Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arthur W. Radford

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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.

Arthur W. Radford

edit
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]

Support 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.
    • Jumping in here: the Carrier Divisions were renamed Carrier Strike Groups in 1973. [1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be correct, but that's not really what I was talking about. The Navy does not trace lineage and honors the same way that the Army or the RN do where the units of the same name or number are considered to be the same unit, just temporarily inactive at times. Battle stars/honours in the USN are only valid for the actual ship that earned them; those earned by earlier ships are irrelevant. In the RN battle honours accumulate under a ship's name and the current incarnation is considered to have earned all of them. And much the same is true of US Army units. The official history of CSG 7 makes no reference to the lineage of CarDiv 7 [2] and the capper is [3] which explicitly states that lineage and history cannot be traced to all units using the same name/number, p. 541. To do so a unit must have been in continuous existence, regardless of its designation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but see also the articles on Carrier Strike Groups One, Two, Three, Six and Ten, which all reference the WWII Carrier Divisions. Now, although the USN does not handle things the same as the Army or RAN, the idea of the link is to direct the reader to where more information can be found, and by and large this is the case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You might want to look a little more closely at the sources for those articles because I found only one that was from an official Navy website (CSG 10) and that traces back to Destroyer Flotilla 2, not a carrier division. And from reading the other histories of the CSGs they all mention ancestry from a postwar CruDesRon, not the wartime CarDivs. I certainly can't find a conclusive source, but I'm about 99% satisfied that there's no official lineage/traditions connecting the wartime divisions with the modern units. GlobalSecurity.org really isn't a RS and doesn't count; that's the primary source for WW2 connection in the current articles. So AFAIK, these should all be redlinks, but I won't hold it against you, Ed, if you choose to ignore me in this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • Fighter squadrons aboard 2 battleships and a seaplane tender? Is somebody calling scouting units fighter squadrons? Tucker seems to be confused here.
  • 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?
    • The task force was a sub-unit of the carrier division. —Ed!(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll need to look at this one again, now that you've answered my question.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The carrier division was primarily an permanent administrative unit, the task group an ad hoc combat one. A task group in 1944 usually consisted of one or two carrier divisions, one or two cruiser divisions and a destroyer squadron. Now the CarDivs and CruDivs had flag officers commanding them, so the senior CarDiv commander became the task group commander and the senior CruDiv commander commanded the screen. (Note that the latter might actually be senior to the former, but the senior carrier admiral was always in command.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?
    • 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. —Ed!(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds more like night CAP coupled with fighter sweeps around his ships than actual raids since I'd associate the latter term with attacks over Japanese territory in daylight. Can you find a source that clarifies this? Check the online docs from the Navy Library at [5] for possible material.
  • 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]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [6] (no action required).
    • External links check out [7] (no action required).
    • Images lack Alt Text [8] so you might consider adding it (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Most images are PD as seem appropriate to the article, couple of points:
    • Once again the Earwig Tool doesn't appear to be working but given the editor's previous contributions I have no reason to suspect any issues with copyright violations [9]. Google searches reveal nothing (no action required).
    • One duplicate link: Ernest J. King.
    • Is the terminology right here: "In his over 40 years of military service..." Specifically do Americans refer to service in the Navy as "military service"? Or would "naval service" be more accurate? British and Australian English (AFAIK) makes a distinction between the two, that is the military is Army and Air Force (and Navy is obviously naval).
    • This seems a bit redundant to me: "...Navy's naval aviator training programs...", consider instead: "...naval aviator training programs..."
    • I know this has been the subject of deliberations above but I wonder if this might be further reworded: "...and served with aircraft squadron units...", couldn't this be more simply worded as "aircraft squadrons" (suggestion only).
    • This seems redundant: "training and refining their aircraft operations...", perhaps just "training and refining aircraft operations..."
    • Presentation here I think: "On the night of 17–18 September..." probably should be "On the night of 17/18 September..."
    • "...missing the battle of Leyte Gulf which took place...", as a noun "Battle of Leyte Gulf" should be capitalised.
    • This seems a little awkward: "...Radford was a principal opponent in a plan to merge the uniformed services...", consider instead: "Radford was a principal opponent to a plan to merge the uniformed services..."
    • "...a political Navy victory...", might this work better as "...a political victory for the Navy..."
    • "As commander of U.S. forces in the Philippines and Formosa...", should this be "The Philippines"?
    • "Radford died at age 77 on 17 August 1973...", do we know what from?
    • There seems to be little infomation included about his personal life. Is anything like this available in the sources? Specifically was he married? Did he have any offspring? etc.
      • The only reference to a wife was from his memoirs, which I added. I had been trying to avoid primary sources so it wouldn't be a problem at FAC, but I think this detail shouldn't be a big issue. —Ed!(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise this looks quite good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Arthur_W._Radford&oldid=1136064861"