Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Tucker (DD-374)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

USS Tucker (DD-374)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk)

USS Tucker (DD-374) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-class review on behalf of User:Pendright per their request on my talk page here: [1]. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about USS Tucker (DD-374), a Mahan Class Destroyer in the United States Navy. Her service life was relatively short, yet marked by a series of eventful occurrences. In 1940, to stretch her fuel supply, she sailed from Wake Island to Pearl Harbor under a homemade foresail and mainsail, averaging 3.4 knots per hour. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, while still in dry dock, Tucker downed at least two Japanese aircraft. In 1942, she was sunk in New Heberdies by mines laid by US minelayers but unbeknown to her. The Navy then used her wreckage site for the training of underwater personnel. In just 60 feet of water, her wreckage has become a diving site for divers and salvage hunters. The article was promoted to GA 0n 20 September 2016. It has since been updated and reworked, and received a copy edit by the GOCE on 21 September 2019. All comments are welcome. Pendright (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, sorry for the delay. I have taken a look now, and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, was a Mahan-class destroyer in the United States Navy and commissioned in 1936 --> "was a Mahan-class destroyer of the United States Navy that was commissioned in 1936"?
Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, An investigation revealed that Tucker had not been informed of the minefield --> "An investigation revealed that Tucker's captain had not been informed of the minefield"? (captain or crew rather than the ship itself being informed?)
Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above, in the body: An investigation revealed that she had not been informed of the minefield
Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest linking rigging
Linked - Pendright (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • move the link for antiaircaft to its first mention
Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The depth charge roll-off racks were rigged on the stern of the ship: mention that there were two of these?
Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • christened by Mrs. Leonard Thorner: do we know her actual name? Using her husband's name here will seem jarring to a 21st century audience. If not, maybe even this might be easier on the ear, "christened by one of Samuel Tucker's third cousins"?
No! Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Wake Island
Linked - Pendright (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know why the ship had to stretch its fuel supplies? Perhaps add a sentence about this before introducing the quote?
Reilly, the source, provides nothing further in his publication. No other source listed seems to have dealt with this event.
No worries, thanks for checking. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linked - Pendright (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link stern and bow
Linked - Pendright (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An underwater photojournalist: suggest mentioning the name of the person here
Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bruat Channel is mentioned in the caption of the image, but not in the body of the article
Now reads: USS Tucker (D-374) sinking south of Espiritu Santo, 5 August 1942 - Pendright (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, Naval Institute Press is probably overlinked (suggest removing the links from the Roscoe and Rohwer sources)
Links removed - Pendright (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography Stone (2) doesn't appear cited --> suggest moving it to an External links section
Moved to External links - Pendright (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I’ve responded to all your questions or comments. Thanks for your review. Pendright (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your efforts. Added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Link knots in the lead.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Hawaiian Islands lead.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Caribbean Sea in the lead.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • she returned to duty in Hawaii Pipe Hawaii to the Territory of Hawaii.
Done - Pendright (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 Pipe Japanese to the Empire of Japan.
Done - Pendright (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with escort duty to American Samoa; New Caledonia; Espiritu Santo, New Hebrides; and Suva, Fiji Link all those islands.
All linked - Pendright (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tucker displaced 1,500 long tons (1,524 t) at standard load Link both tons and standard load.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overall length was 341 feet 3 inches (104.0 m) Round the nought here.
Rounded - Pendright (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • range of 6,940 nautical miles (12,850 km; 7,990 mi) at 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) Link knots.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her complement was 158 officers and enlisted men During WWII or peace time?
Added peace-time - Pendright (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The destroyer was fitted with emergency diesel generators Link diesel generators.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • geared steam turbines, developing 46,000 shaft horsepower (34,000 kW) for a maximum speed of 37 knots (69 km/h; 43 mph) Link kW and unlink knots here.
Linked kw and unlinked knots - Pendright (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tucker was one of eighteen Mahan-class destroyers Link the class.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ship was commissioned in the United States Navy on 23 July 1936 Remove the year.
Removed - Pendright (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Lieutenant Commander George T. Howard in command Link the commander.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After her shakedown cruise, Tucker joined destroyer forces attached to the United States Battle Fleet --> "After her shakedown cruise, she joined destroyer forces attached to the United States Battle Fleet"
Changed - Pendright (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link California and San Diego.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 Pipe Japanese to the Empire of Japan.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • afterwards vs afterward.
Changed to afterward. There might be a preference for useage, but there is no difference in the meaning of these two words in American English. Pendright (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • escorted her charge to Suva, Fiji, and proceeded Re-link Fiji to British Fiji.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Segond Channel.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link standard load, kW and knots and round the nought in the lenght in the infobox.
All linked - Pendright (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon afterward, she began escorting convoys between Remove the extra space here.
Remoed space - Pendright (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • at sea before returning to her home port of San Diego Merge "home" and "port".
homeport - Pendright (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review. If I have not addressed each of your comments satisfactorily, please let me know. Pendright (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pendright: No problem mate, another thing before I'll support is. You added the "Installed"'s information into the "Speed" in the infobox so there is no speed in the infobox and two installed in the infobox. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: I think it’s squared-away, now. My apology! Pendright (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • There's a typo in cite #1, page 405 is meant, not 465
See explanation below: The 2004 revised edition says page 465 - Pendright (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fuel oil quantity is on p. 406
See explanation below: The 2004 revised edition says 466 - Pendright (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The endurance is incorrect in the general characteristics section. Friedman gives three different figures on p. 405: trial figure of 7300 nmi at 12 kn; wartime endurances of 6940 @ 12 kn and 4360 @ 20 kn.
See explanation below: I Believe I have rectified the glaring omission you pointed out in the above comment. I've added all three of the endurance ranges, but in his 2004 revised edition Friedman seems to include only the wartime endurance ranges. I've also tweaked both the General characteristics and Machinery and armament sections. Pendright (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My 1982 edition of Friedman’s U.S. Destroyers does not mention Tucker or the Mahan class destroyer on page 405 or 406. Pendright (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to tell you; I have the same edition. What's on those pages in your copy?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Page 405 begins with a sketch of a shp with this caption - DDV 7 was yet another excursion,...
Much to my chagrin, I actually have the 2004 revised edition. My apology! I've changed the publication date and ISBN number in the Bibliography. I've substuted 2004 for 1982 in the Citation sectiom where it applied. Pendright (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many depth charges did the ship carry?
  • Friedman shows 2 roll-off stern depth charge racks, as the info-box indicates, but is silent on the number of depth charges Tucker (Mahan-class) actually carried. This seems to hold true for the proceeding Porter-class as well. Pendright (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page 150 of U.S. Navy Destroyers of World War I I (by John C. Reilley, Jr.) shows 2 depth charge racks, Mahan-class, but nothing further. Pendright (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, page 465 of Friedman, according to my publication, does show 2-depth charge racks followed by the bracketed number (14)* with an asterisk, footnoting it as "300-lb charges". I dismissed this before because, as you know, a roll-off rack is not used for a 300 lb. depth charge – but a depth charge projector or K-gun is used. No other details are given. Initially, I omitted any reference to depth charge protectors anywhere in the article, but I do plan to correct this omission. Pendright (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added depth charge projectors to the info box and the text - unfortuantley, Friedman does not say how many. Pendright (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox and caption, link Norfolk Navy Yard, Portsmouth, Virginia, Espiritu Santo, New Hebrides

All linked - Pendright (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede is too full of detail. The namesake is both in the lede and in the main body; I believe that it should be solely in the latter and with a citation. Not a fan of placing technical details in the lede, but I can handle armament details there and I'd suggest saving the ship's speed and fire-control systems for the main body.
I’ve deleted references to namesake, speed, and fire Control systems and cited where requested. Pendright (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Tucker was undergoing an overhaul. The ship sustained no damage. Combine these.
Sentences combined - Pendright (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link west coast, tripod mast, centerline, dual-purpose gun, main battery, launched, christened.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that I'd specify the actual destinations in the lede; probably better to just say islands in the South Pacific.
Changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly don't need to know the name of the cargo ship she was escorting when she sank. I'd suggest compressing the last para of the lede down to the essential facts. Where, when, what, casualties and why. There's no need for the departure port, where she was hit and where the casualties were stationed when they died.
Now reads: Tucker steamed out of port on 1 August 1942, escorting a cargo ship to Espiritu Santo. They entered its harbor on 4 August, where they had, unknowingly, moved into a minefield laid by the US Navy. Tucker struck at least one mine and was torn almost in two, killing three sailors. The rest of the crew survived but the destroyer sank. Tucker had not been informed of the minefield. Feel free to edit! Pendright (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I compressed things a little further and added a few more links that I'd missed earlier. See how it reads to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox stuff: How many shafts, link gun director, how many K-guns? I cleaned up the armament section, feel free to revert. When using a bullet list there's no need to separate each line with a comma.
    • My mistake, I changed that part myself, but what I meant to tell you was that when creating a list by using asterisks to lead the entries, you don't need to use commas to separate the entries in the list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added 2 shafts,linked gun director, but Friedman only indicates that it carried - "D.C. Projectors".
  • Bullet list and commas in the infobox - unable to spot any - what am I missing?
  • Add a general statement regarding the Mahans vs. their predecessors at the beginning of the general characteristics. Were they larger/faster/more powerfully armed?
  • The sentence concerning the torpedoes is unclear about adding the extra mount. Added in comparison to what? The earlier unnamed class?
How about this: ... and they were equipped with a more efficient steam propulsion system and designed to carry 12 torpedo tubes, an increase of four over the Farragut-class.[2] Pendright (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ship's design incorporated a new generation of land-based propulsion machinery. land based??
Changed to reflect the source: The ship's design incorporated a new generation of destroyer machinery. Pendright (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each gun was configured for surface and aerial targets. This is redundant to the categorization of the guns as dual purpose.
Deleted - Pendright (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell the reader how the torpedo tubes could be deployed. You and I know that the centerline mount could fire to both sides, but the other two could only fir on their broadside, so tell that to the reader.
Added this: Each of the three mounts held four torpedoes. Those on the port and starboard sides could only fire broadside, but the centerline mount could fire from either side. Edit as you see fit.Pendright (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Tucker received the new AA armament? If not covered in the sources, state as much.
Now reads: In early 1942, the Navy began to refit the Mahan-class destroyers with new antiaircraft armament, although most of the class was not refitted until sometime in 1944. (The source, Hodges and Friedman, do not indicate if Tucker was refitted).[7]
  • Move the bit about one of 18 Mahan class DDs to the lede.
Adding it to the lead is understandable, but why move it? Pendright (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're telling the reader that she's part of the Mahan class in the lede, it seems more natural to add the number of ships in the class there rather than in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved - Pendright (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very cool photo with the sails!
It is! Pendright (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Tucker was at Pearl Harbor for overhaul, much of her machinery had been torn down for repairs; despite the crew's efforts, they were unable to get the ship underway until that evening. Awkward.
Now reads: Still undergoing overhaul, much of Tucker’s machinery had been torn down for repairs. Despite the crew's efforts, she was unable to get underway until that evening.Pendright (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads: Tucker then escorted the seaplane tender Wright to
  • Please name the editors of Conways.
Conways is not cited as a reference so I have removed this publication from the bibliography. Seems to have been a victim of the review process. Pendright (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed - Pendright (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)A[reply]

I think I’ve touched all the bases, if I haven’t let me know. Thanks very much for taking the time to review this article. Pendright (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2020 (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/USS_Tucker_(DD-374)&oldid=950007806"