Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS O'Flaherty

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

USS O'Flaherty

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

I bring you another DE article for A-class review. O'Flaherty, considered a lucky ship by her crew, participated in three major Pacific War operations and emerged unscathed. Kges1901 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the diagram. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kges1901 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

In the morning of 8 January, the ship fired a single 5-inch AA round --> "On the morning of 8 January, the ship fired a single 5-inch AA round"?

Done

and sent boats to return Kitkun Bay personnel taken off by other --> "and sent boats to return Kitkun Bay personnel took off by other"?
Following three days of air strikes and naval bombardment Merge air strikes.

Done

Continuing on screen duty as the escort carrier air groups supported the American advance On screen needs a hyphen.

That doesn't seem necessary as it is not a compound word

With a crew excited at news of the --> "With a crew excited at the news of the"?
where he was captured and killed by the Japanese Pipe Japanese to the Empire of Japan.
and was depermed before sailing for Bermuda on 25 April Maybe add "island" before Bermuda?

That would be inconsistent with the other Pacific islands

Sea Fiddler to Eniwetok at the end of the month.[10][2] Re-order the refs here.

Done

and net cargo ship Zebra back to Eniwetok Sea of blue here.

Can't really avoid it

activity in the Pacific between Hawaii and the west coast Link Hawaii.

Done

Convert 5 in to metric units same to 40 mm.
5" --> 5 in

Done

Pearl Harbor in November, arriving at Los Angeles.[56][2] Re-order the refs.

Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901: I have one comment left Beginning at midnight on 2–3 October should be "Beginning at midnight on 2/3 October" and then we're ready to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Looks good to go to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

"Having joined the Pacific Fleet after transiting the canal three days later.." Did she join the Pacific Fleet three days later, or transit the canal three days later? This sentence is ambiguous.

Rephrased

To prevent readers from having to click out of the article, it might be worth giving more context to where Majuro, Tarawa, Eniwetok and Guadalcanal are.
Similar for VPB-21.

Unabbreviated

"..the command of CortDiv 64 transferred his flag." What does this mean? Avoid jargon.

Clarified

"..and the DEs.." Unless I missed it, the article hasn't explained what the abbreviation "DE" means?

Unabbreviated

This is still outstanding. Harrias ^talk 11:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A third nearly missed the screening destroyer Capps.." Presumably, this should be "narrowly missed"?

Unabbreviated

"After arriving at Apra Harbor of Guam.." "of" seems an odd choice of word here: maybe in, or on?

Fixed

"After arriving at Apra Harbor of Guam on 3 May, O'Flaherty's was forced.." No need for the "'s".

Fixed

The image caption for the gun transfer is broken.

Fixed

A concern with this article is that it relies very heavily on primary sources; ie the war diaries of Paul Callan and D. W. Farnham. By my count, 35 of the 59 citations are to these primary sources, covering a bulk of the text. WP:PRIMARY states "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I think the use of these sources is within that, but it does also caution: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Are there more secondary sources that can take some of the weight off the primary sources?

The primary sources generally align with DANFS. If I used secondary sources they would be much less detailed about the individual ship and the article would be written in much more general terms.

Overall, this is a good, detailed (possibly in places over-detailed, but I think the balance is just about right) article. On the whole my concerns are minor typographic corrections, other than my sourcing query. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 10:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One minor outstanding point above, but not enough to withhold my support, nice work. Harrias ^talk 11:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

Great to see some US ships rolling through ACR again, even if they are smaller. I have a few comments:

in the lead, "invasion of Lingayen Gulf"

Done

also in the lead, for sold for scrap, suggest linking ship breaking (same in infobox), also at the end of the article

Done

link superfiring

Done

state in the body that the 20 mm mounts were singles, and the TTs were a triple mount

Done

any idea how many DCs she could carry?

Not in Friedman, which is technically the most detailed source

what sort of ship was Alcoa Polaris? troopship?

Indeed

as it is only used once, suggest DEs→destroyer escorts

Done

link Saipan at first mention

Done

link fleet carrier

Done

"strikes against Okinawa"

Done

link typhoon

Done

link anti-submarine warfare at first mention

Already linked in design section

replace stateside (colloq) with continental United States

Done

link decommissioned

Done

Okinawa Gunto?

Changed to just Okinawa - that was the name the Navy used in the battle star campaign listing

the reliance on Callan and Farnham as primary sources is quite heavy. I doubt this will go unremarked at FAC if that is where this is heading.

That's all I have. Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Kges. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was commissioned on 8 April 1944 --> as the last pronoun used before this is he, I'd suggest maybe making it clearer you are talking about the ship here. Potentially, "The ship was..."

Done

in the Bibliography, is the Decorations, Medals, Ribbons, Badges source a military document? If so, it probably should be moved to that section of the Bibliography

Done

"Register of Ships of the U.S. Navy, 1775-1990": add an endash instead of the hyphen

Done

same as above for Decorations, Medals, Ribbons, Badges

Done

in the Bibliography: Naval History & Heritage Command and Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships are probably overlinked

Done

" The Little Giants - U.S. Escort Carriers Against Japan": add colon instead of the hyphen per worldcat: [1]

Done

ISBNs and OCLCs check out (no action required)
suggest adding alt text to the images: [2]
ext links all work: [3] (no action required)
there are no dup links or dab links (no action required)
another set of escorts in midocean: this wording seems a little awkward to me, maybe "another set of escorts "mid-ocean"?

Done

20 June for the replacement of the damaged 5-inch gun with one from her irreparably damaged sister Oberrender --> "20 June to replace the damaged 5-inch gun with one from her irreparably damaged sister Oberrender"?

Done

departed with escort carriers Manila Bay and Shipley Bay --> "departed with the escort carriers Manila Bay and Shipley Bay"?

Done

sources are all either reputable publishing houses or government, so seem to be reliable (no action required)
in the Awards section, suggest linking battle stars (service stars)

Done

the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations likely (no action required)
the article heavily relies on primary sources, but from what I could tell they appear to be used only for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" per WP:PRIMARY. I would suggest, though, trying to find more secondary sources, prior to FAC, to break up some of the sequences of citations to primary sources
citations and references appear to be consistently formatted to me (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2020 (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.