Template:Did you know nominations/United States Navy systems commands

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

United States Navy systems commands

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that six systems commands not only design, construct, and maintain the U. S. Navy's military hardware, but also include the chiefs of two of the Navy's eight staff corps?

• Reviewed: CKMP-FM

Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self nominated at 18:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC).

• All the refs are primary sources. Don't any independent sources discuss this topic? Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, refs 13–20 are not self-published by the systems commands. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose that people have been avoiding this nomination because there are a lot of references to look at to support the hook. So I'm going to make it easy and point out the relevant parts of the sources for you.

• "design, construct, and maintain the U. S. Navy's military hardware": each of the systems commands uses language along these lines.
  • NAVSEA: "We design, build, deliver and maintain ships and systems" (Ref. 1)
  • NAVAIR: "NAVAIR's mission is to provide full life-cycle support of naval aviation aircraft, weapons and systems operated by Sailors and Marines. This support includes research, design, development and systems engineering; acquisition; test and evaluation; training facilities and equipment; repair and modification; and in-service engineering and logistics support." (Ref. 2)
  • SPAWAR: "We support the full lifecycle of product and service delivery from the initial research and development, to acquisition and deployment, to operations and logistics support." (Ref. 3)
  • NAVFAC: "NAVFAC is the Systems Command that builds and maintains sustainable facilities, delivers utilities and services, and provides Navy expeditionary combat force capabilities." (Ref. 4)
  • NAVSUP: "We execute our mission along three main business lines: Weapon Systems Support, Global Logistics Support, and Sailor and Family Support." (Ref. 5)
  • MCSC: "Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) outfits United States Marines with literally everything they drive, shoot and wear... [We] listen, learn, research, develop, test, procure and sustain – whatever it takes to get Marines what they need, when they need it" (Ref. 6)
• "include the chiefs of two of the Navy's eight staff corps"
  • Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command is Chief of Civil Engineers (Ref. 10)
  • Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command is Chief of the Supply Corps (Ref. 11)
  • There are eight Navy staff corps (Ref. 13)

Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the above Antony–22. Hm. So, the article was created in March 2010, though it was basically a list of wikilinks. The current version is probably better filed under a 5x expansion rather than a new article. The prose is definitely long enough. Some of the Function and organization section is indeed sourced to entirely primary sources, which is a concern. The hook meets length requirements, but the concern is that all of its sources, except for Ref. 13, are primary sources from the system commands' websites, many of which resemble mission statements that support the hook's claim that they "design, construct, and maintain the U. S. Navy's military hardware". Primary sources should be avoided when trying to make interpretations, but I don't think the hook represents original research by the author. That said, I really don't think mission statements are appropriate sources as a general rule. On that basis, I'd recommend the hook be changed to:

ALT 1: ... that the six systems commands include chiefs from two of the Navy's eight staff corps?

QPQ also checks out, so in summary, I'd like to see a few non-primary sources in the Function and organization section, and a change to the hook. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added third-party sources to the Function and organization section. In general, it's permissible to take factual statements about an organization's function from their own website; this is certainly not one of those rare cases where an organization has been accused of misrepresenting itself. I strongly recommend the original hook, as the term "systems commands" is unfamiliar to most people so a definition is necessary to make it interesting. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns addressed, and I agree with Antony-22's arguments above. I've struck my ALT1. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Article was still graded as a stub, but I have re-assessed it as Start class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)