supported carriers, but that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that this well-known and serious mistake has been left out of DANFS shows why it's not a sufficient source in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Please give time in civilian fashion. This is no report for the US Navy, but a wikipedia article for mostly civilians.


 * Why is the USS Massachussets firing after it disabled the main turret of Jean Bart? The French weren't really the enemy and this damage to docks and merchantships does it mean civilians were killed because some officers didn't realize they had knocked out the enemy? Also it's a massive waste of ammunition and the battleship was almost defenceless after this incident. Why such a wasteful use of resources far away from resupply?


 * Why is the battle with the French given in detail and the other engagements not?


 * What does mostly unaltered mean? She was pulled by a tug boat and used for spare parts so there must be equipment missing.


 * Why do you rely so heavily on US Navy sources? Aren't there sources of the French and the Japanese navy about these incidents or even works by civilian academics? Wandalstouring (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that there's a lot more detail on this ship that can profitably be presented about her service in the Pacific. I'd accept this level of detail if no other sources were available, but trawling through Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-45 ought to quite profitable. Just be sure to get the third edition. Garzke and Duilin have been also suggested, but might I remind y'all that we're not generally limited to books in our local libraries. Inter-library Loan is normally free and you can usually get the book if it's anywhere in the US.
 * Two weeks later, she bombarded the industrial complex at Hamamatsu before she returned to blast Kamaishi on 9 August. Please replace "blast" with "shell" or something a little more professional sounding. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.