Talk:Mahan-class destroyer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMahan-class destroyer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 16, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2013Good article nomineeListed
August 7, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Dunlap class[edit]

See "by which passed a shell hoist that revolved with the gun." I do not understand what action is being described here. Please clarify. Folklore1 (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the Mahans, the Dunlaps differed in their incorporation of a base ring for each forward 5”/38 caliber gun through which passed a projectile hoist that rotated the gun. Pendright (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlap[edit]

See the sentence beginning ”In the Battle of Vella Gulf". The person quoted should be named in the text. Folklore1 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roscoe said, ”In the Battle of Vella Gulf, as this engagement was called, the enemy had not laid a hand on the American ships.”[86] Pendright (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B-class assessment[edit]

G'day, as per the request on my talk page, I've have assessed this article as C-class on the Milhist rating scale, although it is very close to B-class, IMO. If you could add citations to the following areas, I'd be happy to upgrade the assessment:

  • the paragraph ending with: "At that point, she proceeded to the west coast for overhaul, leaving the yard in July 1944 for Pearl Harbor."
  • the paragraph ending with: "After participating in the bombardment of Iwo Jima in November 1944 and January 1945, she escorted an ammunition ship to the newly invaded Iwo Jima. There, Cassin did radar picket and air-sea rescue duty."
  • the "Ships in class" table - these could either be added by including a citation at the top of each column, or by including them in each line. For instance, please see the tables in List of light cruisers of Germany (which is currently rated A-class on the Milhist assessment scale).

Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks for your efforts on the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the assessment now. Good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mahan-class destroyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check
  • No disambiguation links found (no action required)
  • Copyvio Detector reports no copyvio issues (no action required)
  • The following duplicate links should be removed per WP:OVERLINK: "Admirality Islands", "Jayapura", "Depth charge", and "Saipan"
  • There are several dead link refs which should be repaired all of them appear to be pointing to DANFS at navy.mil. Since some links to DANFS are in order, I suspect there's a typo in some URLs or something like that. The report on the broken links may be found here (Dunlap, Drayton, Cummings, Reid, Flusser, Lamson)
    • I've gone through and fixed the dead links - should all be working fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • All images have appropriate licences, sourcing and captions (no action required)
Referencing
  • Referencing appears to be in order (except in terms of dead ref links noted above, no further action required)
Prose and MOS
  • In expressions such as 9 torpedo tubes, numbers should be spelled out per WP:ORDINAL
    • Replaced 9 with nine torpedo tubes -- Pendright (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "A third quadruple set of torpedo tubes was added..." be changed to "The third quadruple set of torpedo tubes was added..."? (I'm not a native speaker of English, so think of this as a suggestion)
    • Correct - changed indefinite article to definite article. -- Pendright (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the table in the "Ships in class" section is referenced just fine (no action required), I'd suggest adding another column to the table named "Source" and moving references to that column (only reference). That would reduce clutter since each field in every row is referenced to the same document. I'd also suggest prevent wrapping of dates and hull numbers in the table by adding nowrap=yes parameter to one field in each column (one with the longest text, of course).
    • I plan to implement your suggestions. -- Pendright (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source column added - one reference per line -- Pendright (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same table, there is no need to link shipyards repeatedly, per WP:OVERLINK, e.g. Bath Iron Works should be linked at the first instance only (ditto for other shipyards and terms like kamikaze)
  • According to WP:SURNAME Admiral Daniel E. Barbey should be referred simply as Barbey (no rank or first name) after the first instance of the reference. The same applies to other such references (Earhart, Roosevelt).
  • Daniel E. Barbey is first referred to as Admiral, then as Rear Admiral. Which rank did he hold?
  • Why is ABLE written in all-caps? Looking at the Operation Crossroads, I found no reason to do so.
    • In this form, it links to Operation Crossroads. Changed ABLE to Able and unlinked. Instead, linked Operation Crossroads.
  • If the first name of Commodore Magruder is known, it would be better to add it to reference to "Commodore Magruder" in "Dunlap" subsection.
    • Added his first name and initial
  • Link Theodore Roscoe in the prose

Nice work. The article is very informative and requires just a bit of mending to meet GACR. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator posted on my talkpage:

I've contacted you here because it seems the likely place to do so. If I’m wrong, please let me know. I believe I’ve fixed the deficiencies you pointed out on the talk page and have noted them, except for the dead links. (I plan to follow-up on your “Ships in class” suggestions, once the dead links issue is resolved.) I checked five of the ship link references to the appropriate DANFS at navy.mil. While in agreement, they remain dead. The sixth ship, Reid, has no link from her Wikipedia article to DANFS like the others. How I came up with the URL information escapes me. The references were cut and paste, none were by template. At the moment, I’m just spinning my wheels. So, is it possible you could favor me with some advice or help?

The urls were either incorrect in the first place or moved. They can be found here: Reid , Lamson, Flusser, Cummings, Drayton and Dunlap. For further reference, just go to this page, select initial letter, then the name of the ship or the name preceding (alphabetically) the one you're looking for to open a complete listing of the ships starting with the one selected. For example for Drayton, select D, then "Dragonet through Dyson" then Drayton.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ships in class" table still contains duplicate links. E.g. there's no need to have two links to "Bath Iron Works" in the same table. Just keep the first instance of each such link in the table.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deficiencies noted above, seemingly, have all been corrected. If not, please let me know. -- Pendright (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they are, so passing GA. Congratulations!--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Plant[edit]

"The traditional destroyer machinery was replaced with a new generation of land-based machinery. This change ushered in a new steam propulsion system that combined increases in pressure and temperature with a new type of lightweight steam turbine, which proved simpler and more efficient to operate. These changes led to a ten percent increase in displacement over the Farraguts." Anyone know what pressure and temperature these boilers operated at. Most U.S. Navy ships built during the war, and survived into the Cold War, had boiler that operated at about 600 PSI, were called M-type separate sides/furnaces one for steam generation, one for superheat of the steam- the design allowed them to control the amount of superheat, and could get above 700 degrees Fahrenheit for the superheat. Was this perhaps the first class with this type boilers. Wfoj3 (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working my way through improving USN destroyer class articles. I'm including steam conditions for each class in an "Engineering" subsection in those cases where I have a good reference for them. Basically, steam conditions increased rapidly from 300 psi saturated in the Clemsons of the 1920s through 600 psi/850 F in the Fletchers. In the 1950s this was further raised to 1200 psi/950 F. A guide to the increase with each class is at 1500 ton comparison at DestroyerHistory.org. This site also includes the shipyards' General Information Books for many of the lead ships, some of which give steam conditions. The steam conditions for the lead ships are listed in the appendices of Friedman's US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History. There seems to be some variation among ships of a class, as some Mahans are listed at 400 psi and others at 465 psi.RobDuch (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article?[edit]

I find this article lacking in significant ways. Ok, it's the first destroyer class type article to make it to FA status, so perhaps there's some work to be done to understand how a class with many members in it (as opposed to all the battleship class FAs ("BFA" from here on)) should be structured. I find this article to be completely overwhelmed by the Service History section breaking out all 18 ships of the class. This is not unprecedented in the BFAs, but is uncommon. Far more useful would be discussion of the class in general with regards to their service history. In service, were they tough? Under/over gunned? Maneuverable enough? Fast enough? How did they fare, as a class, in combat? Better than predecessors? The service histories of each ship are not very relevant in this context. Further, what about a specifications section? Perhaps something like this or this. The new steam turbine changed the propulsion picture for a few ship classes, but we spend just _one_ sentence on this propulsion plant. What? This article I think could be improved when compared to the battleship class brethren already in FA. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mahan-class destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhound, or George?[edit]

I just checked my copy of The Good Shepherd. In the novel the codename used for the Keeling on the escort's short-range radio is George. George, Harry, Dicky and Eagle are the codenames used in the novel. Forester even has his hero reflect on how they had been chosen to they each used different phonemes, phonemes that could be distinguished, even if distorted by static, etc.

Greyhound does make for a better name for a movie. But the names are distinct in the two media.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USS Keeling[edit]

==Fictional ships==
===''Keeling''===
{{anchor|USS Keeling|Keeling|Greyhound|USS Greyhound}}

A USS "Keeling", codenamed Greyhound (in the film) or George (in the novel), was introduced by nautical author C.S. Forester, for his 1955 novel WWII novel The Good Shepherd, and also appears in its 2020 cinematic adaptation Greyhound. This Mahan-class Keeling serves as flagship of a North Atlantic convoy flotilla in 1942 during the Battle of the Atlantic, having to fend off U-boat attacks on the convoy. In the 2020 film, it is portrayed by USS Kidd (DD-661), a Fletcher-class destroyer.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

References

  1. ^ C.S. Forester (1955). The Good Shepherd. Keeling wallowed as she made her turn, shipping green water. "Contact bearing indefinite," said the talker. "Very well." In the confusion of the water, that was not to be wondered at. Keeling was coming round.
  2. ^ C.S. Forester (1955). The Good Shepherd. Krause spoke to Viktor on the T.B.S.: "George to Eagle. Torpedoes fired."
  3. ^ J.D. Simkins (March 2020). "'Greyhound' trailer puts Tom Hanks at the helm of a Nazi-hunting WWII destroyer". Military Times.
  4. ^ Joseph Belvedere (1 April 1955). "The Good Shepherd". Best Sellers. Vol. 15, no. 1. University of Scranton.
  5. ^ Christopher Weston (6 March 2020). "The Greyhound movie is based on this true story - Tom Hanks takes to the sea in WW2". HITC. GRV Media Ltd.
  6. ^ George Winston (7 March 2020). "'Greyhound' The New Tom Hanks Movie, Check Out The Trailer". War History Online.
  7. ^ "Tom Hanks' WWII drama filming aboard USS Kidd this week". ABC Baton Rouge WBRZ 2. Louisiana Television Broadcasting LLC. 9 April 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

-- 70.51.47.127 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahan-class_destroyer&oldid=1212903923"