Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Sandblast

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.

Operation Sandblast

[edit]
Nominator(s): Marcd30319 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because USS Triton (SSRN-586) has successfully received an A-Class review and since the core Operation Sandblast was originally part of this USS Triton article and had gone through a previous GA review together as a single article, it is my belief that this Operation Sandblast will meet the same criteria as an A-Class article, and serve as a complement to its parent article on the USS Triton. Therefore, based on my previous experience on the A-Class assessment review of the USS Triton article, I have endeavored to avoid over-linking, I believe that my sourcing to be reliable, there are no disambig links, there are no re-directs, and alt text for all images have been duly incorporated. Thank you and I look forward to our collaboration. Marcd30319 (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments
    • No problems reported with dab links. A number of external links are identified as suspicious, including at least one link reported as dead, please check and advise. One image icon is missing alt text, please add this to the article forthwith.
    • If I recall correctly, we have a operation template you may consider using for the article, it should allow for a basic summary of the operation, its duration, and other details of this nature. I will not count this suggestion against you should you decide to refrain from using it.
    • There are no links to anything in the initial opening paragraphs, may I suggest adding a few?
    • There are still some short sections in the article, it would be a good idea to see about some consolidation of these sections.
    • Was there any particular reason for choosing sandblast as the codename? The article does not say, but I am curious.
      • Captain Beach was also curious about how the Navy Department came up with the code name of Sandblast for the circumnavigation mission. It was explained to him that taking his ship around the world submerged would "take a lot of sand" on the crew's part to be successful. Also, Sandblast would serve as Beach's personal code name. As the captain noted: ""Most beaches are full of sand, I was informed." See Captain Beach's account, p. 44. This seemed rather challenging to capture. At least with Operation Sunshine, there was a certain perverse logic in using that as the code name for the first submerged voyage under the North Pole. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, the quotes in the article could be trimmed even further, but I am going to wait and see what others think about the presence of the quotes before I decide whether or not to make an issue out of this. As a practical matter, I can understand the importance of the quotes to the article, hence my decision for a second opinion on the matter. Note that this comments is limited to the presence of the block quotes in the article only.
      • I will certainly like to hear back about this. I tried to keep the quotes to a minimum, but this is a highly personal story for all involved, and I also wanted to use the boxed quote for each section to set the appropriate tone for that section.
    • How do you extract oxygen from seawater? The article doesn't say, but I am curious.
    • Do the SSBN's making use of the Polaris missile have a name? I suspect these are probably George Washington or Ethan Allen boats, but a specific sub class mention would be nice.
    • Prior to the awarding of the PUC to Triton, which other boat received the PUC for peacetime ops?
    • Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your reasoning there even if I don't like the crew list - I will deal with my issues with the crew list through that article GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Significant post-1960 naval circumnavigations: My intent was to show other naval circumnavigations, not just submerged ones. By that criteria, only the Soviet entry would be apropos. The 2003 around the world voyage by the Chinese PLA Navy showed the growing Chinese naval activity on the world stage and enhanced ts prestige. Ditto the Indian and Australian naval circumnavigations around the world. The UNITAS exercises promoted regional goodwill while circumnavigating South America. Ditto the PLAN's 1997 circumnavigation of the Pacific. I spent a considerable amount of time researching this. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would belong under topics relating to naval power - which is why I deleted those entries.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quotations. You've got centred quotes in boxes, centured quotes without boxes, italicised quotes, non-italicised quotes, and one quote on the left side in large quote (") marks. I think the formatting of the various quotations in the article should be standardised (unless there is some method to the madness I've missed in my quick glance at the article). -- saberwyn 23:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Centered quotes in boxes: These are used to introduce each main section and set the tone therein. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Centured quotes without boxes: Quotes from Captain Beach's book, the published log book, or Captain Beach's preface to Dr. Weybrew's book. Essentially, anything that has been published.
    • Italicised quotes: Used for official or institutional citation (i.e., Presidential Unitation Citatio, Legion of Honor, and honorary Sc.D). Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MoS says italics in quotes only where present in originalGraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Request: TonStar81, is there a way of sectioning off comments so they can be addressed on a more individualized way? Otherwise, we are going to generate an ever-expanding laundry list of comments and responses that will make it increasingly difficult to address outstanding issues or come to a common consensus. Also, it will make it easier to type responses since the frame jumps as I type, and I have difficulty keeping track of my responses. I am sure other are experiencing this, too. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Marc, we frown upon using section headers in ACRs unlike our peer reviews. We could encourage editors to use {{collapse}} when their concerns have been addressed which would help. -MBK004 00:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would the problem be, as long as they are 4th-level (====) headers? This is really confusing. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we copied our ACR list from the FAC example, so our ACRs - including this one - are listed in the same way that FACs are on a project review page. Adding the headers to the ACRs makes a long page even longer and can disrupt parts of the reviewing operations here and there, which is why we do not permit the headers at the ACR level. The solution here, as it is at FAC, is to use the boxes to hide the addressed comments. Try not to look at this as a hinderence, instead look at it from the perspective that anything worth having is worth working for. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Round 2 Review Comments
I have endeavored to capture the following issues:

Unless it is directly related to Op Sandblast (ie submarine activities), the section should be more concise. the list of ports visited is excessive, the ships officers are not relevant within the section either especially as there is an article on the USN activity. As for the Soviet subs, that is more relevant though again excessive detail and a strange bunching of refs at the end of the paragraph.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this section be re-branded 1966 Soviet submarine global circumnavigation and fold the rest of this section into Operation Sea Orbit.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round 3 Review Comments
What is the current status of this review, and what outstanding issues remain to be resolved? Marcd30319 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I see nothing that should prevent this article from being an A-Class article in my opinion. -MBK004 06:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Looks like a very good article in my opinion. I just have a couple of very minor points. I am supporting because everything else looks fine to, but I request that you fix or consider fixing these before taking to FAC.
    • the lead looks like it is five paragraphs, but I think that there is a requirement for it to be no more than four paragraphs;
    • According to the cite error tool, this ref might need to be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS: "First Submerged Circumnavigation 1960, p. B-5.", can you please check?
    • you appear to have spaced emdashes, but per WP:DASH they should be unspaced. For instance in the "Mission history — Around the world submerged 1960" section header and in the block quote;
    • in relation to the comment about emdashes, in the Destination: Cape Horn section you use spaced endashes (sentence beginning "On 3 March..."). Consistency is required with the dashes, either use all spaced endashes, or all unspaced emdashes, please;
    • in the Destination:Cape Horn section you use the contraction "didn't", could you please replace the contraction with the full word as the contraction makes it sound a little unencyclopedic in my opinion.

Anyway that is it from me. Good work. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2010 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Sandblast&oldid=1138360002"