Talk:USS Triton (SSRN-586)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about USS Triton (SSRN-586). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Speed clarification

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An anonymous editor boosted the submerged speed to an unreasonable number. I reverted it, since she/he/it couldn't be bothered to cite a reference or change the metric speed value to match. (The highest figure I can find from any credible source is GlobalSecurity's "Surfaced: 27, Submerged: 27.") If M. 68.173.190.61 has a reference, I'll be delighted to discuss it. ➥the Epopt 22:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Removal from Norfolk Naval Shipyard

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I was on the Ex-Triton either in 1991 or 1992 doing radiological surveys; during that time, she was berthed at St. Julians Annex, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, in Portsmouth Virginia. It's obvious there's a mistake in the current date as to when she was transferred to Puget, as it's listing 1986.

BTW, I'm surprised that no mention is made in the article about her later outfitting; the Presidential Seal and state room, fully stocked mahogany bar, etc., were unique assets for any US submarine. It was quite a thrill when I was there to walk down the "Grand Staircase" (another unique feature of the boat) and turn into the Presidential Suite. Thank the maker it was never used, but it's definitely the most interesting bit of the ship, and I wish that somehow they could have turned Triton into a museum just for that feature.

Lastly, Triton was known to be faster surfaced than submerged; Rickover didn't WANT Triton as a submarine, he wanted Triton as a testbed for a dual-reactor, dual screw Cruiser, but couldn't get approval to build a nuclear cruiser of that type at the time; he had full approval to do almost anything he wanted with submarines however, so he took the basic Cruiser designed, modified it to the specs of a submarine, and built it; however, since it wasn't a particularly good submarine, per se, it was obsolete as soon as it proved the concept by completing the shake down cruise around the world; when they tried to justify having the ship at all (it wasn't very suitable as an attack submarine, and it's original DEW line purpose was marginal at best, and unneeded by the time of launch), it was converted to the presidential undersea nuclear bunker. Bill Ward (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, I keep running across articles that talk about Triton s "abortive PLANNED" upgrade to the Presidential Command bunker, but they universally agree that it did not happen; I know that from eyeballs on spaces that it DID occur, as I've personally been in those spaces (1991-1992) while doing that survey. Unfortunately, with nothing to cite, and not having "proof" I can't update the pages to reflect that correction; is there any literature anywhere that someone knows of that can be cited? The Presidential Suite was on the starboard side, with the front of the compartment area directly beside the "Grand Staircase", which was centerline (a marble inlaid open "circular" (actually U shaped) staircase area that led to the external, sail-enclosed con). The ship was built prior to SubSafe, and was never fitted for SubSafe at least in those areas; the "Grand Staircase" however was far too ornate to have been original, as well (on a warship, even then, it would have been just an unusual, "residential style" U Shaped staircase"). Fitting for SubSafe would have meant also doing active anti-fire measures, and the Mahogany wood in the Presidential Suite is DEFINITELY not fireproof.Bill Ward (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 16 years ago22 comments3 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Triton (SSRN-586)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'll be conducting the GA review for this article, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
There are a lot of short paragraphs. Paragraphs of one or two sentences should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.

~~Section headers should have all words after the first word decapitalized, unless the word is a proper noun. Therefore, "Indian Ocean" = good, "Homeward Bound" = bad~~ - I fixed this

Lists (indicated by bullet points or numbers) are discouraged by MOS, and should be converted to prose wherever possible. Not all of them have to be removed (for instance, I think the Key Mileage and Duration Figures work well as lists, but many of the others could easily be turned into prose.

~~There should be no bolding in the article outside of the lead.~~ - Fixed

There are a lot of external links. Are all of these really necessary? Links that are used as references don't need to be repeated, unless they are official sites.

The Miscellanea section is basically a trivia section, which is discouraged by MOS. This section should be deconstructed and the information added into other sections if it is relevant. If the information is not relevant, it should be removed.

~~For an article of this length, the lead should be at least three large paragraphs, if not four.~~

I extended it. Is it long enough now? ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely better. We'll probably want to expand it a little more as we go along, but for now, it's good as is.

Due to all of the other issues, I haven't done a complete check of the prose. As soon as I see the other issues being addressed, I will run through a prose review and copyedit.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~Identical refs should be combined using the named refs feature.~~

Done (I think) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 18:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Web references should have publishers and access dates.

Unfortunately, postings on message boards (such as the Triton Message Board) are generally not considered reliable.

Same for self-published, unofficial websites such as "garrygray.tripod.com".

Where there are refs to more than one source for the same sentence, the refs should be separated to allow for named refs. For example, "First Submerged Circumnavigation 1960, B-35; Beach. Around the World Submerged, p. 187-188" should be split into two refs.

Done ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 18:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

~~The Cultural References section needs references.~~

I've added fact tags in several areas where refs are needed. I'll probably add more as I go along and see more areas that aren't cited.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The Around the World Submerged — 1960 image should probably be sized to "thumb". Readers can click on it to make it larger if they want to, and that way it won't break up the flow of the article. The image also needs a caption. - Done

The Around the World Submerged book cover is probably not necessary to increase the reader's knowledge of the subject, which is an important tenant of fair-use rationales. This image can probably be removed.

Please check the licensing for the GPO First Submerged Circumnavigation cover image. You currently have it listed as both fair-use and public domain, which are (in my mind, at least) mutually exclusive.

~~Please make sure that your image captions are concise, but useful. For example, "Mission accomplished" in the Aftermath section doesn't help the reader to figure out what is happening.~~

Done ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 18:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, a well-referenced and extensive article. However, there are quite a few MOS, referencing and image concerns that need to be addressed before this article can go to GA status. I don't have time at the moment, but I will help with the MOS issues if you don't get there first! As I said above, I haven't done a complete check of the prose, due to the other issues present, but as soon as I see the other issues being resolved I will begin a prose review and copyedit. If you have any questions, you can let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, but I'll hop on all of the stuff that I can do ASAP tomorrow. Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 04:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the citations and re-written the opening four paragraphs (the lead had been buried). I don't understand MOS issues, and I am open to any suggestions or explanations The Cultural Refreneces section was based on reading the three novels cited.

Regarding citations from the USS Triton Message Board, I submit that the posters are former crew member of the USS Triton, and therefore shold be treated as authorative. It is not some fan site, and its webmaster, Garry Gray, worked closely with the late Captain Tom Thamm, and havng known how exacting Tom was, I can assure you that Garry's web site is very thorough and accurate.

I wou also like to keep the book cover images.Marcd30319 (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, (if you don't know what MoS is) MoS stands for Manual of Style, and it is located at WP:MoS. Is the Cultural References section based on stuff that is said in the novels? (Basically, is it original research?)

Thank you abut the MOS clarification. I went back and cited the appropriate passages in the novels.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that, Dana boomer will have a better idea...to look at the criteria for a reliable source, see WP:V and WP:RS.

Dana, ~~should we~~ can we move the book covers up into the article to a spot where they could help the reader? ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 19:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have done so, and I have fixed some footnote, too. Marcd30319 (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The progress that is being made is encouraging! I have asked another editor that specializes in reference reliability to check out the message board and unofficial site links to see if I'm being too harsh on you, Marc. I'll let you know what she says. Other than that, what still needs to be worked on is combining short paragraphs and removing more lists. This article is much closer to GA than it was when we started, but still needs a little bit of work to get there. Dana boomer (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Combining Sections

There are a lot of short sections, especially near the end of the article. Here are some of my ideas for combining these sections (as well as one move that I'd recommend). Let me know what you all think:

Triton Light, Beach Hall, Triton Hall and Triton Park into a section titled "Triton memorials"
Subsequent operations and Decommissioning into a section titled "Subsequent operations and decommissioning"
The Technical issue section should be combined with whatever part of the cruise this happened during. It is really disconnected and doesn't make much sense just sitting in a section by itself.
Same with the two facts in the Circumnavigation crew list. Move the information and the quote to the related sections, and move the link to the crew list to the See also section.

These are just suggestions, but the basic premise is that really short sections are discouraged, and they look better when combined. Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Move the Final deposition section up to just after the Decommissioning section.

All done. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What you've done so far looks good. However, what I was thinking with the Triton memorials section was to remove all of the sub-headings that are now under the Triton memorials heading, in order to prevent having a bunch of successive short sub-sections. Also, it would make the section flow better, especially if the list was removed from what is now the Triton Hall subsection.

References and Leave Notice

First of all, I'm going to be lacking Internet access for most of this weekend - probably Friday night through Sunday night. I will be back on checking all of my articles and reviews Sunday night, so please realize I haven't abandoned you when I don't post for the next couple of days.

Secondly - references:

The feedback I'm getting as to the forum postings (both the Triton message board and the Yahoo group one) is uniformly negative. Forum postings are not considered reliable, and are not allowed in Good Articles. Things are a little more mixed on the Unofficial Triton Site references, so I'll get back on you on this one once I talk to some more people :) Basically, this article cannot become GA while you are still using message board postings as references. If this is fine with you and you don't care if the article becomes GA, then I'll just close the review and let it go at that. If you do want the article to become GA, and possibly go on to A or FA standard, then those refs must be replaced. This is especially true because this article is within the realm of the MILHIST project, and the main A/FA editors there are notorious sticklers for reliable references :) Since I'll be gone for the next couple of days, you have the weekend to decide which way you want to go. If you could let me know by Monday morning, if possible, that would be great.
There are still quite a few web references that need publisher and access date information. If you want, you can use the {{cite web}} template, which is similar to other cite templates you use in the article.

Let me know what you want to do. Dana boomer (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Updates

The above recommendations were implemented, including the deletion of all footnotes using message board postings as references, and footnotes involving web-based references were re-formatted. Let us move forward on the GA review process. Marcd30319 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Next Look

I'm back, and have started looking over the article again. Thank you, Marc, for replacing those references. I am going to leave the Unofficial Website alone for now, because it does appear to be fairly reliable, but please be prepared for it to be questioned if you decide to take the article to A or FA status. Now, onto what I see as the next steps towards GA:

There are still a few web references that have no publishers and/or access dates. I've fixed a few, but there are still some left.
For magazine/journal refs, please either put the full information for all of them in the body of the text, or use the divided format for all of them. You have two journal refs in the Bibliography section of the References (you can see that I changed the formatting on them so that they use a journal-specific template), while the rest of your magazines have the full information in the notes section, in the in-line reference style. Please choose one or the other and stick with it.
There are still a lot of images in this article, and it tends to break up the article and make it look choppy. I have removed a couple of images that really seemed unnecessary, and moved around some others, but more work could still stand to be done. By removing a couple more images from the sections that are really image-heavy, the article would flow a lot better. When you look at an image, ask yourself what it adds for the reader. Is it purely for decoration, or does it actually serve some purpose?
~~See if you can transform any more of the lists into prose. The lists in the "Twin nuclear reactor propulsion plant" and "Floating White House controversy" sections are where I'm looking specifically.~~
~~There are still a lot of short paragraphs. Please try to combine as many of these as you can.~~
The "Operation Sandblast" section tends to overwhelm the rest of the article. I realize that this was probably the most important thing that Triton ever did, but is there any way you can cut it down a little. I'm not asking you to take out pertinent information - more generic wording and dates that don't really matter. Again, look at it and ask yourself what dates are really important to the reader and if it really matters that it was March 19th that they detected another seamount. Also, you could combine some of these. Perhaps, at the end of the article, in the Scientific Accomplishments section, say that Triton discovered x number of seamounts, etc, instead of listing all of them separately in the various sections.

These six issues are the main things holding the article back from GA at this point. Once these are done, a thorough copy-edit of the article should place it thoroughly in the realm of GA-status.

I moved around several of the sections into areas where I felt they fit better. If you have problems with anything I did, let me know. I didn't delete any of the sections wholesale, so if you can't find something, it was because it was moved :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Things are looking good. Please continue to work on the remaining issues above. I will begin the final copyedit, looking for any unresolved issues in the prose, tonight or tomorrow, and should have that completed by Friday. Hopefully, we will have this article at GA status by Saturday! Thanks for all your hard work. Dana boomer (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, dana! I'll try to help too, but I'm in the middle of the second FAC for The Sword of Shannara and an A-class review for USS Nevada (BB-36), so I don't know if I'll make it. Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 15:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Second review

OK, here's the final comments before the article passes for GA. I'm doing it in a second review so that everything's nice and clean :)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Per a recent MOS change, dates should not be linked. Besides this, your formatting is very inconsistent, with some dates having the entire thing linked, some just the month and day and some none at all. Please just de-link all of the dates.

~~Twin nuclear reactor propulsion plant section: The first sentence of the third paragraph is awkward. Could it be reworded?~~

Launching section, you say "causing a large cloud of steam that filled the compartment". What compartment?

~~Commissioning section, you say "the first skipper of that ship." What ship?~~

You have the information on the ship's bell in two different sections - the Commissioning section and the Ship's Crest, Insignia, and Bell section. It could probably be trimmed out of the Commissioning section.

Please check for other redundancies like the one above. I've removed a couple of them, but may have missed some. Basically, this article is already pushing recommended length limits, and so all redundancies and extra wording should be cut out.

~~In the Destination: Cape Horn section you say "ran up all ahead Flank". Errr...what does this mean? Please avoid jargon where-ever possible.~~

In the official recognitions section, it would probably be better to mention Steele's award in the section in which you describe this incident, rather than here, in order to have it more connected for the reader.

Make sure you have convert templates everyplace they're needed. I got a bunch, but may have missed some.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There is one dead linked web reference in the Official recognition section.

There is one place where a date is needed in the Final deposition section.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I've moved some more stuff around and done a fairly thorough copyedit of the prose. These issues shouldn't take much time to fix, and then the article will be a very nice addition to the GA collection. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. I'll probably do some more finicky stuff with date linking, convert templates and other formatting stuff...but this is just picky and won't stand in the way of a GA. Thank you very much for all of your hard work on this article, and congrats! Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance! Marcd30319 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Inaccuracy WRT Communications Capability

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article reads as follows:

"The Combat Information Center (CIC) provided substantial command-and-control capabilities as did the very-low-frequency (VLF) communication buoy system that could receive and send radio transmissions while submerged."

As a former submarine officer I can positively attest that an SSN does not provide not "substantial" C2 capabilities from a perspective of transmission. Specifically, the article as written implies that TRITON could transmit VLF. While I can not positively disprove this implication, I find it highly unlikely due to the antennae and power requirements to do so. Wikipedia's own page on VLF states "Transmitter sites typically cover great areas (many acres or square kilometers), with transmitted power anywhere from 20 kW to 2 MW."

I have no information concerning the notional use of TRITON in the NECPA program, but C2 would not be an argument in favor.

David Henry 199.82.243.74 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The "substantial" C2 capabilities are unique to Triton because she was built with a CIC and an extensive (and like her CIC) unique communications installation to support her originally intended role as a radar picket. Furthermore, the (land based) VLF array's are so large due to their high transmission power and the need to provide long range coverage. (The same reason a radio station has a multistory antenna and your cellphone doesn't.) 24.16.181.1 (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Stamp image removal

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the stamp image File:ANTI1034.jpg because it a non-free image of a stamp that fails WP:NFC#Images which clearly states: "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject', which was the use here, so it may not be used in this article. I am not going to start an edit war but this use is improper and must be removed. You may want to familiarise yourself with the following: WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#Images, and this FAQ to better understand the issues. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Feature Article nomination for February 16th

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I nominated the article on the USS Triton for the Feature Article of February 16th:

Feature Article nomination - February 16th

I think that I did the nomination correctly, but you may to review and comment.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is not a featured article it is ineligible to be the TFA. See your talk page for advice. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)