Talk:Carrier Air Wing Six

DYK

Make sure that you add a fact from this to WP:DYK!! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After some head-scratching, I navigated my way to the DYK nomination page, but I discovered hat you have already put the following up for nomination:

Did you know that Air Group Six was the U.S. Navy’s only carrier-based air group to carry out three complete tours of duty during World War II?

Thanks for the assistance! I'm keepig my fingers crossed. The CVW-6 article is set, and now onto VP-8!Marcd30319 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, you must have missed the message I left on your talk page...=) I believe that it is Template talk:Did you know or something like that. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It made it! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

References

A very belated launch notice

This article is duly launched.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image galleries added.Marcd30319 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carrier Air Wing Six/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; yes

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. yes

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; yes

   (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); no, the tables need cites yes

   (c) it contains no original research. yes

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; yes

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). yes

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. yes
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute yes

GA Revisions

Footnotes/citations for the tables have been added. Marcd30319 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Carrier Air Wing Six/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria 1.b. It is basically a set of lists. There is not enough prose to be an article. Lists should be converted to prose form as much as possible. See Wikipedia:Embedded list.

The sets of list do not all have lead in prose explanations as required by MoS Wikipedia:Lists

Also, the use of tables is discouraged in lists. See Wikipedia:Lists. See Wikipedia:When to use tables.

Perhaps this article can be reworked by turning many of ths lists into explanatory prose. Another suggestion would be to create Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, see Wikipedia:Featured lists. Perhaps you can make a featured list. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the article's narrative, with the accompanying tables serving to supplement that narrative. All major operational highlights have been included in this revision. As an aside, my intention was to provide a highly comprehensive encyclopedic entry on this subject. Tables are useful because of the deployment patterns for this subject. Please provide specific examples and remedial actions, as needed. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur—see this diff. Also, keep in mind that the air wing had times when it simply embarked upon a ship and didn't do anything behind routine training flights!!! —the_ed17— 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am not saying that your work is not a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. I think it is. However, I believe that it still does not fullfil the definition of an article because it is primarily composed of lists and tables. I reread the definitions and examples in Wikipedia:Embedded list, Wikipedia:Lists, Wikipedia:When to use tables and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). If you still disagree, we can present the article to WP:GAR to invite wider input into this issue. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Hmmm... My idea is to ask the people at the Military history WikiProject. While they tend to have higher standards than most projects (and might call this a list too), I feel that the military knowledge they have might be helpful in determining how much prose can be added.
  • Also, with all of the sourced statements, I think that this would stand a chance of passing GA if we removed the tables...but just because they are in there doesn't mean that it is a list!
  • See my sandbox at this moment. This is the quick, two minute, article without the tables (all I did is remove them, but obviously a "List of aircraft used" would have to be added somewhere.) IMHO, that would pass a GAN (with a "list of aircraft somewhere!). However, I feel that the tables help enormously for people who are looking for what aircraft they used. —the_ed17— 18:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. In fact, I meant to suggest the Military history WikiProject myself. They have experience passing articles at GA and FAC. Also, at Featured Lists - Military and military history. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. The statement that "it is not about quality" is meant to be informative to people there (trying to get them to follow the link!)...sorry if it seems like I meant that in bad faith. =/ —the_ed17— 04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

In no particular order:

In the "Carrier Air Wing Six (1963 – 1993)" section...

• can you link "line periods" to some other article? I don't know if readers will know what this is.
• same with "waterborne logistics craft"... —the_ed17— 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In the "Battle Carrier Air Group Five (1946 – 1948)" section...

• "for Essex-class fleet carrier USS Valley Forge (CV-45) and the Midway-class battle aircraft carrier USS Coral Sea (CVB-43).[22]"
  • What is the difference between a fleet carrier and a battle aircraft carrier?
  • What is a fleet carrier (a supercarrier?) and what is a battle aircraft carrier?

Okay, here goes:

• The term "line periods" was lifted from the USS America (CVA-66) entry from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships available online at the Naval Historical Center. The term "line periods" suggests the time hat the America and Carrier Air Wing Six were at Yankee Station conducting air operations between port visits. Alpha strike is not an equivalent term.
• the term "waterborne logistics craft" was also lifted from the DANFS entry for the USS America. Within the context of the entry, lighters and barges would have been the most likely waterborne logistics craft.
• What is a fleet carrier? I am not precisely sure when the term was first coined, although I suspect it had its origins from World War II, but U.S. Navy carriers that saw service during World War II -- Lexington class, Yorktown class, and Essex class -- were built to serve as part of the fleet. If you are a battleship-oriented admiral, this meant carriers being tied down to the battle line while those air-oriented followers of Joseph M. Reeves and John H. Towers wanted to have carriers operating as an independent high-speed strike force. The Independence-class light aircraft carriers were stopgap conversions that could operate with the fleet carriers but with air groups only half that of the fleet carriers. Escort carriers were small carriers converted from merchant ships and used for anti-submarine warfare and amphibious air support missions. Given these new carrier types (i.e, escort and light, Saratoga, Enterprise, and the Essex class were designated fleet carriers.
• What is a battle aircraft carrier? In two words, the Midway class, which had the Hull classification symbol of CVB, whose displacement and air group size was half again larger that Essex class fleet carriers. These three Midway-class ships were the first carriers to not be able to transit the Panama Canal because of their great size.
• What is a supercarrier? Basically, it is every post-war U.S. Navy carriers beginning with the USS Forrestal (CV-59) commissioned in 1956. Their general characteristics include an over-all length in exess of 1000 feet, full-load ship's displacement on excess of 75,000 tons, and the capaility of operating an air group of up to 100 modern jet aircraft.

Finally, beginning in 1952, I think, U.S. Navy carriers that were nuclear strike capable were designated "Attack Aircraft Carriers (CVA)" while carriers involved in anti-submarine warfare (ASW) missions were desigated "Support Aircraft Carriers (CVS)." Beginning in 1975, all U.S. carriers were re-designated as "Multi-role Aircraft Carriers (CV)" that, ironically, was the same designation used by wartime fleet careriers of the Lexington, Yorktown, and Essex classes.

-- whew --

Regarding "waterborne logistics craft," I ill revise to read as follows: "... , as well as lighters, barges, and other logistical support watercraft."

I don't know what do do about "line periods." Marcd30319 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibility: Modern US Navy carrier air operations

...and that killed my next suggestion (I was thinking of Alpha Strike)! Can it be replaced with "time spent at/on Yankee Station"?

Okay =)

Added the battle carrier info in (sort of) with a <ref group=Note> format. See this diff. —the_ed17— 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am side-steppng this "four line periods" business. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. =) Even though you removed it, the sentence and paragraph still make perfect sense, so good job. —the_ed17— 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One last thought: if this is deemed an article (and not a list), may I nominate it for A-class over at the Military History Wikiproject? I think that it would pass with only minor changes needed. —[[User:the_ed17|the]_ed17— 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections at all.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)