Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/USS Missouri grounding incident

USS Missouri grounding incident

I aim to get this to A-class and then FA class, but at this point I want some feedback about what could be improved before moving onto the next assessment phase. I am open to any ideas you have, so bring'em on :) I note for full disclosure that this article is within the scope of Operation Majestic Titan, of which I'm a part of. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

I just typed up some comments, but my browser ate them after I pressed the wrong button... I'll re-do them tomorrow, but as an initial and fairly wide-ranging comment, was the command arrangements used to navigate Missouri those which were standard for confined waters? The article gives the strong impression that her command and navigational teams were highly dysfunctional, but this is never explicitly stated - it doesn't seem normal for so many officers to have been involved, much less for them to be constantly arguing over her course and speed. The extent of this dysfunction must have dated before Brown's command - did the inquiries find this to be the case? Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my full comments:

A map showing the Missouri's track, or even a general map of the area, would be invaluable
The article needs a copyedit, as it presently contains some passive wording, repeated words within sentences and some prose is overly complex
I agree with Blackeagle's comments about most of the first three paras in the 'background' section being unnecessary. The last sentence in the introduction ("She entered the Puget Sound Reserve Fleet in Bremerton, Washington, where she remained until being reactivated in 1984 as part of the 600-ship Navy plan put forth by then President Ronald Reagan and his Navy Secretary John Lehman") also isn't necessary.
An explanation of the different roles each of the main people identified in the article had during the navigation of the ship in confined waters is needed; at present it's clear who was meant to do what
"The battleship USS Missouri ran aground during a transition from harbor to Chesapeake Bay, heading for open sea" - I don't think that 'transition' is an appropriate word here ('transit', perhaps?) and it's rather complex. How about something like "when the battleship USS Missouri ran aground while sailing into Chesapeake Bay"
The political controversy mentioned (without a cite) in note 3 seems significant enough to be in the body of the article given that it is relevant to the aftermath of this accident
As noted above, the article should cover the Missouri's command and navigation team's relationship and level of experience prior to this accident. Also, was Captain Smith's 'relief' a routine command changeover, or due to some failing?
"met in conference" - could be simplified to 'met'
"shoal (or mud bar)" - which was it?
"An attempt made by Missouri's sailors on the day of the grounding met with failure" - what did this involve?
Red Fleet links to Soviet Navy, not the publication
"Admiral Smith, at the time Commander, Cruisers, Atlantic, and the man who was responsible for issuing Missouri's order" - which order was this?
"the officials at The Pentagon would take notice" - this is a bit vague and it's obvious that the military's commanders were aware of this accident, especially as the article states that the ship had grounded under the noses of a bunch of senior admirals and generals, that 10,000 letters were written to the Navy following the accident and units from several parts of the military were involved.
"Wallin pledged to assist in the salvage effort" this implies that he didn't have to take up this task - is that correct?
The article has some informal wording that needs to be fixed up (eg, "the latter feeling that any steady speed held during the transition would be okay", "wiping out a portion of Windlass's side railing", etc)
"A Norfolk harbor pilot was responsible for issuing the engine and rudder orders to the battleship, while Missouri's own navigator issued course orders for the battleship during the tow." - did this differ from normal practice, and if not, what was its significance?
The "Aftermath" section is much too short. What lessons did the USN learn from this accident?
The statement that "Despite proof to the contrary, rumors continue to circulate that Missouri suffered permanent damage as a result of the grounding incident" is referenced to a seven year old newsletter. As such, I don't think it establishes that 'rumors continue to circulate' about the ship.
Is http://www.navysite.de/bb/bb63.htm#acc a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackeagle

I think that some of the general information about the ship in the "Background" section is probably unnecessary (as is the link to the Armament of the Iowa class battleship article). The ship's design history, armament, and WWII history aren't really relevant to this article. The post-WWII to 1949 period is what's most relevant here.

The Aftermath section is rather skimpy. Who are the other officers court martialed over the grounding? Why were two of them cleared? What repairs did the ship require?

Many of the notes can probably go. Note 2 seems like random trivia. Notes 3 and 9 aren't really relevant to the content of this article. Note 8 doesn't really seem relevant to this article, since the Pawcatuck wasn't jumboized until the mid-1960s and was still a standard Cimarron class oiler at the time of this incident. Notes 5, 6, and 7 should probably be integrated into the main body of the article.

A very nice article overall. Blackeagle (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]