Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Lexington (CV-2)

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USS Lexington (CV-2)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


Lexington was the first American aircraft carrier lost during World War II. She had a short, but adventurous, career during the war and a much longer one before the war as she and her sister Saratoga worked to develop carrier tactics and procedures, including several practice attacks on Pearl Harbor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • In the section with "Captain Ernest J. King", please make it clearer that all the actions mentioned didn't actually happen (the ships didn't sink, etc.); many readers read quickly and skip over things, and if they pick out just that part, they're going to get entirely the wrong idea :)
    • I've added notionally to further emphasize that these were exercise results, not real ones.
      • "Notional" is a little bit academic for my taste; I went with "hypothetical" and "scored a kill". "theoretical" and "in game" might also work. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add colons to military time throughout. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? See the first bullet in Military time
      • MOS:TIME is old as dirt ... has there been any new discussion to change it? The idea is that, for most readers, a 4-digit number could be anything; with the colon, it can only mean time of day. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decimated": Avoid this word, since it has two common but contradictory meanings.
    • Done.
  • "Lexington began recovering damaged and those aircraft ...": ? - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I was trying to say was that she recovered two classes of aircraft, those low on fuel and those that were damaged. Any suggestions on how to rephrase? And I noticed you didn't like triced? I thought it was a great way to improve the reader's vocabulary! Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. Now I see; I added "aircraft". Not a fan of uncommon words like "triced" (if common words convey the meaning accurately), at least in Wikipedia. People are rarely looking for education, just information. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This looks pretty good, and I have only the following comments:

  • Aircraft carrier is linked twice in the first para of the lead
  • The article should explain the relationship between the decision to suspect the construction of this ship and the Washington Naval Conference - this is hinted at, but should be more clearly explained
    • How does it read now?
  • "She was re-designated and re-authorized as an aircraft carrier on 1 July 1922.[2] Her displacement was reduced by a total of 4,000 long tons (4,100 t), achieved mainly by the elimination of the battlecruiser's main armament" - the use of 'battlecruiser' here is a bit confusing
    • Changed to "her main armament"
  • "and it was equipped with a single fire curtain to isolate any fires in the hangar" - a single fire curtain for such a huge hanger seems inadequate, so 'isolate any fires' appears to be an overstatement (this is also repeated later in the paragraph)
    • Good catch.
  • "The Navy's Bureau of Construction and Repair was not convinced at the time that aircraft could effectively substitute as armament for a warship. " - at what time? (at the time the ship was designed and built, I presume)
    • Clarified.
  • Can anything be said about crew accomodation and the like?
    • Not really, but what exactly did you want to see?
      • Anything really :) Given that this was the US Navy's first serious carrier design and it included a number of compromises as a result of having originated from a battlecruiser design, it would be interesting to know how the crew found the ship to be (especially during the prolonged operations in tropical conditions which were commonplace for the Pacific Fleet). Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The unescorted Neches, however, was torpedoed and sunk by I-72 on 23 January which forced the cancellation of the raid as Neches had been the only available tanker." - the repetition of Neches is a bit awkward
  • "ANZAC Squadron" or "Anzac Squadron"? - the article uses both at present
    • Standardized on the all-caps version
  • Both the links to "Christmas Island" are to the Australian island in the Indian Ocean. You're looking for Kiritimati, I presume.
    • Good catch!
  • Did the G4Ms which attacked the ship really use bombs during the action on 20 February 1942? These aircraft were mainly torpedo bombers. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the article says, no torpedoes were available at Rabaul at that date so they had no choice but to use bombs. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been sufficiently addressed; nice work with this article. If possible, more material on the ship's crew would be good. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

  • As ever, a good, carefully researched article. Minor comments follow:
  • "Before the Washington Naval Conference concluded, the ship's construction was suspended in February 1922..." its unclear from this if the suspension was linked to the conference or not.
    • Nothing specifically says that it was, but I'm almost positive that it was because it made no sense to spent money and resources on a ship that's going to be scrapped.
  • "Sponsored by Mrs. Theodore Douglas Robinson" - this will seem dim of me, but... does sponsorship in this context mean that she cracked the bottle over the ship at the naming ceremony, or it is more bureaucratic than that?
    • Would changing it to christening clarify things? AFAIK, they're pretty much synonmous for ships.
  • "was the largest single enclosed space afloat on any ship" As a direct quote, I'd normally be looking for the name in the text as to who said it, but in this context I wonder if the quotation marks are actually needed (I can't see how else it could be phrased).
    • The author is cited because it's a quote so I think that I need to retain the quote marks.
  • "The longitudinal wires were intended to prevent the aircraft from being blown over the side of the ship while the transverse wires slowed the aircraft to a stop." - are these the fore and aft wires in the previous sentence? If so, could it be "These longitudinal wires..." to make this clear?
    • Good idea.
  • "The Lexington-class carriers used turbo-electric propulsion because American companies struggled to produce the very large geared turbines necessary for such big ships when they were designed" - unclear if this meant that they struggled to produce them in volume, or whether it means that they struggled to build them at all.
    • My sources don't clarify which, but I'm inclined to think that they had a hard time making them at all until later.
  • "The Navy's Bureau of Construction and Repair was not convinced at the time" - unclear from context when "the time" is (previously in the article the narrative has progressed from 1916 up to 1942).
    • Clarified.
  • "With the Marine aircraft aboard, Lexington's flight deck was very congested and Captain Frederick Sherman decided to reverse the polarity of the ship's turbo-electric system and steam full speed astern in order to launch a new Combat Air Patrol (CAP) and then resume forward motion to recover the fuel-starved fighters of his CAP. This unorthodox action allowed him to maintain a continuous CAP and recover his aircraft without the lengthy delay caused by moving the aircraft on the flight deck from the bow to the stern and back to make space available for launch and recovery operations." I had to read this twice before I got it - it might be worth working on it slightly (I wonder if this went "He needed to maintain a continuous Combat Air Patrol and recover the fuel-starved fighters who were currently on patrol. With the Marine aircraft aboard, Lexington's flight deck was very congested and moving the aircraft... Captain Frederick Sherman decided to reverse the polarity of the ship's turbo-electric system and steam full speed astern..." it might make it easier to follow.)
    • Reworded; how does it read now for you?
  • Honors section: I'd recommend combining the solitary first sentence with the second paragraph. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate for article.
    • Punctuation here seems off: "She was the lead ship of the Lexington class, though her only sister ship Saratoga was commissioned a month earlier." Consider instead: "She was the lead ship of the Lexington class, though her only sister ship, Saratoga, was commissioned a month earlier."
      • Agreed.
    • "She also delivered medical personnel and relief supplies to Managua, Nicaragua, in 1931 after an earthquake." Consider instead: "She also delivered medical personnel and relief supplies to Managua, Nicaragua, after an earthquake in 1931." (suggestion only)
      • Your version does read better, I think.
    • "She was originally authorized in 1916 as a Lexington-class battlecruiser, but construction was placed on hold so that higher-priority anti-submarine vessels and merchant ships, needed to ensure the safe passage of men and materiel to Europe during Germany's U-boat campaign, could be built." Would this work better: "She was originally authorized in 1916 as a Lexington-class battlecruiser, but construction was placed on hold so that higher-priority anti-submarine vessels and merchant ships, which were needed to ensure the safe passage of men and materiel to Europe during Germany's U-boat campaign, could be built."
    • "After the war, and partially as a result of British experience, the ship was extensively redesigned." Consider instead: "After the war the ship was extensively redesigned, partially as a result of British experience."
      • Done.
    • "plus an additional 9 F2Fs in reserve" should be "plus an additional nine F2Fs in reserve" per WP:MOSNUM.
      • Good catch.
    • Likewise "18 Great Lakes BG torpedo bombers with 9 spares" should be "18 Great Lakes BG torpedo bombers with nine spares..."
      • Done.
    • Missing word here I think "...and was ruled to knocked out her flight deck...", → "...and was ruled to have knocked out her flight deck..."
      • Good catch.
    • "...Lexington and her consorts steamed..." or would "...Lexington and her escorts steamed..."
      • Escorts gets heavy use in this article; I wanted to mix it up a little.
    • The wording here seems a little off to me: "Brown requested that he be reinforced by another carrier if another raid on Rabaul was desired...", consider instead: "Brown requested that he be reinforced by another carrier if a further raid on Rabaul was required..."
      • I'm not sure that I see any real difference between those phrasings, although I've tweaked the sentence in other ways. Can you explain your thinking here a bit further?
        • Basically I'm a pedant. That sounds bad... what I mean is that ones superiors normally 'require' their orders to be carried out, rather than simply 'desiring' that that are. Not a warstopper though. Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lexington launched 8 Wildcats, 31 Dauntlesses and 13 Devastators" → "Lexington launched eight Wildcats, 31 Dauntlesses and 13 Devastators..." per WP:MOSNUM.
      • Done.
    • Format of timing is inconsistent throughout, in places you use a colon in others you don't.
      • Think that I've standardized all of them with a colon now.
    • "In addition, the hits flooded both engine and boiler rooms...", might work better as "In addition, the hits flooded both the engine and boiler rooms."
      • Done
    • "After Shōkaku and Zuikaku had recovered their aircraft that had sunk Neosho and Sims...", might be better as "After Shōkaku and Zuikaku had recovered the aircraft that had sunk Neosho and Sims..."
      • Done.
    • "These totaled 9 Wildcats, 15 Dauntlesses and 12 Devastators" → "These totaled nine Wildcats, 15 Dauntlesses and 12 Devastators..." per WP:MOSNUM.
      • Indeed.
    • Should Avgas be capitalised here: "small leaks in the port avgas storage tanks"?
      • Fixed by somebody other than me.
    • Not sure "list" should be capitalised here: "and the flooding gave her a 6–7° List to port."
      • Good catch.
    • "...doing little significant damage although..." seems contradictory. Perhaps consider "doing little damage although..."
      • Most of the damage done by that bomb was not significant, peppering the funnel, although it was pretty thoroughly peppered. So lots of insignificant/cosmetic damage.
    • This could be reworded: "began recovering damaged aircraft and those aircraft that were low on fuel at 1139...", consider instead: "began recovering damaged aircraft and those that were low on fuel at 1139..."
        • Done.
      • WP:MOSTIME says 11:39, do you prefer 1139? - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gday Dank. More happy with 11:39 per MOSTIME (and use this format in my articles). More just looking for consistency though. Anotherclown (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above caps here: "vapors from the cracked port avgas tanks..."
      • Fixed by somebody else.
    • Awkward language here: "The fueled Dauntlesses were launched and six low on fuel Wildcats landed aboard....", consider "The fueled Dauntlesses were launched and six Wildcats that were low on fuel landed in their place..."
      • Your phrasing is clearer (I was just thinking that I'd have to hyphenate low-on-fuel Wildcats as a compound adjective), but I kept landed aboard.
    • Missing word here: "The fire eventually forced evacuation of all compartments...", consider "The fire eventually forced the evacuation of all compartments..."
      • Agreed.
    • World War II is wikilinked in the last para of the article. If it must be linked it should be done so at first use.
      • Good catch.
    • In the bibliography you list works by the same author most recent first. This seems counter-intuitive to me, although I know of no policy which says its wrong (haven't really looked). Is this right? In all my academic and professional writing I have always listed oldest first (i.e. Smith 2009 before Smith 2010). Anotherclown (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're ordered by title withing authors, which is how I've always done it. Thanks for the very thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • You might mention that as a result of the heavy losses suffered in the Action off Bougainville, the Japanese were forced to delay their invasion of New Guinea.
      • Got a source for that?
    • The article has kind of an abrupt transition into the Battle of the Coral Sea. You might mention a little more background in a couple of sentences, such as the UK and US divining the Operation Mo and Ry plans through signals intelligence in March and April, and Nimitz' decision on 29 April 1942 to contest Mo with all four of his available carriers, which was the reason that Lexington was ordered to redezvous with Yorktown and operate under Fletcher's command.
      • Good idea, done.
    • You might explain briefly why Lexington did not participate in the attack on Tulagi with Yorktown.
      • I don't think that that's really a question that comes to a reader's mind. Anybody else have thoughts on this issue?
    • In the last paragraph of the 8 May section, you might should mention how many crewmembers died in the sinking of the carrier.
      • Done, although surprisingly hard to ferret out. Thanks for the review.
    • Otherwise, great work. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • The Lexington-class carriers used turbo-electric propulsion because American companies struggled to produce the very large geared turbines necessary for such big ships when they were designed. This contradicts the rationale in Lexington class battlecruiser which uses similar sourcing and gives multiple other reasons why this propulsion method was selected. (The source for this sentence is very obscure so I'm curious why its being used so extensively...)
    • That discussion is probably best saved for the class articles, both of which need to be updated. I've deleted it here.
  • In theory the guns could fire to both sides, but it is probable that if they were fired to port (across the deck) the blast would have damaged the flight deck. So they never, ever fired the 8" guns to port? This sounds dubious to me (another A&B paraphrase...).
    • They were probably fired on both sides, but nothing I have says that they were and what, if any, damage ensued.
      • I haven't found anything to contradict this but it still seems sketchy - if a major capital warship class had guns that could only fire in one direction you'd think the Navy would fall over themselves trying to fix this before 1942. Kirk (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • IIRC, the flight deck was only teak so you can imagine how that handled the blast compared to a steel deck. I suspect it was one of those things reserved for emergencies and not done in peacetime to save on repair costs. But no source that I have access to really deals with the issue, so I just can't say whether they did or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox issues
    • displacement, length, beam, draft uncited.
      • Good catch, descriptive paragraph added.
    • Qualify the speed 'as designed' in the infobox; you could add the trial speed.
      • Nope, the propulsion section clarified that as designed speed. I never add trial speeds to an infobox unless the ship was slower than designed, given that they were generally conducted under special conditions not representative of combat conditions.
    • The infobox range doesn't match the prose
      • Good catch.
    • The complement and installed power are uncited, although you can do the math to get there I would add the number in the prose or cite the total in the infobox.
      • The complement is dealt with in the fourth para of the Design and construction section. I believe that readers can do the math and figure out that 8x 22,500 shp motors equals 180,000.
    • Link the 5" guns in the infobox to 5"/25 caliber gun
      • Done.
    • 78 aircraft as built seems weird to me; DANFS says 81, which is also an odd number but more credible. Kirk (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why does it seem weird, because it's not a multiple of nine? I really don't sweat designed capacity vs actual capacity as that's a constantly shifting figure over a carrier's life.
        • I meant a multiple of 12. I'll spare you the soapbox for this review.
  • Also, the 8" turrets were turned into coastal artillery on Oahu, similar to the guns of Arizona so you probably want to mention it. Kirk (talk)
    • True, but I was planning on saving that info for the class article as that was true of the Saratoga's guns as well. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The guns firing only to one side still bothers me, but this article is certainly good enough for A. Good job. Kirk (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)&oldid=512360117"