Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ford Island

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Island[edit]

Nominator(s): v/r - TP


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am attempting to bring Pearl Harbor to featured topic status. For this article, I would like to bring it to featured article status and have it lined up for the main page on Dec 7, 2014. I was assisted by User:Mark Miller and User:Mareklug in developing this article.v/r - TP 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank, Hchc2009, and Lineagegeek: Hi folks - don't mean to be a bother, but could I ask you to review the corrections please?--v/r - TP 21:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, done. I have no remaining reservations. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller and Mareklug: I started the GA review while the nomination was still pending but when I went to actually paste in the review I saw it had been withdrawn. My comments are here. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to @TParis, I fail at copy/pasting. Sorry Dan. Protonk (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I've added a subsection below for any comments you want to pull over to this page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank[edit]

  • "Ford Island was the site of an ancient Hawaiian fertility ritual. It was converted into a sugarcane plantation, sold to the US Army for an aviation division in Hawaii, and then taken over by the US Navy ...": I like the fact that you don't put dates on everything, but it's hard to follow the narrative here with no dates at all.
    •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hundreds of millions of dollars in investment": I guessed infrastructure and real estate development; correct that if it's wrong.
    • It's good--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "225,000 gallon": needs a conversion template, with "|adj=on".
    •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a 4,000 feet (1,200 m) runway down the center. The island is connected to O'ahu via a 4,672 feet (1,424 m) bridge": Both conversion templates need "|adj=on". - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 'ume", " Kahi‘ukā": Sometimes you use a straight single quote mark for the okina, sometimes an inverted comma. Be consistent, and probably go with the inverted comma. (I'm assuming that's an okina in 'ume.)
    • There is an RFC going on about the use of Okinas right now and I was waiting for the result before changing the article but it looks like that's the way it's going to go so I'll go over this and make sure it's consistent.--v/r - TP 23:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From our article on ʻEwa: "Along much of the South Shore of Oʻahu, ʻEwa is a reference to the direction of ʻEwa Beach, roughly westwards along the shore." If you're really referring to the west side rather than to ʻEwa Beach, then it might be better to say that.
    •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, ʻEwa may or may not need an okina. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are no historical records to give an exact date, but some literature believe that the island was given to Francisco de Paula Marín on 9 February 1818": "some literature believe" is probably a typo. Why does anyone believe that it happened on 9 February 1818 if there's no evidence for that? - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's based on two sources, I only used one and it's a letter archived at the Dept of Archeology which was a telling by a source who repeated an oral story she herself was told. Records were not kept until the mid-1800s about land ownership. The first secondary sources don't give a date of ownership, but the oldest dates back to 1818. The claim of 1791 comes from Marin's own journal, but he didn't even start his journal until 1809.--v/r - TP 00:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That evidence probably isn't solid enough for A-class, unless noted historian(s) accept it, in which case, at least one of the historians should be attributed. Also, it's not clear what you mean by ownership if "Hawaiians generally refused to recognize land ownership by foreigners" (my rewording). - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Records from that period arn't solid. Hawaiians didn't believe people could actually own the land. The land held almost God-like status in their religion and the thought of man owning it seemed backwards. Marin thought it was given to him, but it was never deeded. At some point, the King and his sister 'repossessed' almost half the island and then after they were done with it, they sold it at auction.--v/r - TP 04:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's put in a quote supporting that from the best historian you have. But what won't work is to say (paraphrasing) "Marin owned it, but people couldn't own land, then the King owned it". - Dank (push to talk) 10:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Dank: I've rewritten this part, is that better?--v/r - TP 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't really follow it, but maybe I'm just slow on the uptake today. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copyedited the article down to Sugar per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. I also commented at the Peer Review. I normally don't comment on sourcing, but the sources seem a little thin for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 11:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since a lot of time has passed, I copyedited again down to Sugar. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support Comments: G'day, good work so far. Just a quick drive-by look at the Bibliography and References from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • is there a place of publishing for the Burlingame work?
    •  Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there oclc or isbn for the Curtis, Deerr and Pratt works?
    •  Done Curtis and Pratt--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • year of publication for the Day work?
    •  Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • please check the location of publication for the Day work. Currently it says "Australia", but the edition I found Worldcat indicates it was published in the US. If published in Australia, please list the city as well;
    • @AustralianRupert: I couldn't find the book at the library - I assume it's checked out. I looked online and I can't find any reference to Austrailia at all. I've updated the publisher and location to the Google books result.--v/r - TP 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • place of publication for the Prange work?
    •  Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • References # 7, # 8, # 24, # 25 and # 62 (where the full book citation is provided) should probably use the same style (short citation) as others like Reference # 41 for consistency. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. I had planned on working on this this weekend, but I got selected for promotion on Thursday and that's filled up my weekend. But I will get on these all. I see Dank has worked on the article quite a bit too.--01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
If promotion is a good thing, gratz. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I have been out of it. Dealing with another issue on this project and some other stuff in personal life.--v/r - TP 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up comments: G'day, I had another look at the article today. Your changes look quite good and I think you are getting there, although I think it still needs a copy edit. I had a go at fixing some of the issues this morning (please check you are happy with my changes), but I don't really have time for much more at the moment, sorry. I don't know if Dank has time to come back, but if not I'd suggest seeing if someone from the WP:GOCE can help. I'd be happy to support promotion to A-class once this has been done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AustralianRupert: The copyedit has been completed by User:Miniapolis. They identified a sentence with a poor source that doesn't support the material. I'm working on correcting the source.--v/r - TP 23:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lineagegeek[edit]

  • Air Service/Air Corps use needs work:
All Air Corps unit names, except for the 6th Aero Squadron are anachronistic and do not give the names of the units at the time they were at Luke Field. Part of this appears to be the source used for the information, which after looking at, I would not consider a reliable source. The squadron names are close enough to cite the correct ones by searching Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-405-12194-6. LCCN 70605402. OCLC 72556..
Units not mentioned include the 5th Group (Observation) and several non-flying organizations. Information on the 5th group is at Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1983) [1961]. Air Force Combat Units of World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-02-1. LCCN 61060979.. Your list also separates units that had different names while at Luke. Right now this is a problem with B2, but it's fixable. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I'm a little confused by some of what you're saying. So you're saying that I'm not using the unit names as they were at the time they were stationed at Luke Field and you want me to research, using your sources, the names during that period? I can do that, I just want to be clear on what you want.--v/r - TP 23:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. For example, the two entries for the 6th Aero Squadron and the 6th Fighter Squadron [sic] are for the same unit, which was designated 6th Aero Squadron, 6th Squadron (Observation), 6th Squadron (Pursuit), and 6th Pursuit Squadron while at Luke Field (never Fighter Squadron). It also was at Luke until 1927, not 1926. The "394th Bomb Sq" was the 4th Aero Squadron and 4th Squadron (Observation) and was at Luke from 1920-1922. The 4th Observation Squadron was also the 4th Reconnaissance Squadron (same unit as before) and returned to Luke from 1927-1939, not 1929-1937. The 23d was the 23d Squadron (Bombardment) and 23d Bombardment (not Bomb) Squadron. The 72d was also a Bombardment Squadron. The "431st Bomb Squadron" was the 50th Observation Squadron and 50th Reconnaissance Squadron and was at Luke until 1939. So, yes, I bellieve the current table needs editing to merit a higher assessment.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, no problem Col, I'll get on it.--v/r - TP 22:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--v/r - TP 21:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - Hchc2009[edit]

Comments:

  • Good to see an article on this kind of topic! Various copy-editing comments follow...
    • Thanks!--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the length of the article, you could afford a fourth paragraph in the lead if you wanted - there's a lot interesting information that follows that could potentially go in.
    • I'll split the second paragraph into two.--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done--v/r - TP 20:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sold to the US Army for an aviation division in Hawaii in 1916" - "for use by an aviation division"?
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The island is connected to Oʻahu" - I'd forgotten the relationship of the island to O'ahu at this point, and it might be worth adding a few words into remind the reader
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "organic compound" - worth a wikilink
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the endemic Pueo" - should this be really capitalised? (it isn't capitalised in the Pueo article)
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Francisco de Paula Marín introduced edible cactus to the island " - should this be edible cacti?
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ancient Hawaiians called the island Mokuʻumeʻume, meaning "isle of attraction"" - minor, but does this statement really need five citations to support it? (it seemed like overkill)
    • It's contentious. A minority of sources have translated it as "Island of Strife" and also I felt that discussing an island that ancient Hawaiians used for what Protestant & Christian Americans would consider swinging, it needed extra citations. The literal meaning of Mokuʻumeʻume is "Island of push and pull".--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Those touched would find a private section of the island." - if we mean that they had sex together, we should say so.
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Marín's claim of ownership over the island was as clear to him as he believed." - I wasn't sure what this meant (who is the "him" and "he"...?)
    • I left out a "not" in there. Him and he refers to Marin himself. The sentence was supposed to read "was not as clear to him as he had believed". Essentially, Marin and Kamehameha were speaking two different languages (while literally speaking the same language). Kamehameha gave Marin the island for his use, but Kamehameha had no concept of a person owning land. That wasn't something that Hawaiians understood at the time. It was a miscommunication.--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " arrived in Hawaii to ascertain defensive capabilities" - "its defensive capabilities"?
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the selling of lands but never spoke out against it." - selling of land generally? Hawaiian land? Or this particular sale?
    • At the time her concern was Hawaiian lands. Though not connected to this article, and I don't know about her particularly, the entire Bishop family was and still is angry over the sale of the land that is now eastern Pearl Harbor on O'ahu and Hickam AFB. That land was all owned by the Bishop family and it was a major sore spot for them. But it happened after this point and isn't relevant to Ford Island. I've fixed the sentence.  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "speculation on what extent the cession would include became unpopular with the native Hawaiian people" - I think there's an error there; the cession was presumably what was unpopular, not the discussion about it?
    • I'll check, but the Hawaiians were angry about it before the cession even happened. Kalākaua was strongly advised against it.--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have caused the king's return to drinking" - the MOS would have this as "the King's" (ditto similar examples later on)
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But with the California's support," - not quite right; "with California's support" or "with the Californians' support" would make sense though
    • I think it originally said "the state of California" but  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1875, the United States congress again agreed to reciprocity for an additional seven years, fearing that any treaty between Hawaii and Australia or New Zealand would result in annexation to one of those two countries instead of the United States, if Kalākaua would give the United States Ford Island in exchange." - the last bit of the sentence is orphaned from the respective clause at the start.
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Ii estate" - I couldn't work this out at first, as it's previously referred to as the "John Papa Īī estate" (NB: you later call it "the John ʻĪʻī estate"
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the land would by sold" - "be sold"
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The aviation division of the US Army was generally favorably received amongst the Hawaiians, who saw military investment in their land as a compliment" - all military investment, or "who saw the military investment"? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Protonk[edit]

Originally written for a GA review and posted at User:Protonk/Ford island GA. Dan pointed out that it would be easier for folks to reply to them here. Protonk (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

style/layout[edit]
  • Are any of the names listed in the lede (e.g. Rabbit Island, Marín's Island, Little Goats Island, or Mokuʻumeʻume) redirects to Ford island? If so, should we bold them?
    •  Done--v/r - TP 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving the Naval aircraft at Naval Air Station Pearl Harbor in 1931 table down a bit (perhaps below the first para about the naval air station)
    •  Done--v/r - TP 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the plan to install SOLAR FREAKIN ROADWAYS (sorry) on the airstrip was not put into place, is a better place for that concept art right above the paragraph starting with "In June 2013 the Navy planned to install 60,000 photovoltaic panels over 28 acres..." (or perhaps not at all)
    •  Done And it was just solar panels, lol. Solar roadways would be awesome but I think those are still in development. Last I heard, they could change lane layout, light up a road, melt ice, and power nearby homes. It will be awesome when they do come out. But these were just solar panels that would be colored to look as if they were the runway from the air.--v/r - TP 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
content[edit]
  • When we say it slopes toward pearl harbor do we mean east, west, south? It's kinda in the middle of pearl harbor.
    • I checked the source and it doesn't specify. It only says that it slopes toward Pearl Harbor. It's a 2011 report and by that time the active part of the base was on the east side. I could assume that but it'd be OR. What do you think I should do?--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Toward pearl harbor may be fine. I'd also assume that the source means "pearl harbor" to be the bulk of the navy base (which would be east), but if they don't specify it's probably ok. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • what does "Ford Island proper" mean? Are we just distinguishing it from Ford island + Mokunui and Mokuiki?
    • It's talking about the land below the top soil. Any suggestions for how to say that?--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, that's a good question. I'll think about it a bit, my gut says avoid "proper", but it's not a huge issue either way. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some literature, the ceremony is considered a game." what does Kane say about this, exactly?
    • I'll have to run out to the library to get this. I cant find an electronic copy of that page.--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so first I want to point out that Herb Kawainui Kāne is the author which is why I am giving so much weight to his opinion. The exact paragraph reads: "ʻUme might be termed a courtshop game of the makaʻāinana. Chanting a song, an uimpire would walk armong nocturnal assembly of men and women. At a certain break in the song he would touch the nearest man with a wooden wand decorated with feathers. At the next he would touch the nearest woman. The man and woman would go out into the night."--TP (alt) 23:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Seth Porter Ford, Jr. die? Or more directly, when was the land sold to the Papa Īī land trust?
    •  Done 1885 and 1891 respectively. I've added it to the article.--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The United States purchased the island in 1917." I'm assuming this means the US purchased the remainder of the island or the whole of it?
    •  Done Only the Luke Field part at this time. The north side was still owned by the John iI estate until after the Bishop Estate vs the United States lawsuit, which had nothing to do with Ford Island but set a precedent that scared the iI estate into not fighting the United States for more money.--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the height of World War II, over 40,000 people lived or worked on the island" should go at the end of that paragraph.
  • "which usually hosted an aircraft carrier, was empty" "berthed" may be better
  • "The fleet flagship (the USS Pennsylvania) was also in Pearl Harbor, dry-docked at the nearby Navy Yard. The ninth battleship, the USS Colorado, was being overhauled on the West Coast." not sure why this is relevant to Ford island. Likewise the following sentence.
    •  Done Made relevant by revising. It is indispensable to mention here USS Pennsylvania, if only as the graphic used (saliently) shows it on the map. Ditto for the fleet flagship undergoing refitting stateside, needed by the scope of the USA/Japan fleet comparison at paragraph close. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ford Island the communications systems there were inadequate" the two citations here are identical to those cited at the end of the sentence. is there a reason why we don't just cite them at the end?
    • I speak boldly for Tom, but that may be folly. AFAIK the current political climate on Wikipedia fosters such extremes whenever reverencing controversial claims. End of sentence has become NOT ENUF. I personally promise to quietly steel in during the Central Standard Time night and remove the first brace of identical citations from that sentence, per your sane suggestion, once the article passes this certification phase... :/ --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, are the 5 pilots shot down in the Aftermath distinct from the search planes shot down during the battle?
    • Yes, the first planes shot down were from the Enterprise trying to land on Ford Island. The others were from Ford Island, notified the tower and gunners of their trip, and yet were still confused for the enemy and shot at while trying to land on Ford Island again. One of the pilots was in both sorties, though.--v/r - TP 22:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Marines, who had picked up rifles for guard duty..." why is this important?
  • "That evening, Hawaiians were instructed to observe an indoor blackout, stay off the telephone..." how is this relevant to ford island? Was it a directive for all of Oahu?
    •  Not done IMHO it is perfectly correct in this place. This article is about Ford Island, yes, but it is supposed to leave a vivid impression in the reader's mind, and generalizing the focus with such a pertinent tidbit does not harm things, and is a wonderful device for preserving interest and cohesion. It does not stop us from injecting this lovely passage in a more general article or five, including History of the United States. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's ok. Hope you'll understand my desire to push back so we can see where an escape to the general is good for the soul and where it's a loss of focus. :) Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's important to set the stage for the tense feelings all around the island and the fear of another attack which led to the friendly fire. I'm not opposed with describing this another way, though.--v/r - TP 03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 1 July 1999 all military and civilian general-aviation activity at NALF Ford Island ended when NAS Barbers Point..." why did the closure of barbers point impact Ford island?
    •  Done--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll just call anything a "bridge to nowhere" Ford island, Ketchikan, anything! :) Just a comment, no action needed.
    • Hehe, there was literally nothing on the island at the time but houses, so it was a bridge to nowhere :D--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the National Trust for Historic Preservation considered the Navy's communication style more directive than bi-directional" what does this mean, exactly? It's an odd turn of phrase.
    •  Done--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It hosts the Pacific Warfighting Center...to simulate real-world conditions for battlefield commanders." this feels a little press-releasey to me. I'm sure that's one of the things the PWC does (no doubt the actual acronym is something like PacWarCenStupidThing), but it also does regular training for random stuff like battery maintenence.
    •  Done--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics say that the platform has poor emergency preparedness..." who?
    • The article only says "experts". I removed the emergency preparedness sentence anyway. It's emergency preparedness has nothing to do with the island. Replaced it with a sentence about how it has never actually made it to Alaska and has resided on the island instead.--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIST2FAC. lol. I forgot how terrible navy names for things are
    • Hahaha--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The aircraft carrier which was actually a test dummy, the USS Utah..." sort of awkwardly worded. Also the Utah was a battleship before being turned into a target ship, not an aircraft carrier "test dummy"
    •  Done Comma fixed the awkwardness, and I replaced the ship designation, per our own article content. Error introduced by source and my slavish copying of it. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article marks the only time Michael Bay has been solemn about anything, so that's something.
  • this external link is to a pd photograph. Would we be better off uploading it to commons and including it in that gallery?
    • The link is to an entire gallery. We could probably upload all of the photos, but the person who put the gallery together wouldn't get credit for collecting the images.--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is a pdf. Is there some way to format the link so the reader knows that? Also is this something that would be eventually incorporated into the sourcing?
    •  Done Portable Document Format specified as |format=PDF within the parameters of any cite template in use on Wikipedia (in all language versions) draws a useful PDF icon in place of the default HTML value, that makes the blue NE box and arrow we take for granted. ;) For example: FAA Airport Form 5010 for NPS PDF, effective 1999. BTW, did we know that this is an (external) red link? We use this citation twice: in the lede, defining it in Ford_Island#Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Ford Island. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I'm missing something. I should've specified that the "Mokuʻumeʻume (William Dorrance). Historic Hawaii Newsletter, December 1991, Vol 17 No 12" in the external links is a PDF and doesn't render the pdf icon automatically because the resource is dynamically generated and doesn't end in .pdf (wikipedia's common css has selectors for external links that look for some variation of ".pdf" in the url and place the icon on there). I've since discovered there's a template which can force the icon, {{PDFlink}} and I've applied it to that particular external link. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sources[edit]
  • This is a little picky but this source does a lot of work for us. I think the milhist project has among them enough books on pearl harbor to build a life sized paper mache model of Ford island. Maybe we can use some of them here instead. :
    • I would be happy to invite anyone interested to eat away at our dependence on that source, I just have none of them myself.--TP (alt) 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker[edit]

G'day, great work so far. I'm no guru on the US in the Pacific in WWII, but I have a few comments to make:

  • you need to check overlinking, Kamehameha I., California, Bernice Bishop, the ships in the "Pearl Harbor during the attack" box, and Ewa Beach are all overlinked.
  • there is some apparently unnecessary "citation bombing" where five citations are used for what seems a fairly uncontroversial piece of info, ie "isle of attraction".
    • That piece is a little more controversial that it'd seem. The literal translation of Moku'ume'ume is Island of Push and Pull. The intended meaning according to historians, at least the ones I found in books and at the Bishop Museum, is Island of Attraction (just the pull part). However, others have translated Push and Pull as "Strife". So Island of Strife shows up in enough sources that it isn't entirely ignorable. Although between Attraction and Strife, and with consideration of what was happening on the island, and the majority of sources supporting "Attraction", I felt it was best to use Island of Attraction and source it well. If everyone agrees it's not necessary with this in mind, I'm happy to reduce it.--v/r - TP 18:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is the case, then perhaps both titles should be mentioned, and sources provided for both, rather than citation bombing one of them?
        • Perhaps. But the sources that mention Strife just arn't as strong as Attraction.--v/r - TP 00:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm fairly relaxed about that, my only point is that unless it is a fringe theory, it usually merits a mention. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Done Okay, I've added island of strife, removed two sources supporting attraction, and added one supporting strife.--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a citation is needed for a statement about "Japan fearing an attack" in the lead, and this should be covered in the body, as should all information in the lead. There doesn't appear to be anything particularly controversial in the lead that would need to be cited in-line there, all citations should be moved to the body.
    •  Done Rewrote that sentence and added a paragraph to the body.--TP (alt) 01:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • capitalisation of proper names should be consistent, ie "USS Arizona Memorial"Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I understand. I only see memorial capitalized in the sources and that's because the title of the article capitalizes it. Am I missing something?--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1991 the Navy discovered nine metals, two semi-volatile" - what were the metals, are they contaminants? Heavy metals? Needs some more info.checkY
  • who did Dowsett buy the island from? Marin or the Hawaiian owners?
    •  Done--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • when was the island sold to the land trust?checkY
  • there really is no explanation of how Bishop came to be administering Hawaii
    •  Done I added a bit about his background.--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • who did the military lease sections of the island from, and who did the US purchase the island from?
    •  Done--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Currey was transferred to Washington",
    •  Done--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • some mention that Luke was a fighter ace in WWI would be in order
    •  Done--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World War I salvage hangars" is unclear, were they canvas hangers salvaged from WWI?
    •  Done Yes, according to [1] page 21.--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hickham appears to have been an USAAC pioneer, perhaps that would be a better description than "recently deceased"?
    •  Done--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest " built a firehouse, water-supply and lighting systems"
  •  Done--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was USS California the USN flagship and Pennsylvania the fleet flagship? It isn't clear what California was flagship of.
    •  DoneCalifornia was the Pacific fleet flagship. The Pennsylvania was flagship of the combined Pacific and Atlantic fleet--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • it isn't clear that H. L. Young was trying to communicate after landing on Ford Island
    • He was trying to achieve general communications because none currently existed.--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest replacing "bi-directional" with "consultative"
    • I added something else in there per Protonk's criticisms above.--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "As hoped by the trustTrust"
    •  Done--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the suggestions. I will try to get to them either this week or next week. I am falling behind in some college courses that I need to catch up on this week.--v/r - TP 00:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TParis: When do you think you might be able to address the outstanding comments? This is probably the longest-running ACR I can recall but it seems to have a decent chance at promotion if the remaining concerns are dealt with shortly. It'd certainly be a shame to close with no consensus after all this time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, it's just been a busy month and I haven't been able to get back to the library to sort out some of the book-needs. I'll try to finish it up by Monday. I have to be out of the house for 4 hours tomorrow so I can stop by the library then.--v/r - TP 05:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I fixed all of the concerns except the bit about Japan in the lead. Going to work on that now.--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hawkeye7: Does PD-US apply if the photo was published before Hawaii became a territory? Prior to 1887 it was nominally independent, then until 1898 it was essentially annexed but not a US territory. Protonk (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to this, works published before 1909 outside of the United States are still public domain within the U.S.--v/r - TP 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Ford_Island&oldid=756281698"