Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Johnston (DD-557)

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 Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

USS Johnston (DD-557)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

USS Johnston (DD-557) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

My first US Navy ACR. This article is about maybe the most famous and fightingest US destroyer that ever sailed: Johnston (DD-557), of Samar and captain Evans fame, the deepest shipwreck ever surveyed, and a warship that will live forever in history and doctrine. I intend to take this article to Featured-dom (and ALL the Fletchers eventually) and hope for this to be an auspicious beginning to the quest of pinning the bronze star to the other 175 articles in this topic. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Buidhe[edit]

Note: I know nearly nothing about destroyers, so this is mostly a prose review

Extended content
  • "not properly surveyed" who decides what's properly? Is there a way to rephrase this without words-to-watch-y language?
    • I have changed "properly surveyed" to "properly identified"; at the time of the wreck's discovery, the only ship it could have been was USS Hoel but its exact location implied Johnston. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnston's armor measured" I assume this is the thickness?
    • Correct; I've added "thick" after the first armor figure to make that explicit. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 30 January, she screened for" That's incomprehensible jargon for me, sorry :(
  • "to return to the Marshalls for resupply and then to Kwajalein" This does not make sense to me since Kwaj is part of the Marshall Islands.
    • Trimmed off everything highlighted after "resupply". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " She returned on 8 February but was only able to refuel as all stowed 5 in (130 mm) munitions within the atoll had been claimed by Rear Admiral C. Turner Joy, in command of cruisers San Francisco, New Orleans, Minneapolis, and Tuscaloosa." The phrasing is a bit run on. Why did Joy have priority?
    • Axed wholesale; the DANFS doesn't say and it's not particularly relevant; I just found the article getting rather monotonous. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Direct fire" was the previously mentioned fire not direct?
    • Good question, can't recall but probably not. Trimmed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Center Force" I wonder if it's necessary to introduce this name? Why does it matter for this US ship what a Japanese fleet was called in historiography?

That's it! (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on A4 and A5 (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Most of the licensing looks fine but the own work claims on File:Gun turret No. 51 on the bow of the wreck of the USS Johnston DD-557.jpg, File:Bridge and Mk 37 Gun Fire Control System (top) of wreck of the USS Johnston DD-557.jpg, and File:Starboard bow of the wreck of the USS Johnston DD-557.jpg are pretty sketchy. How do we know that the photos were uploaded by the copyright holder? (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the images. Out of curiosity, I reviewed the uploader's history and found a history of this sort of thing. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe and Vami IV: - I dunno, some of the Vescovo images have gone through OTRS (like this one); it very well could actually be him uploading the images (or someone uploading them on his behalf). And Vescovo is cited as the author here, which is clearly the same footage as the bow photo that was uploaded here. It might be worth re-examining these and seeing if they can be used before this article goes to FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed File:USS Johnston (DD-557) underway on 27 October 1943 (NH 63495).jpg and thought it would be a great Featured picture candidate. So I nominated it there. But that's more of an aside. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 23:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

I've been surprised at how slow ACR's been moving lately - I thought this would have gotten more attention by now. I reviewed at GAN, so I don't know if I'll find anything to real pick at. Hog Farm Talk 14:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mention the radar stuff in the infobox in the design section
    • I have unfortunately found, in none of my sources, discussion of what RADAR was aboard Johnston or by extension any of the Fletcher-class destroyers. The closest I've found is a book about US Navy RADAR that gave systems that were probably aboard this ship, but only vaguely. There is a book from the Naval Institute Press (Alan Raven, Fletcher-Class Destroyers) about this class, but I have not access to it. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably gonna have to remove from infobox for now then. Doesn't look like I can get Raven from a library near me, but I'll do some digging around to try to find an answer after work. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Couldn't turn up anything besides a vague reference to some air search radar on the Fletchers that was too vague to be useful. My recommendation would be to remove from the infobox, because it's currently pretty much uncited. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          minus Removed –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with destroyers Haraden, Long, and Stansbury" - wasn't Long technically a destroyer minesweeper at this point?
  • Mention that Dixie was a tender
  • "The destroyers immediately began searching for the vessel and" - is this all five, including Hoel and Hailey?
    • Checked source; that's a negative. Hoel and Hailey were uninvolved. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnston escorted these escort carriers until 18 September, when they were relieved by Kitkun Bay, White Plains, and Gambier Bay" - is "they" Johnston or the carriers?
  • Link Heerman. Also, our article on the ship spells it as Heermann - which spelling is correct?
  • The figure of 175 Fletcher-class destroyers from the lead isn't cited anywhere and probably isn't necessary

Good work, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 14:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, Hog! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

I bought The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors (2005 paperback edition) on a whim at a used book store a week or two ago, so I guess I can give some comments:

  • In the Design or Construction sections, a "Because its entering World War II in 1941, US ordered X many Fletchers as part of Y naval expansion plan" or such, if sources allow it.
  • From there, Johnston sailed to join the ongoing campaign in the Gilbert and Marshall Islands. Ongoing campaign against forces of the Japanese Empire.
  • Over the next three days, Johnston resupplied, took on donated supplies from New Mexico, 5 in shells from Ringgold, and fuel oil from Suamico. Grammatically, should this be "taking on donated supplies..."?
  • What happened to her surviving crew? Picked up by the Japanese? By the Americans? This newspaper article quoting historian Ian W. Toll reports that the bailing crew was initially fired upon and mentions the claim that Japanese sailors saluted the sinking destroyer out of respect (this claim seems almost mythical but I wonder if there's more to it).
    • The Americans got worried about continued Japanese activity, particularly submarines, and didn't immediately send in any search and rescue. Thus, a lot of guys died of exposure, injury, and depredation by marine fauna. In the end, 141 guys from Johnston were rescued. I've added this last detail to the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There exists/ed a "USS Johnston/Hoel Association" for veterans, if a secondary source (maybe this works?) can affirm this it would be worthy of mention.
  • Since my book is different I'll defer to your call on this one, but should ref 16 concerning Japanese force strength be multiple pages? In my book it'd be pp. 153-154
    • Turns out we have the same edition. I have made this correction. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ref 43 regarding The Guardian article, the AFP should be entered under the cite news "agency =" parameter, not the "author =" one.

-Indy beetle (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: - Hi Indy, can you take a look at Vami's replies and see if your concerns are addressed? Thanks. (by the way, if you're ready to support, please ping me so I can close the review). Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting with the caveat that the page numbers for The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors be double checked, if I recall in my earlier review some instances seemed slightly off (beyond the one mentioned above). -Indy beetle (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can do; can't hurt. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

The sources all seem to me to be appropriately reliable. In terms of formatting:

  • Could the hyphenation of ISBNs be standardised?
  • Could the works in the "History of the United States Naval Operations in World War Two" series specify their volume numbers?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both  Done –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:20, 5 May 2022 (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_Johnston_(DD-557)&oldid=1087125252"