Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this article. Comments to follow. Mark83 (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments in "Prose comments and queries" heading below. My detailed queries and comments answered promptly and fully by Findingmoney100 at section below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some minor comments on lead that I'll pick up elsewhere. Now all resolved.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A few references not properly formatted, e.g. 203, 204,205. 26 is a strange one, STUDENT GUIDE might be the title of the webpage, but not the actual content of the web page if that makes sense. Also is this not a USN document 'hosted' by fas?
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'll admit to only doing a skim of this and some sample checks. Maybe look at replacing 218 - looks like a bit of a fan site?
	2c. it contains no original research.	The only concern I have in the whole article is this: Laser weapon systems are likely to become more prominent to engage threats without using missiles that may cost more than the target. Less expensive weapon systems may help keep the destroyer class from becoming too expensive. - All just a bit too loose and vague, and no reference. Now resolved. Mark83 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I can't think of major omissions. I have some minor comments which will be picked up in general queries about prose.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Again, I have some minor comments which will be picked up in general queries about prose.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No concerns.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All media appropriate and tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Personally I would trim a few images - some sections are really bunched up with images. And could move some around, e.g. move USS Jack H. Lucas up to Production restarted and further development. The Zumwalt image could go (not saying it must go). And LM2500 gas turbine image a bit of a tangent in a very busy part of the article. Interested readers can go that article? All just comments for consideration, happy to pass this criteria as-is.
	7. Overall assessment.	This was a really strong article. Thank you to User:Findingmoney100 for the prompt and constructive work addressing my queries. Mark83 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Prose comments and queries

• TLAM describe in multiple places as a strategic weapon. It's tactical.
  • Changed.
• Later versions of the class no longer have the Harpoon missile launchers, and some ships of the class do not have towed array sonar. this feels a bit rambling in the lead. I suggest it's taken out, this specific detail covered in article.
  • Removed.
• (comprising 21 of Flight I, 7 of Flight II, 34 of Flight IIA, 3 of Flight IIA Restart, and 10 of Flight IIA Technology Insertion) again, too much detail for lead. And some readers won't have a clue about flights - this is defined later and is potentially confusing.
  • Removed as well as the following sentence on Flight III.
• For Variants subsection, consider formatting like this:
  • Flight I - DDFs 51-71
  • Flight II - DDGs 72-78... (This will just be clearer and more consistent)
    • Good idea. Done. (Maybe use colons instead of hyphens so it doesn't get overwhelming?)
    • Yes, colons probably clearer. Mark83 (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• An earlier generation had combined a steel hull with a superstructure made of lighter aluminum to reduce top weight, - I assume we're talking about a specific class here? Then identify it, why be vague?
  • Identified as the Ticonderogas.
• AShM - is this an accepted abbreviation. I am more familiar with ASuW - but maybe that's because I'm European so maybe AShM is an American term (and concious of course that this is an American subject).
  • Honestly I just used that abbreviation straight from Anti-ship missile, though interestingly that abbreviation is marked as needing a citation. "ASM" could be confused with "air-to-surface missile". Keeping it as "AShM" for now unless you really think it can be changed to "ASM".
    • This NATO glossary says ASM is air-to-surface and there is no mention of AShM or ASuW. Rather it uses ASSM for anti-surface ship missile. Mark83 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Interesting. If I'm being nit-picky myself, that source defines "anti-surface ship missile" as ASSM but makes no mention of just "anti-ship missile" as this wiki article does. Logically it wouldn't make sense to change to "anti-ship missile (ASSM)". "anti-surface ship missile" is just an overly confusing term for layman readers (imo), so I don't think changing all instances of "anti-ship missile" to "anti-surface ship missile" is warranted either. I don't know. Still keeping as "AShM" for now unless you have further suggestions.
• Prose in '"Passive defenses" section made my head hurt. And repeated later on?
  • (Hopefully) won't give readers a headache now.
  • Sorry, what do you mean by "repeated later on"? If you're talking about SLQ-32 being mentioned later under Modernization... I think the discussion of SLQ-32 under Passive defenses covers its role in, well, passive defense. I thought it would be appropriate for (V)6 to be mentioned again in Modernization to highlight the ongoing program to replace old SLQ-32 variants with these new ones.
    • No headache this time :) Happy with your comments on modernization. One quick query - should Arleigh Burke destroyers are equipped with AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare (EW) suites that provide passive detection and intelligence not be rounded off with "passive detection and intelligence of...." (I think it's airborne threats?) Mark83 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

      Well, EW suites pick up emissions regardless of it's an aircraft or not. "Arleigh Burke destroyers are equipped with AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare (EW) suites that provide passive detection and intelligence of airborne and surface threats." sounds like a mouthful (imo). Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

      Actually I agree with you that the sentence feels like it's missing something at the end. I'm thinking of just changing it to "Arleigh Burke destroyers are equipped with AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare (EW) suites that provide electronic support." Benefit of this is would be the reader knowing what electronic support is when it's mentioned a second time in Modernization (unfamiliar term link). Findingmoney100 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• "For defeating incoming torpedoes, the class features? "Has" would be better.
  • Changed.
• EMP should be defined, not just linked.
  • Expanded a bit; check to see if it suffices.
    • Sorry, I wasn't clear. I just meant "Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP)"Mark83 (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh okay (cannot find anything suggesting there should be a hyphen, so used "electromagnetic pulse")
      • Yes, sorry Electro-Magnetic Pulse just a bit clumbsy from me. You're correct. Mark83 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• The Arleigh Burke class is a set of multi-mission ships > The Arleigh Burke class are multi-mission ships
  • Changed.
• Missiles are stored and fired from > Missiles are stored in and fired from
  • Changed.
• the Arleigh Burkes are considered more armed > "Considered" a bit vague - it should be a fact or not.
  • Removed "considered".
• The 5 inch gun can engage missiles??
  • Interesting point. Can't find any reliable sources that explicitly say it can. Removed it. Removed that sentence on the 5-inch; as you note later, it's been explained to death throughout the article.
• Their main radar differs from traditional rotating radars that mechanically rotate 360 degrees for each sweep scan of the airspace... Their main radar differs from traditional mechanically rotating radars..
  • Changed.
• The paragraph beginning Flight IIA and III destroyers carry RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSMs) goes on to say "They are also capable of targeting other ships." but is that not just confusing? That is explained later on.
  • Good catch; "They" was supposed to refer to ESSM but yeah it grammatically would refer to the ships themselves. Changed it to "ESSM".
• So vital has the Aegis BMD role of the class become that all ships of the class are being updated with BMD capability > So vital has the Aegis BMD role become that all ships of the class are being updated with BMD capability
  • Changed.
• I am unclear about the Tamohawk Va/Vb description - please make clearer.
  • Expanded on descriptions.
• all existing Block IV Tomahawks carried will be converted to the Block V version to become dual-role missiles - when? Is it done?
  • I appear to have hit a roadblock. The conversion program is definitely still underway (and probably will be for some time), but I cannot find anything resembling a projected schedule or timeframe. If you find it necessary, I can just remove the mention that all existing Block IV Tomahawks carried will be converted to the Block V.
  • No follow-up, so I assume it's fine as is. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Arleigh Burke-class ships feature the Navy's latest AN/SQQ-89 ASW combat system, which is integrated with Aegis. It encompasses the AN/SQS-53C bow-mounted sonar and the AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar (TACTAS) or TB-37U Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA), though several Flight IIA ships do not have a towed array sonar - I feel a bit exahusted after reading that, and it's all a bit unclear.
  • I think I tuned it... check to see if that paragraph is clear now.
  • No follow-up, so I assume it's fine now. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Refs 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 all at end of one sentence. All needed?
  • Unfortunately there's no one source that mentions all the ships with SeaRAM. Think it would be better to move the refs after each respective ship?
  • No follow-up, so I assume it's fine as is. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Paragraph starting Located on the forward deck is the 5-inch (127 mm) Mark 45 gun goes on to explain the Mk 45 again and again. Be more succint.
  • Removed info from that paragraph mentioned elsewhere. Also went just ahead and removed the 5-inch mention from Weapon systems opening paragraph. (also found out the 680 figure on ammo was wrong; changed to 600)
• stowed away > stowed.
  • Changed.
• ISR not explained.
  • Honestly I think if I just expand the acronym into what it stands for, it will be self-explanatory. Went ahead and did that.
    • Sorry, again I wasn't clear. I just meant expand the acronym. Mark83 (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Then should be fine as that's exactly what I did.

That is as far as "development". More to follow. This is a good article, just tweaks needed for promotion. Mark83 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Also regarding your comment on lasers, I just went ahead and deleted the text in concern. Maybe a "brute force" solution, but I'll just let people read the main DDG(X) article, which should cover the specifics better

And once you do the Copyvio check, just a heads up that a lot of sites have copied text from this article (like seaforces.org), personal experience from having run this through Copyvio myself several times while working on this article Findingmoney100 (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Political restraints aren't really explained. I don't feel this would bar GA promotion, but just interesting. Why did politicians get involved with specifications in this way?
  • Will try to find reliable sources that talk about the political impact on the development of the class. I do remember Friedman writing something about Congress thinking shore bombardment was a lesser important role after Vietnam, leading to the originally-planned 76 mm main gun (but in the grand scheme of things this is a such minor detail I don't think I'll bother mentioning it). Quick web searches to determine how difficult a task it will be to find more info tell me this won't be a straightforward task. Worst case scenario, won't find anything.
• The total cost of the first ship was put at US$1.1 billion, > The total cost of the first ship was US$1.1 billion
  • Changed.
• Radar cross-section was reduced through various signature-reduction methods. is repetition of the previous section.
  • Removed.
• the designers upgraded the originally-planned 80,000 shaft horsepower (shp) LM2500 gas turbines to 100,000 shp sorry to be pedantic, but the ship designers didn't upgrade the turbines. GE would have. Maybe just To compensate for the limited length, the originally-planned 80,000 shaft horsepower (shp) LM2500 gas turbines were upgraded to 100,000 shp.
  • Changed. (funny enough I originally wrote that, but later changed it to try to convert it to active voice, guess it backfired)
• The Flight IIA Arleigh Burke ships feature several changes, including both the addition and removal of systems. - is that not redundant? Just say The Flight IIA Arleigh Burke ships feature several changes. Then go on to list the additions/subtractions.
  • Changed.
• and DDG-89 onwards bury the exhaust funnels within the superstructure feels like repetition again. And (again pedantic) but the funnels are buried, the ships don't bury the funnels.
  • Fixed. Also removed mention of that from Structure.
• Systems omitted from Flight IIA include the Harpoon missile launchers - do we have a rationale for why the launchers were deleted?
  • One book says they were removed to save weight; another says they were removed to save costs (I'll have to look back to see which book said what). I thought it would take up too much space addressing both but I can if it will improve the article.
  • Figured it out, added a note addressing the removal of the Harpoon launchers.
• Corporations are singular, so BAE Systems announced they should be "announced it.." Same with Lockheed Martin - their > its.
  • Changed.
• Similarly should In 2016, the Navy announced they would begin be announced it would begin?
  • Changed.
• Sam LaGrone reported.. - strange prominence. I had no idea who or what this was. I think it should read USNI News reported..
  • Changed.
• Littoral combat is mentioned a few times. Being interest in the subject matter I know what it is. Will the average reader?
  • This comment motivated me to add a Notes section to explain/expand upon things that would otherwise be awkward to explain in the text itself. Not sure why it took me this long to add notes :/
• In March 2018, the Navy announced the HED would complete installation onto USS Truxtun (DDG-103) to test the technology suggested tweak to "In March 2018, the Navy announced the HED would be installed on USS Truxtun (DDG-103) to test the technology"
  • Changed.
• Also in 2016, four destroyers patrolling with the U.S. 6th Fleet > Also in 2016, four destroyers of the U.S. 6th Fleet?
  • Changed.
• The section on C-HGB - any update?
  • I did some looking up and unfortunately couldn't find anything new of worth from reliable sources regarding the Burkes and C-HGB. Anything need to be done with the existing paragraph on C-HGB?
  • No follow-up, so I assume it's fine as is. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• air breathing targets - will everyone understand this?
  • Simplified to "air targets". (still valid to say this)
• with fewer (24 vs. 37) radar module assemblies again, will people understand?
  • Added note.
• Consistency of $m/$million and $b/$billion
  • Changed all to million/billion.
• Flight III proper will begin with the third ship procured in 2016,[129] USS Jack H. Lucas (DDG-125). could/should this be past tense now?
  • Changed to "began".
• offers a 15 dB improved sensitivity compared to SPY-1 - most readers won't have a clue. The end of the sentence gives context I know, but just consider this. (not saying it's wrong to keep it)
  • Added note.
• The first "Future replacement" paragraph is a bit rambling about plans, long lead item contracts, financial years etc. Consider a trim/tidyup.
  • Eliminated that entire first paragraph unrelated to Future replacement by moving that to more relevant locations.
• Should the section not be "Replacement" - Future replacement is redundant?
  • Changed.
• Don't like No hull design or shape has been speculated yet. - better off saying nothing than being so vague?
  • Removed.
• The Future Surface Combatant section ends The Future Surface Combatant has evolved into the Large Surface Combatant, which became the DDG(X) - so the section should be titled DDG(X) then?
  • Changed. Removed that Sub-heading due to the removal of the first paragraph. I'll keep the heading as "Replacement" unless you think it should be changed to "DDG(X)".
• Russia has threatened to quit the New START treaty over this deployment, calling it a threat to their nuclear deterrent This was last updated in 2014. At the very least change the tense. Russia didn't abandon the treaty.
  • Removed "has". (does this suffice?)
• close to a dozen sailors were given non-judicial punishment how many?
  • No luck finding a number. Not even the main USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision article gives a number, only saying "close to a dozen". If necessary for this article to be of GA quality, I can just remove In addition, close to a dozen sailors were given non-judicial punishment for losing situational awareness.
  • No follow-up, so I assume it's fine as is. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Mark83 (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Link Chaff (countermeasure).
  • Done.
• I think all refs are formatted now (though lots without access dates), but point out anything I missed. Honestly had no idea how to fix that STUDENT GUIDE ref so I just changed it to a citation for Wertheim's book, which conveniently mentions the Prairie-Masker Findingmoney100 (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Sadly can't find a reliable source for USS John Paul Jones being featured in Battleship. The most "reliable" source IMO is imdb, which is considered unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. I obviously don't want to remove the mention. Dunno if anything can be done. Findingmoney100 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Scratch that, after several combinations of exact match searches on Google, I finally stumbled upon this.

  The John Paul Jones was featured prominently in the film "Battleship."

  Works for me! Findingmoney100 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Structure of article

Consider if Development should be ahead of Characteristics? Would make more sense chronologically?

• Not sure about this. Development makes a lot of references to stuff first mentioned/explained under Characteristics (e.g., Flights, weapons, sensors). Findingmoney100 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • This is a matter of opinion, so I wouldn't let this block promotion. I welcome the conversation however; it feels strange chronologically- we go into loads of present day detail for the first section (Characteristics) then in the next section we rewind to what happened in the 1970s and 1980s. Why not tell the story of development first, then go into the detail about the characteristics of the class that was a result of the development? Mark83 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

    Good points. And I concede from looking at other ship class GAs/FAs, they do indeed tend to discuss development first and then flow into characteristics. But I do note those are for older ships (mostly WW2 era). IMO, most readers click on an article for a modern ship class for info on present-day detail and not a history lesson on development like they might for an older ship class.

    Unfortunately there's not many modern ship-related GAs (I think actually the only one being Nimitz-class aircraft carrier) and zero modern ship-related FAs (at least on the English Wikipedia; dunno how the Russians already have an FA Arleigh Burke class article) to compare with. Looking at the Nimitz class article, they made a Description section that sort of clumps together everything related to chararcteristics and development. I don't think that would work well for this simply due to the sheer size of our Development section.

    But a good counter-example is Type 45 destroyer (though it's not a GA so probably not the best one to compare with). It does indeed have Development first and then Characteristics. But again, our Development section is just so long that moving it first would result in readers only interested in current detail having to scroll down on a scavenger hunt.

    Just some personal thoughts on this. Findingmoney100 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

    Just found a modern/active destroyer class GA we can compare to: Kolkata-class destroyer. Notice how its "Design" section (equivalent to our "Characteristics" section) is first, followed by "Development". Findingmoney100 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

    • I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. I feel strongly that logically and chronologically a subject's early life/development should come first, then the specifics of the subject should come after. However this is just me voicing my preference. A GA reviewer should never allow that to influence their decision on promoting an article and of course I won't. Let's leave the article as is in this respect. It might come up in any future FA review. Mark83 (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

      Yeah if only there was a modern ship FA, I would have been happy to follow its structure. Findingmoney100 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

      Off topic but couldn't help but notice you were the one who added the two sections in this edit back in 2007, putting Characteristics before Development :) Findingmoney100 (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

      @Findingmoney100: This is both a bit a failed attempt at a 'gotcha' and also irrelevant - the concern I raised during the GA review was that the current layout goes into loads of detail on the class then backtracks to development. On the diff you shared the Characteristics section is a paragraph with a large proportion of historical information. Both sections are unrecognisable from their current form. If you are going to make a habit of spending so much time going back through page histories back as far as 2007 I hope you land a punch next time. Mark83 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

    • Ticonderoga-class cruiser is development > characteristics. Same for Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. But there are examples to the contrary as you have found. Off topic but I checked Los Angeles-class submarine to see - and that article's coverage of the class' development is almost non-existent! Might add that to my list. Mark83 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)