Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Saratoga (CV-3)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

USS Saratoga (CV-3)

USS Saratoga (CV-3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/USS Saratoga (CV-3)/archive1

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This American aircraft carrier has an interesting history; laid down as a battlecruiser and converted into a carrier to meet the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, she was only one of three prewar US carriers to survive World War II. Regarded as obsolete after the war, she became a target ship and was sunk while testing atomic bombs at Bikini Atoll in 1946. Her wreck is only one of three sunken aircraft carriers that can be dived on. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few months ago. I've tweaked it a bit since then, but I expect that some more work remains to be done. I look forward to working with reviewers to fix any problems that they may discover.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I've looked over Sturm's recent edits, and everything there looks good except:
• "New Georgia and Bougainville Campaigns": I'm concerned that a reader will take the second link to mean that there were "Bougainville Campaigns". We generally either link a proper noun, or make it clear that what we're linking isn't a proper noun, generally by lowercasing. What you had before seemed to work to me.
• "Searching American aircraft located": I'd go with "American aircraft located". - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)#Guadalcanal campaign. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing. Be consistent on U.S. vs. US
• "These reports": which reports?
• "follow on airstrike": follow-on airstrike
• "New Orleans which immediately detached and ordered to Nouméa": I'd go with "New Orleans, which immediately left for Nouméa"
• "fighter operation": I was expecting "fighter operations", but maybe what you have is fine.
• "for three days, 29–31 January": on 29–31 January
• "with Carrier Air Group (Night) 53—this consisted of 53 Hellcats and 17 Avengers—[19] aboard": with the 53 Hellcats and 17 Avengers of Carrier Air Group (Night) 53 aboard.
• "36 of her aircraft were destroyed.": "Thirty-six of her aircraft were destroyed.", or "She also lost 36 aircraft."
• "Another attack two hours later further damaged her flight deck, although the aircraft bounced overboard.": I don't know what that means.
• "After the end of the war": After the war
• "in Operation Magic Carpet, the repatriation of American servicemen from the Pacific.": in Operation Magic Carpet, the repatriation of American servicemen from the European, Pacific, and Asian theaters. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Everything else looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for looking this over. All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN67, 68: which Lundstrom?
  • Fixed
• Compare FN1 and "Saratoga" in References
  • Fixed
• Herts includes more bibliographic info than is stated in References, but also appears to be a student paper - what makes it a high-quality reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • Deleted
• Be consistent in whether you include all authors in shortened citations
  • Done
• "Imperial Japanese Navy Page" is the section title; the site is Combinedfleet
  • Fixed
• Wadle is a master's thesis - how does it qualify under WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's cited [2] by multiple authors, including Nofi and Andrew Krepinevich. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

• You make it clear that in fleet exercises the "sinkings" and "damage" are pretend, but the 1937 exercises lack the quotation marks. Saratoga was wasn't actually damaged, was it?
  • Good catch, fixed.
• Last sentence of the third paragraph of "World War II": that use of the word "embarked" sounds funny to me. Is that just some naval jargon I'm unaware of?
  • Embarked, disembarked are often used for loading/unloading for ships and aircraft. Linked to Wiktionary.
• Those are all the questions I have. Very nice article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad you liked it, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, extremely detailed article and a great example of Sturm's high-quality work. After something like ten minor edits to move the images around, I'm satisfied with how it looks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: most of the images were taken by the U.S. Navy = U.S. federal government = public domain. There are, however, two images that are the same (my fault, I added the second). I would have removed the second, but I'm confused as to why you shrunk the image to 775px? There's also the issue of the National Museum of Naval Aviation photos, like File:USS Saratoga (CV-3) USS Enterprise (CV-6) 1942.jpg or File:USS Saratoga (CV-3) 8 Feb 1944.jpg. While it's safe to say that these are also U.S. Navy-taken photos—I can't imagine they allowed random civilians to fly over the battle fleet during wartime to take pictures—there is no declaration of the creator on the image description pages, e.g. [3] [4]. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the NMAM photos are probably personal photos, not official ones and have swapped them out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks excellent to me now, thanks Sturm. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Ed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Ucucha's script finds a few dup links, can you pls double-check if you really need them all? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, the one duplicate that remains is necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.