Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Saratoga (CV-3)


 * 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) 04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

USS Saratoga (CV-3)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments Support — Ed! (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You noted in my GAN of Philippine Sea that carriers like this one need detailed sections devoted to their air groups similar to what Ark Royal and Courageous have, though I do note that Lexington does not have. It's particularly apparent the air group info is lacking in some places while the number of aircraft is not, such as in the inter-war period, but the necessary information is there right at the beginning of the WWII section.
 * I have a book with FAA squadron histories that details when each squadron is reequipped and tracks every move on or off ship. There's no American equivalent that I'm aware of, aside from exceedingly incomplete coverage of a very few squadrons done by the Navy. You'll notice that I give the air group in as much detail as I can during the WW2 period, but that's because that information is readily available, which is annoyingly not true for the interwar period. In fact, even tracking squadron lineages isn't easy as they were redesignated multiple times both before, during, and after the war.
 * Well, that's rather frustrating. But I'm glad to hear it's a problem with US Navy sources in general, so my own carrier articles might see some improvement without that information. — Ed! (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * beam, displacement and draft numbers are different in the infobox from the design section.
 * Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "...two twin .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun mounts were installed in 1929. They were unsuccessful..." -- This wording implies the mounts were unsuccessful at being installed. They weren't, it was the guns themselves.
 * Really? What's your source? Friedman just says that they were unsuccessful without giving details. Hell, I'm not even sure if these .50s were air or water-cooled, although I suspect the latter. At any rate, I'm not aware of any signficant problems with the guns themselves at any point, but I'm not an expert on the Ma Deuce, although I've fired a few in my time.
 * What I mean to say is you call the installation "unsuccessful" but then note in the next part of the sentence that the mounts remained on the ship and one was replaced. So, the mounts were installed successfully, they just didn't work, right? Or were they partially installed but left incomplete? It should be clarified. — Ed! (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I can clarify it. Friedman: "In 1929, both ships were armed with experimental machine-gun batteries: two twin .50 caliber in Saratoga... They were not successful and were removed." Stern: "during her 1933-34 overhaul the twin .50 cal mounting on the roof of No. 2 8-inch mount was replaced by two single .50 cal Mk3s, while the older twin mounting on No. 3 was retained." What do you suggest given these sources?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Inter-war period: "Captain Rufus F. Zogbaum relieved Steele, who was ordered to immediately retire, on 1 January 1933" -- Was his retirement a result of the grounding incident? I assume so.
 * Me too, but my source doesn't directly say so.
 * "Saratoga's task force was delayed by the necessity to refuel its escorting destroyers" -- Since you note the support ships here, why not the ships in the screen?
 * You'll note that the information on her screen is often pretty cursory throughout the article. I mentioned the oiler because they were critically important in the early war period and were often the limiting factor in US operations of that time.
 * "Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo" et. al. I've recently been informed that the MOS for military ranks before names is they shouldn't be capitalized.
 * That makes no sense because they would never be capitalized if that were true, ever. Appended to a name they become proper nouns and deserving of capitalization. Examples would be "the archduke said..." vs. Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated..." You'll need to show me that rule...
 * Let me know. — Ed! (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Jumping in re ranks. Per WP:MILTERMS and WP:JOBTITLES ranks should be capitalised when used as a proper noun, but lower case when a common noun. Specifically:
 * "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under Titles of people above. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general." (WP:MILTERMS)
 * As such Sturm's usage above seems correct to me. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been told differently using the same policy (point 4 here). Was that incorrect? — Ed! (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope ARs comments seem spot on... I think you might have misunderstood what he wrote though. He said exactly what I said above (unless its so late here that I'm reading it wrong). He has differentiated between a functional position and a rank. So whilst the position is in lower case the rank is in upper case, note the example he used: "squadron executive officer Lieutenant Commander Dick Cevoli". Anotherclown (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh. I see my mistake. Strike that then. — Ed! (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Images- one interesting chink here. I'm not convinced File:5in-25 guns on USS Saratoga (CV-3) c1927.jpg was actually taken "during the course of the person's official duties". It is apparently taken from a personal scrapbook. Clearly there is scope to conclude that any photograph taken whilst a sailor is aboard ship is "during the course of his duties", but I'm not sure about that, it seems rather too wide. The material, given it includes ball tickets, must have been donated and to the extent that the National Museum asserts it's in the public domain (they don't seem to do this openly, but I'm not sure about the collections as whole) they may be mistaken. Could you look into a bit? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you're right in that the photo was probably not made by an official photographer, but the real question is its copyright status. Was that assigned to the museum or does it remain with the photographer? I supposed we could ask the museum what its stance is on these sorts of donations, but I'm not really inclined to spend the time to do so. Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The general rule is that it's difficult to surrender your copyright without an explicit declaration which even the museum does not seem to have made, even if post-donation it held the copyright (and that's far from clear). Alas, I think deletion was the only route open. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Grandi, it seems to me your theory here would introduce a loophole that a truck could drive through ... "Oh, I know this work product is supposed to belong to you, but I intended to put it in my scrapbook, so it isn't work-related!" I'd prefer we get a copyright lawyer to advise on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the absence of evidence, I think we should be cautious (as we usually are) and assume the file is not in the public domain. I think there is a clear case to suggest that the photograph is personal, rather than as an employee. Every employee takes personal photographs, and I'm sure only very rarely is there any question over copyright. If the Navy ever questioned who held the copyright in this instance, then either they or a court of law would have to satisfactory resolve the evidential hole. That aside, we still need to come to some sort of conclusion. The rule is that the artistic work must be made pursuant to the terms of the contract between employee and employer. I believe the Navy employee identified was not an official photographer or anything of that sort, but he also has an obligation to follow the appropriate direction of higher officers and to do such tasks as might be necessary for the running of the ship (in general terms). It's in this role that most of our government employee works appear to have come into being. In those circumstances, the physical photograph (or file) is normally passed over, because the photograph had some sort of purpose, and they enter the Navy archives that way. The fact that the photograph, before being donated, was in the hands of the Navy employee, and the fact it formed part of his scrapbook, are indicative that it was personal, that it was not done for some Navy purpose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 00:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "early warning radar in early 1941": I went with "first quarter" to avoid early ... early; correct that if it's wrong, or name the month if you know it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * "partially as a result of British experience": I went with a little more detail: "After the war the ship was extensively redesigned to solve structural problems discovered in British battlecruisers during the war." Feel free to tweak or expand that.
 * Friedman doesn't really discuss the stress issues mentioned in the Lexington-class BC article, which needs serious revision, but focuses on improved boilers and lessons received from the British.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "incorporate improved boiler technology and British wartime experiences": which experiences? If they simply adopted new British designs, you don't have to say more than that, but "incorporating ... experiences" is too vague. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Added more specifics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at USS_Saratoga_(CV-3). These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did skim a little past the point where I stopped. It's acceptable for A-class; I would oppose the article in its current state at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, could you be a little more specific, so I can take a stab at fixing whatever issues you've identified? This is likely to be my next FAC so I might as well do the work now rather than after the nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm up to my eyeballs in work, so I'll have to go with the short answer: look at the reviews I've done of your work up to now, and my edits, and look at this article, and see if anything jumps out at you. If you're not seeing anything, get someone else to look at it. You've done a massive amount of work around here, and I think it would be reasonable for you to ask people to return the favor and help with your articles. I'm trying to give you a heads-up that I don't expect that I'm going to have time to fix everything myself at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * I reworded the lead slightly to emphasize Operation Crossroadss.
 * Infobox: changed the deep load to match the prose and I deleted the uncited 1945 figure.
 * I think the range was also a typo; changed to match prose.
 * changed 5" guns to use same format as Lexington. (And that one doesn't have the metric conversions?)
 * If they're linked they don't need to have the conversions as they can just click on the link to see the conversion in their own article.
 * I would consider adding a summary of the new AA armament in 1944 in the infobox since it was significantly different.
 * Generally, I'm opposed to doing that sort of thing barring a major reconstruction like that done to the Courageous-class ships. The infobox is plenty long enough already.
 * Its in the prose for the curious but I was just thinking since every one of those guns was removed by 1943 the reader would be better served with a 1945 summary.
 * Similarly, in 1943 the air group was 90 planes, not 78, probably worth mentioning in the infobox too.
 * As noted at its top, this infobox is generally for the ship as built with modifications noted in the text.
 * Consider a citing the Pop. M article and removing it from the external links.
 * What in there is worth incorporating into the text? Most of it really isn't encyclopedic.
 * I guess I don't get the point of these sections - if the text isn't useful I don't see the point of referring readers to it just because it happens to be free.
 * The article sometimes wiki links battle names and other times island names; I would specify the battle names when possible.
 * That's deliberate; I linked them as I thought most suitable. Just the islands when discussing the general situation and then the battle to discuss the ship's part in it. Don't forget that the hatnote for each section covers the general campaign or battle, so I didn't feel like I needed to be really strict with the links. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's some of the ones I found: Instead of Bougainville Island you should link Bougainville Campaign which is in the lead but not the prose; I'd also remove the easter egg attack to talk about the Bombing of Rabaul (November 1943) in a single paragraph (and not the best name, this action has a lot of redirects to it!). Also, the offensive in the Gilbert Islands ... later easter egged in 'the invasion of the Marshall Islands, amphibious landings on Iwo Jima --> Battle of Iwo Jima, invasion of the Treasury Islands --> Battle of the Treasury Islands. Finally, there were a few air raids on islands which don't seem to have individual articles, not exactly sure what to do there. Overall, when I click on an island name I expect the battle article, not the island and many island articles don't have the link to the specific battles in WWII. Kirk (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Overall, a very good article. Kirk (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Support
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links check out (no action required).
 * One of images lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * Images review completed above (no action required).
 * The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations (no action required).
 * Not quite sure what you mean here: "but the only Japanese airstrike of the day was looking for the carriers and ignored the transports entirely." Do you mean "but the only Japanese airstrike of the day targetted the carriers and ignored the transports entirely..."?
 * Done.
 * Some inconsistency in the presentation of Task Forces, sometimes: "Task Force-X", sometimes "TF X" and still others "TF-X", probably best to select one and be consistent. Also I would recommend introducing the abbreviation "TF" at first use. Anotherclown (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea; I think that I've caught all of them, although I do still use both task force and TF.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2013 (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.