Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ernest J. King
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Ernest J. King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
It's the 80th anniversary of D-Day, so I thought I would nominate a World War II article. After writing up William D. Leahy, I thought I would tackle the US Navy's second most senior admiral, Ernest J. King, a renowned submariner and aviator who commanded the US Fleet during World War II. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
Matarisvan
editHi Hawkeye7, saving a spot, will post comments soon.
- Remove the double link to the Atlantic Fleet in the lead?
- Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Since we have so much material in the body, consider expanding the lead to 4 paragraphs?
- Any suggestions as to what other things could be mentioned? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, articles with more than 3,500 words need 3 to 4 paragraph long leads. As such, I will rescind my ask for a 4 para lead. Matarisvan (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- "served in the cruiser": "on" instead of "in" would be better?
- Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- "flagship or Rear Admiral": "of"?
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Remove the second link to cruiser in the body?
- Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Remove the second link to destroyer below the Mayo staff pic?
- Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do we know what exactly King disliked about Wilson?
- Different personalities. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rework the Swanson part of the sentence to avoid SEAOFBLUE? Something like "Claude A. Swanson, the new Secretary of the Navy" instead?
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- "as indeed did occur": sounds a little off, "as indeed occured" may be better?
- Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link to G7e torpedo?
- Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- You will have to get rid of the disputed neutrality tag on the War in the Atlantic section.
- I hope it can be removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- We say he got his first Navy DSC for the salvage of S-51 in the lead and body. But we do not mention what the other two DSCs were for in either the lead or body, only in the Citations section do we have those details.
- Mentioned in connection with salvage of the S-4. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- What I have noticed is that Dates of Rank and Awards sections are ok at A class level but not at FA level. Especially since you already mention, in chronological order, his promotions in the lead sections. Zawed might be best able to resolve this.
- I have other articles that went through FAC with Dates of Rank sections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was quite surprised to see you had used plain <ref> tags instead of sfns. I hope you will change to the latter before nominating for FAC?
- I would greatly prefer it. MOS:STYLERET:
If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC) - I could not understand this. Will you be changing to the sfns or not? Matarisvan (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot change it without consensus to do so. That would be a blockable offence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would oppose that, you should open a new section for this on the talk page. Matarisvan (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot change it without consensus to do so. That would be a blockable offence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would greatly prefer it. MOS:STYLERET:
- Location of publication is needed for Barlow 1998, Buell 1998, Heinrichs 1998, Stoler 2003
- You could consider using the ISBN converter for converting ISBN numbers from 10 digits to 13 digits.
- WP:ISBN:
if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it
- WP:ISBN:
- Remove the double link to John B. Hattendorf in Hattendorf 2023?
- I think this is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so, perhaps we should get a second opinion? Matarisvan (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Year of publication needed for Hone & Utz.
- Link to , as done for other journals?
- Consider adding the category Recipients of the Order of Naval Merit (Brazil)?
That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Now that the change to sfn tags is done, reading through the references is easier. Some comments on source formatting:
- Ref #30: Add Home of Heroes as the website?
- Add an archive link for ref #31? I can't access it, don't know if this holds for others as well. Also, consider running the Internet Archive bot through the page once.
- Added archive link. It was working a few weeks ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Source #68: Add Warfare History Network as the website?
- Source #89: Can the 3 weird letters after Order 8984 be removed? They seem to be transcription errors.
- No, it is a unicode/Latin-1251 conversion artefact. The moral is to never use ndashes and mdashes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link to The Baltimore Sun, as done for other newspapers?
- Source #172: Clarify that the journal is the Proceedings of the Naval Institute?
- Added link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why did King receive the Philippine Camapign Medal? Our texts do not mention his being involved in the Philippine-American Wars of the 1910s. We do mention his involvement in the Philippine Campaign in WWII. I think this is is a mixup?
- The Far East tour in the the cruiser USS Cincinnati. I will add a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Add King's name to the Notable recipients section on the Mexican Service Medal page?
- Added King and Leahy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to support for promotion to A class on the general text, image and source reviews below. Matarisvan (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
edit- File:Naval Aviator Badge.jpg: Can be replaced with File:Naval Aviator Badge.png, since the Commons page recommends that. Also PD-US is not appropriate here, PD-USGov-Military award is better.
- Replaced with the PNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the foreign awards images, have the respective governments released copyright over the badges? Are there tags like PD-USGov-Military award for all these countries? If not, you will have to remove them, I had similar issues at one of my FACs.
- I would think that ribbons fall below the threshold of originality in the United States. That is a matter for Commons. If they delete them, then they will disappear from here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I think this issue will most certainly pop up at FAC. Anyways, I'm not qualified enough on image reviews so I will pass this review, any concerns on the foreign awards can be dealt with at FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- None of the images have alt texts. If it is ok with you then I would like to add the alts myself, though I don't think I could so for the images of the ranks and the awards as that would be too tiring.
- Sure. Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
All other images have appropriate tags. Matarisvan (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
edit- Archive URLs needed for:
Refs #24, #46, #66, #71-73, #92, #95, #100, #103, #121, #146, #171, #174-175, #180, #183-186, #188-192; Cline 1951, Hattendorf 2023, King 1909, King 1932, Sternhell & Thorndike 1946, Reimers 2018, Morton 1985, Kohnen 2018.
- For Miller, Jappert & Jackson 2023, could we add this link if it is the correct one along with the archive URL?
- Spot checks:
- 24, #34, #36, #72, #73, #92, #121, #143, #157, #184: all ok. Matarisvan (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
wtfiv
editI finally have a chance to get to this...
General question...I didn't see a template for Class A review on the article's talk page. Did I miss it?
Early life and education
edit- No comments.
Surface ships
edit- The first sentence provides an interesting fact, but may mislead the reader. It starts with "Graduates who had been selected for the Marines", since King is the topic of this article and Marines are the topic of this sentence, it implies King is in the Marines. Can this be reworded, or even the reference to Marine's removed. As the point is that before being commissioned as an ensign, King had to serve two years. Perhaps King could be mentioned in that first sentence. This would also make the link to the second paragraph, which begins King was promoted more clear and continuous.
- King got to know his staff well Though a reader can take the energy to correct the perception, the pronominal anaphor implies that the staff is King's not Crowninshield. Can this be reworded?
- Consider rewording Bouts of heavy drinking making King the subject to more explicitly signal the change of topic for the reader. For six sentences the topic has been the Cincinnati. It is now returning to King, but without warning, only when the 'him' arrives (which references to a subject seven sentences previously) does it signal the reader that the Cincinnati is not the topic. (It may require "King" in the following sentence to become He.)
- The last sentence of the third paragraph seems off topic. The paragraph defines King's family and describes Mattie. The last line suddenly addresses King's temper. It sort of follows through an associative logic, as the paragraph is talking about family and the quote is from his daughter. Is there another way to integrate this into the article more appropriately? (If not, it's worth keeping. I think the point is too important to remove.)
- Consider reworking paragraph 5.
- The paragraph opens with an explanation of the lieutenant promotion process, the second sentence reads as a continuation of this until the word "his" appears at the end of the second sentence. Could King (or "he") be introduced earlier, ideally in the first sentence?
- Also consider deleting as an ensign from the first sentence as it is used already.
- The information about the fate of those who failed the examination is interesting, but is it relevant since King will pass? I'd suggest deleting. The following sentence makes it clear that the promotion requires training and physical examinations.
- Paragraphs 8 and 9, and perhaps The first paragraph of submarines
- Wouldn't the three sentences in Paragraph 9 on the signature breast-pocket, which is related to the Royal Navy, be appropriate as part of the paragraph 8, which has King's relation to the Royal Navy as one of its topics?
- Moving the breast-pocket material out of the paragraph would make King's becoming the head of the Naval Postgraduate School the lead topic of paragraph 9, which would be more relevant, career-wise. **Though a knowledgeable reader might be able to infer that the Naval Postgraduate School was in Annapolis at the time due to the sentence about him buying a house. I think it is important to make it explicit, as well as making it explicit that it was still directly under the Naval Academy. This will help readers make sense of his request to return to sea in the first paragraph of Submarines.
- I'd suggest moving the first paragraph of Submarines into this section and merging it into King's becoming head of the Post Graduate institute. It would make the Annapolis episode (becoming head of NPS, getting a house, learning about a new superintendent) one continuous narrative. The sections about the USS Bridge could be included as these preceed King's relationship to submarines, which is the topic of the next section.
Submarines
edit- Paragraph 1
- (Repeat suggestion): Consider merging paragraph 1 with a modified paragraph 9 in the proceeding section.
- Consider deleting {xt|therefore}}. Would it be possible to rework this a bit Leahy told him that nothing was available. King eventually accepted... It sounds like Leahy told King "no", but then King got a ship anyway. (I think I can infer what happened, but it is a bit confusing for a casual reader.)
- Consider deleting careerist. Aren't ambitious officers already careerist? It also indirectly implies that King was careerist. I'm sure to some extent he was, but the character being constructed is far more ambitious than careerist as he has a reputation for a temper and being critical.
- Paragraph 2
- Consider beginning this section with paragraph 2, which is about submarines. If it begins the section After a year may need to be more specific. Also, consider removing again as "another command" already implies the repitition.
- The second sentence begins Once again, that's fine but points to the need to rework the relationship between Leahy's comments and King accepting command of the USS Bridge. If he was told again that nothing was available, he shouldn't have been able to get a command on the USS Bridge, even if it seemed a second-rate command. Perhaps the problem is the word "nothing"? Does "nothing" mean a surface warship? If the "nothing" in paragraph 1 can be clarified, it might help clear up the apparent contradiction.
- Consider merging the two sentences about Leahy and submarines into one. Something like: "Leahy let King know that if he was interested in submarines, Leahy could offer him command of a submarine division."
- Could you clarify "Submarine Base" in the paragraph? The paragraph has mentioned the Submarine School in New London, but not the base. I'm assuming you mean the school and the base, but a casual reader may be confused to the reference to a base that had not been mentioned before.
Aviation
edit- Paragraph 2
- I'm unsure of the significance of this sentence He was the only captain... At first, it sounds like he's the trainee with the highest rank, but then mention of Turner makes it sounds like he's got junior rank. But maybe it's just that he was the only person with the unique rank of captain. Could this be rewritten to clarify the significance of it?
- Paragraph 3
- Wouldn't King's annual flight average be better as the first sentence in the pagraph? The solo flying is interesting, but seems secondary.
- (Observation): I'm not sure what can be done about it but the current first sentence has flew solo...flying..solo flying...solo flights.. It feels like a bit of repitition, though it has the advantage of reducing ambiguity.
- Quote
- (Comment only) Though I'm not generally a fan of long quotes, this one is an exception. It is particularly apt for defining King's character, attitude and outlook.
- Paragraph 6
- Consider breaking up the sentence starting Following the death. There's three dependent clauses, three independent clauses with a lot of names and titles that put a lot of cognitive load on the reader.
- Paragraph 7
- Leahy has already been introduced, so the full name is not needed, though his new rank and role may still need to be defined.
- Paragraph 8
- The sentence King was summoned... initially feels like a continuation of the previous paragraph (the travails of Standley). It might be worthwhile, to lead with the date of the summons to help create a sense of break between paragraphs. (It's still a bit instrusive because it disrupts Standley issue that cuts across para. 7 and 9, and this seems like an interrupt, though I suspect that it is in the right place in terms of temporal narrative.)
- Paragraph 9
- The last sentence is a bit unclear to me. To a casual reader, it sounds like he was promoted to Battle Force commander because he survived a plane crash.
- Given the topic of the paragraph shouldn't the last sentence focus on the command? Something like "He became Commander... and was promoted to vice admiral...at the time..." as his desire for the Battle Force command is the focus of the paragraph"
- Paragraph 10
- Consider breaking the second sentence into two.
More to come... Wtfiv (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
World War II, General Board
edit- Paragraph 1.
- I like elephant's graveyard, its an idiom that's easy to get, but when I looked it, the link is unsourced. Digging through multiple slang dictionaries, I found the navy meaning sourced to a 1971 book called the Arnheiter Affair by Neil Sheehan, p.15. All the dictionaries tend to agree that it specifically relates to the Boston Naval District Headquarters (First Naval District Headquarters.) during the Vietnam era. This '68 Time article seems to back this up. Unless another source pops up in the "elephant's graveyard" article for a broader use as navy slang, it might be best to delete this.
- The paragraph is only two sentences long, would it make sense to merge it with paragraph 2, perhaps combining paragraph 1 and 2?
- Paragraph 3
- posed a greater threat..., a fear that.... Could this be reworded, as a threat is not necessarily a fear. Here's a suggestion: "bigger bombs, posing a greater threat to the fleet, which would soon be confirmed in combat."
Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet
edit- Paragraph 1
- On the surface, this seems to go against the previous section, which implies that King saved from oblivion and became CINCUS due to a recommendation by his outside relationship with Edison, who influenced Roosevelt. This paragraph states that he was saved by Stark who saw his talents. There's probably something to both accounts, but can it be resolved to make the two work together?
- Paragraph 2
- The section starting at the sentence on page 2 seems unclear It goes from war plan in safe with war in Mexico, to war footing, to already at war with Germany seems to be telescoping something. At first read, it is sounds like he found a plan for war with Mexico, put the fleet on a war footing, then claimed it was for a war with Germany. (i.e., covering his tracks for a misorder.) My guess is something more like he found the fleet unprepared, which was demonstrated by his finding obsolete plans for a war with Mexico, decided to take swift action to get the fleet organized for the war with Germany, or rather the somewhat cool undeclared war. I'm guessing that the directive was part of this initiative? Could this paragraph be reworked so casual readers don't have to puzzle it out?
- Paragraph 3
- for the duration...I'm not sure what this means. The duration of his command? The duration of his professional career? The duration of the war? The latter would have to be made explicit, as the US wasn't at war yet.
- The second half of this paragraph has a different topic than the first half. Reader's will assume that Rather than... begins a topic continuing the point about being CINCLANT or giving up drinking. The second half seems like it should be its own paragraph, and would be better starting with the new topic (e.g., "On the eve of the ..., Germany withdrew its submarines rather than risk...") This new paragraph can then be merged with paragraph 4, which continues the discussion of Roosevelt's further steps. The first half of Paragraph 3 could be merged into the end of paragraph 2, as its only a one month difference between January and February.
- Paragraph 4
- Could this be recrafted? It may be just me, but I misread it: At first, the mention of the Texas seemed like a non-sequitor. It was as if King had a job to do for Roosevelt (who is making a trip but its unclear how), went to Hyde park, while making preparations there that were suppose to be for Roosevelt, found there that USS Texas wasn't appropriate for his flagship, and got himself a new flagship. If I understand it now, I think intended sense is that King had to make arrangements for Roosevelt's trip, which would be by ship, and while in Hyde Park he determined (as opposed to found) that USS Texas would not appropriate for transporting Roosevelt, so he got a new flagship for Roosevelt to travel in.
- Paragraph 5
- consider changing "had issued" to "issued".
- At first reading, the sentence about the sinking of USS Reuben James seems unrelated to the proceeding sentences. Consider tying the sinking of USS Ruben James to the end of the Neutrality acts. I'd suggest removing "until November" and adding something like "When the USS Reuben James became the first...to be sunk..., Congress repealed the acts on 17 November."