Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arthur W. Radford: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
responses
Line 92: Line 92:
**Jumping in here: the Carrier Divisions were renamed Carrier Strike Groups in 1973. [http://www.uscarrierhistory.com/index_files/Page39835.htm] [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 09:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
**Jumping in here: the Carrier Divisions were renamed Carrier Strike Groups in 1973. [http://www.uscarrierhistory.com/index_files/Page39835.htm] [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 09:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*Totally irrelevant to this review, but I found it very odd to note that I've been to every place Radford lived in the Early Life para.
*Totally irrelevant to this review, but I found it very odd to note that I've been to every place Radford lived in the Early Life para.
**Well that's unusual. What are the odds?
*Fighter squadrons aboard 2 battleships and a seaplane tender? Is somebody calling scouting units fighter squadrons? Tucker seems to be confused here.
*Fighter squadrons aboard 2 battleships and a seaplane tender? Is somebody calling scouting units fighter squadrons? Tucker seems to be confused here.
**Agreed. Changing this to "aircraft squadron units" so as to avoid SYNTH.
*Now VF-1B was a fighter squadron and should be called that.
*Now VF-1B was a fighter squadron and should be called that.
**Fixed. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*{{xt|established training literature}} should be "wrote" training literature.
*{{xt|established training literature}} should be "wrote" training literature.
**Fixed. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*Change "american football" to just football. This is an American-centric article afterall.
*Change "american football" to just football. This is an American-centric article afterall.
**Fixed. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*How could Radford be assigned as a carrier division commander before he got command of Division 11? I suspect that Tucker meant that he was tapped for division command because he spent several months learning division command before getting his own division.
*How could Radford be assigned as a carrier division commander before he got command of Division 11? I suspect that Tucker meant that he was tapped for division command because he spent several months learning division command before getting his own division.
**Agreed. Changed the wording here too. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
* I don't actually think that Galvanic was the first time that the Americans faced Japanese land-based air power while the ground pounders fought it out. That dubious honor goes to Guadalcanal, IMO.
* I don't actually think that Galvanic was the first time that the Americans faced Japanese land-based air power while the ground pounders fought it out. That dubious honor goes to Guadalcanal, IMO.
**Ugh, that's also right. Clearly this book needed some more proofing. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
* This confuses me since I don't know the hierarchy here {{xt|First Carrier Task Force, Carrier Division Six}} Did he command both or was one or the other superior to the other?
* This confuses me since I don't know the hierarchy here {{xt|First Carrier Task Force, Carrier Division Six}} Did he command both or was one or the other superior to the other?
**The task force was a sub-unit of the carrier division. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*Who did Radford replace in TG 38.1?
*Who did Radford replace in TG 38.1?
**Added the name. (a redlink) —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*What is meant by this? {{xt|Radford's force continued its use of night raids, which by this point were effective in repelling Japanese attacks on U.S. Navy ships}} Does this mean preemptively attacking Japanese aircraft before they took off, or is this some sort of night CAP?
*What is meant by this? {{xt|Radford's force continued its use of night raids, which by this point were effective in repelling Japanese attacks on U.S. Navy ships}} Does this mean preemptively attacking Japanese aircraft before they took off, or is this some sort of night CAP?
**Both. The source indicates he supported night fighters and used them both to defend his ships at night and to attack Japanese aircraft they spotted. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*The DCNO (Air) has no formal relationship to the Secretary of the Navy. Is there a link for DCNO (Air)?
*The DCNO (Air) has no formal relationship to the Secretary of the Navy. Is there a link for DCNO (Air)?
**No unfortunately, and I don't know enough about the position to create one. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*What are {{xt|fast-attack carrier aircraft}}? As opposed to slow-attack carrier aircraft. If you mean jets, then say so, although this is way early for any significant deployments of Navy jet-powered attack aircraft, AFAIK.
*What are {{xt|fast-attack carrier aircraft}}? As opposed to slow-attack carrier aircraft. If you mean jets, then say so, although this is way early for any significant deployments of Navy jet-powered attack aircraft, AFAIK.
**Jumping in again. Fast attack carriers were the large ones, as opposed to the smaller slower anti-submarine warfare (ASW) (or escort) carriers. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 09:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
**Jumping in again. Fast attack carriers were the large ones, as opposed to the smaller slower anti-submarine warfare (ASW) (or escort) carriers. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 09:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*When was Radford appointed High Commissioner?
*When was Radford appointed High Commissioner?
**No source gives a specific date. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*Shouldn't most of the last para in the Postwar section be moved to the Commander Pacific Feet or Revolt of the Admirals section?
*Shouldn't most of the last para in the Postwar section be moved to the Commander Pacific Feet or Revolt of the Admirals section?
**No, all of that occurred while Radford was VCNO and before his nomination. Only after he became CINCPACFLT did those debates intensify into the "revolt." —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*This seems a bit too fluffy: {{xt|gained an in-depth understanding of the sociopolitical issues facing each nation and the region as a whole.}} Learned about I could accept, but this seems like something from a resume or something.
*This seems a bit too fluffy: {{xt|gained an in-depth understanding of the sociopolitical issues facing each nation and the region as a whole.}} Learned about I could accept, but this seems like something from a resume or something.
**Fixed. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*The caption in the picture of Radford and McArthur is wrong. MacArthur is on the right.
*The caption in the picture of Radford and McArthur is wrong. MacArthur is on the right.
**Fixed. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*Fix the wording in the ribbon array: it's the "Order of the Bath", not Order of Bath.
*Fix the wording in the ribbon array: it's the "Order of the Bath", not Order of Bath.
**Fixed. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*This seems kind of redundant: {{xt|accorded to a former four-star admiral, and a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff}} The primary difference is that there's a higher-ranking and more numerous crowd for ranking individuals vs. a lieutenant.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 08:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*This seems kind of redundant: {{xt|accorded to a former four-star admiral, and a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff}} The primary difference is that there's a higher-ranking and more numerous crowd for ranking individuals vs. a lieutenant.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 08:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
**Fixed. Thanks for your review. —[[User:Ed!|<font color="black">'''Ed!'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ed!|<font color="black">'''(talk)'''</font>]]</sup> 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:21, 13 January 2013

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one. Especially the pic in the infobox. Okay, comments:

Ahhhh, that should do it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments at this stage:

Early life

Military career

  • Is the use of tour of duty appropriate for the navy? Should it be posting or something similar? I suggest combining the first two sentences; maybe "Radford's first posting was aboard the battleship USS South Carolina,[2] on which he saw his first duty during World War I."
  • was his second tour on South Carolina?

Aviation Training Division

  • "Radford convinced Congressman Carl Vinson, chair of the House Naval Affairs Committee." Convinced him to do what?
  • repeated use of established, professionals and variants in last sentences of this section.

Sea duty

Major combat operations

Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

  • "In these years," should that be "In this position" or "While in this position"?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I did a quick passover of the text and fixed the odd typo. Otherwise, this article looks good. Zawed (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All good Ed!, adding my support now. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What evidence is there to link the modern Carrier Strike Groups with the WWII-era Carrier Divisions of the same number? The Navy doesn't seem to make the connection anywhere that I looked. The page for CSG 7 only traced its ancestry back to 1956, not Carrier Division 7 and CSG 11 only seems to go back to the late '60s.
  • Totally irrelevant to this review, but I found it very odd to note that I've been to every place Radford lived in the Early Life para.
    • Well that's unusual. What are the odds?
  • Fighter squadrons aboard 2 battleships and a seaplane tender? Is somebody calling scouting units fighter squadrons? Tucker seems to be confused here.
    • Agreed. Changing this to "aircraft squadron units" so as to avoid SYNTH.
  • Now VF-1B was a fighter squadron and should be called that.
  • established training literature should be "wrote" training literature.
  • Change "american football" to just football. This is an American-centric article afterall.
  • How could Radford be assigned as a carrier division commander before he got command of Division 11? I suspect that Tucker meant that he was tapped for division command because he spent several months learning division command before getting his own division.
  • I don't actually think that Galvanic was the first time that the Americans faced Japanese land-based air power while the ground pounders fought it out. That dubious honor goes to Guadalcanal, IMO.
  • This confuses me since I don't know the hierarchy here First Carrier Task Force, Carrier Division Six Did he command both or was one or the other superior to the other?
  • Who did Radford replace in TG 38.1?
  • What is meant by this? Radford's force continued its use of night raids, which by this point were effective in repelling Japanese attacks on U.S. Navy ships Does this mean preemptively attacking Japanese aircraft before they took off, or is this some sort of night CAP?
  • The DCNO (Air) has no formal relationship to the Secretary of the Navy. Is there a link for DCNO (Air)?
  • What are fast-attack carrier aircraft? As opposed to slow-attack carrier aircraft. If you mean jets, then say so, although this is way early for any significant deployments of Navy jet-powered attack aircraft, AFAIK.
  • When was Radford appointed High Commissioner?
  • Shouldn't most of the last para in the Postwar section be moved to the Commander Pacific Feet or Revolt of the Admirals section?
  • This seems a bit too fluffy: gained an in-depth understanding of the sociopolitical issues facing each nation and the region as a whole. Learned about I could accept, but this seems like something from a resume or something.
  • The caption in the picture of Radford and McArthur is wrong. MacArthur is on the right.
  • Fix the wording in the ribbon array: it's the "Order of the Bath", not Order of Bath.
  • This seems kind of redundant: accorded to a former four-star admiral, and a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff The primary difference is that there's a higher-ranking and more numerous crowd for ranking individuals vs. a lieutenant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]