Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Coast Guard Squadron One

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.

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Coast Guard Squadron One edit

Nominator(s): Cuprum17 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it a stable article that is ready for review and I also believe that I finally have enough experience to help the reviewers in their assessment of the article. The only recent changes involve the repair of dead links caused by the change in format earlier this year for citations drawn from the Naval History and Heritage Command website. I have tested each link and have determined that they are now operative for the new web addresses. Warning!!!: This is my first and only A Class Review, so this is new territory for me. Am I nervous? Yes, I am, but I feel it is time to learn the process so that I will feel comfortable in reviewing other A Class articles. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cuprum, welcome! Here's an image review to start you off - let me know if anything needs further explanation.

File:VTN_USCGSQ1_Patch.jpg: is there any further information about this image? Any ideas about the date?

No idea on the date or origin of the unit patch. Here is the original Coast Guard Historian's Office image: [1] The Historian's Office doesn't include anything on its origin in their website; however, everything on their website is in the public domain unless otherwise stated. The patch image is not attributed to another person or entity. As for the date, it would have been produced sometime after March 1965 and before August 1970, with a likely date of 1965 when the squadron was commissioned.

Done

File:VTN_Mortar_Color_Firing.jpg: suggest using only the second of the two licensing tags
- Done
File:VTN_Pt_Welcome_1.jpg: any idea of the date?
- No idea on the date of the photograph of Point Welcome. The origin of the photograph is the Coast Guard Historian's Office website [2]. They do not have any records of the photo's date.
- DoneRemoved offending photograph.
File:Vietnam_gallantry_cross_unit_award-3d.svg and File:Vietnam_Campaign_Medal_Ribbon.png: licensing should be the same as for File:Vietnam_Service_Ribbon.svg
- This is somewhat troublesome. The Vietnam Service Medal ribbon is the work of a U.S. Government employee and has the correct license. The other awards were presented to U.S. service personnel and units by the Republic of Vietnam and are not really creations by a U.S. Government employee. What do you suggest?
  - Wouldn't Vietnamese law apply? The current government is the legal successor of the RoV. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Theoretically. However, immediately after the fall of the RoV, the current government refused to recognize intellectual property rights of any kind - it's unclear what the restoration process was and whether an RoV copyright would be recognized now. I also don't know what the RoV's laws were with regards to government copyright, as it's possible there is no copyright to recognize (if they adopted a model similar to the US of govt works being PD). I've been trying to find more information on this but thus far haven't had any luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Nikkimaria: DoneRemoved all images of unit awards from section in question because of public domain concerns. ~~I know that the United States awarded unit ribbons are in the public domain, but leaving them in the article makes the other two citations look empty.~~ To keep the assessment of the article moving forward it is easier to just remove the questionable material.Cuprum17 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria:Replaced images that were produced by the U.S. Government. Did not put images of foreign awards because of questionable license issues. Done
File:VTN_Comm_SQ1_Color.jpg: did you get this directly from the Coast Guard, from some publication of theirs, or from a third-party source? (Is this from the historian's office, as with File:VTN_82s_Loaded_1.jpg?). Same for File:VTN_SQ1_Subic.jpg. If we can be slightly more specific about sourcing for these, this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria:File:VTN Comm SQ1 Color.jpg, File:VTN_82s_Loaded_1.jpg, File:VTN_SQ1_Subic.jpg. were taken from the Coast Guard Historian's Office site at this web address. Anything posted to the Historian's website is in the public domain as a work of a Coast Guard employee unless there is attribution to another source listed with it. There was no outside attribution listed. Coast Guard regulations prohibit the use of copyrighted material without permission and attribution, so the Historian's Office won't publish anything not in the public domain. Hope this helps, if not please let me know. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That helps, yes - could you add that more specific source to the two image description pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nikkimaria: Done Added source to Commons files for File:VTN_Comm_SQ1_Color.jpg and File:VTN_SQ1_Subic.jpg Cuprum17 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Great, should be good to go then. By the way...pings won't work unless the ping and signature happen in the same edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I've decided to take a bit of a break from reviewing A-class articles for a while, but I'd be happy to help you with this one. I took a quick run through and made a couple of tweaks. I have the following comments/questions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this seems inconsistent: (in the lead) "Its formation marked the first time since World War II that Coast Guard personnel were used in a combat environment." v. "Coast Guard had only a very minor role in combat operations during the Korean War" (in the body of the article)

Changed lead to read: "Its formation marked the first time since World War II that Coast Guard personnel were used extensively in a combat environment."

Done

" signed a memorandum of understanding where the Coast Guard would supply..." Perhaps this might be better as: " signed a memorandum of understanding stating that the Coast Guard would supply "

Sounds better...

Done

I think you should link Officer (armed forces) on first mention of "officers" in the Crew training and commissioning section

Done

(in the lead): "Coast Guard Squadron One was a combat unit formed by the United States Coast Guard in 1965 under the operational control of the United States Navy during the Vietnam War and assigned duties in Operation Market Time." This sentence is possibly trying to do a bit too much. Perhaps it could be tightened thusly: "Coast Guard Squadron One was a combat unit formed by the United States Coast Guard in 1965 for service during the Vietnam War. Placed under the operational control of the United States Navy, it was assigned duties in Operation Market Time."

I like it!

Done

(in the infobox) the nickname "RONONE" probably needs a citation as it doesn't appear in the body of the article;

Done

" Squadron One and its remaining division, Division 13, came to an end" --> " Squadron One and its remaining division, Division 13, ceased to exist"?

used the term "decommissioned" instead, hopefully that works...

Done

"the Office of Senior Coast Guard Officer, Vietnam" --> "the Office of the Senior Coast Guard Officer, Vietnam"?

Done

" when military operations became intense during 1967" --> " when military operations intensified during 1967"?

Done

"All Squadron personnel distributed gifts of candy and toys as well as clothing, soap and toothpaste during the Christmas holidays at local orphanages that had been donated by Coast Guard families in the United States and brought to Vietnam on the Commandant's airplane" --> "During the Christmas holidays, at local orphanages squadron personnel distributed gifts of candy and toys as well as clothing, soap and toothpaste that had been donated by Coast Guard families in the United States and brought to Vietnam on the Commandant's airplane"?

Done

the header "Crew training and commissioning of Squadron One" probably could get away with removing the article title e.g. "Crew training and commissioning"

Done

in the References, instead of "New York, New York", I'd suggest "New York City, New York" (minor nitpick though);

Done

Anyway, that's it from me. Very interesting article. Thanks for your efforts and good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All my comments have been addressed, so I've added my support for promotion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Welcome to A-class. We've done a pretty good job of covering A-class for years, but some of us are on a break at the moment so it might be a few weeks ... I'm sure we'll get this one sooner or later. You're in the right place. - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I have copyedited down to Division 13.
"Division 12 got underway accompanied by the music of Cast Your Fate to the Wind transmitted over the radio circuit by the crew of Division 11 cutter Point Banks.": I think you're going to get some pushback on some of the sentences that have a nostalgic feel, or have more detail than we usually see at A-class or FAC. These questions aren't really my call, so I'll stop copyediting for now and wait to see what other reviewers think. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I'd still prefer to see comments from another reviewer before I continue. There are some differences in style and content from what I'm used to, and I'd rather not make those calls. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you pass Peacemaker's review you'll have your 3 supports, so you won't need one from me. I have no objections to this article's promotion. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- I did a copy edit and made a few other changes - my edits are here [3].
- "Concern by top MACV advisors as to whether the SVN..." do you mean "RVN" here?
  - corrected. Done
- "At 00:01 on 12 June 1965..." do we need to be so precise? (minor nitpick / suggestion only) Done
- There is some inconsistency in the presentation of Vietnamese place names throughout. Specifically in some places you use diacritics and some you don't. WP:DIACRITICS is the relevant policy and states that either style is correct so I think all that is necessary is for consistency either way. Personally as I neither understand their meaning nor am I able to type them with my English language keyboard I do not use them; however, it is entirely up to you which you choose.
  - Not sure what to do here. I will attempt to make all of the place names with the diacritic marks. I am afraid that if I make all the place names without them that someone will come along and change at least some of them back to diacritics. There are editors from Project Vietnam that are sensitive to the issue and make changes, but they haven't caught all the instances where the diacritics are needed. Working on it...
    - That's fine, it is of cse entirely up to you but diacritics are in no way mandatory and if you are concerned about it any editor that was to make such a change without first gaining a consensus to add them to an article that did not use them would likely be editing contrary to the ARBCOM ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk in 2005 which found that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." It further found that that doesn't include simply implementing one's "preferred style", although it is acceptable to make such changes to ensure the internal consistency of an article. As such they couldn't impose such a change on the article without discussion first. Like I said though I'm happy with either style you choose as long as its consistent. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it would be much easier to remove all diacritics for the simple fact that some place names in Vietnam don't have diacritical marks in the name of the place and the end result would be a mixture of some with and some without and it would look kind of like it does now. That was the way the article was written in the first place and I let the changes stand because I was unaware of the policy on diacritical marks. With the marks all removed, this should put this problem to rest. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Anotherclown: In your opinion would the diacriticals need to be removed from the table at "Cutter assignment and disposition information"? Before I actually undertake such an edit I would like an opinion or two on its necessity. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Good question. On the one hand removing them all would of cse result in consistency throughout the entire article; however, the table as it is currently is at least complete and internally consistent. As such I'd see no major issue with you leaving the table as is (but making the article consistent) if that was your preference. To be honest if it was me I would bin the lot to avoid possible future issues, but I'd say there is probably some wiggle room available if necessary. That's really only my two cents worth though (as I'm not sure there really is any policy which covers the issue specifically). I guess I'm really saying its up to you. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Removed diacritical marks from table Done
- "...Division 12 got underway accompanied by the music of Cast Your Fate to the Wind..." Yes, I agree with Dank's advice above about this, it is probably too nostalgic for Wiki.
  - Removed with some reservations. War is not all names and numbers and killing... Done
    - Completely agree with that! Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of times, for instance "..at the port city of Da Nang at 07:00..." vs "...At 0715 the USS Haverfield arrived on..." (colon vs no colon)
  - Done I think...
- "...nine other crewmen were injured along with a SVN liaison officer..." should this be "RVN" here too?
  - corrected. Done
- "...what would be later be referred to as the "Tet Offensive"..." not sure the quotation marks are req'd around Tet Offensive.
  - Removed. Done
- "...However, requests for naval gunfire support by land based..." → "land-based"
  - Corrected. Done
- "...considerable damage to Hobart and injury to several of her crew..." This is a bit of an understatement. Casualties aboard Hobart from this incident included two killed and eight wounded (for a reference see Jeffrey Grey (1998) Up Top: The Royal Australian Navy and Southeast Asian Conflicts 1955-1972, pp. 176-179)
  - Done@Anotherclown:Changed copy to include deaths and used Grey as a citation reference. The references that I had available did not suggest deaths occurred aboard Hobart and I it was not my intention to minimize the incident. Thank you for providing a reference for this tragic incident and I'm just sorry it was an Aussie editor that had to find this oversight. If I have mis-cited this information, I trust that a correction will be made by those that have the reference available.
    - No problems at all, that change looks fine to me (I just tweak the dashes etc). We are all limited by the sources that we have available to us so I'm sure it was an honest representation of the source used on your part. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Throughout you use the terms "Army", "Navy", "Airforce" and "Coast Guard", I'd suggest changing to "US Army", "US Navy", "US Airforce", and "US Coast Guard" etc for clarity. Whilst it is clear to me to which service you are referring it is probably presuming too much and some of our readers might be confused.
  - Done
- Some inconsistency in the presentation of numbers, consider "...for an 18 week pilot training..." vs "...a fifteen week program..." vs "eleven-week". AFAIK the correct presentation would be "11-week" per MOS:NUMERAL.
  - From the MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). In spelling out numbers, components from 21 to 99 are hyphenated; larger ones are not (fifty-six, five hundred). I will adopt the number method rather than spelling out the expression unless it is the beginning of a sentence.
    - Done
    - Your change looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These points aside I thought this was an excellent article. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding my support now as the majority of my points have been addressed (I'll leave the issue of the table to your judgement). I didn't know much about USCG operations in Vietnam before reading this and found the article very interesting. All the best taking it even further if you choose to. Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

toolbox checks are all ok except alt text for images, which is not a requirement at ACR
In the Background section
- county should be country Done
- suggest linking Junk (ship), United States Army, Airstrike, Mortar (weapon), Anti-tank grenade, Recoilless rifle, United States Navy, Radar picket, Operation Market Time, Berth (sleeping), Mess (in the latter case, at first mention) Done
- one million rather than 1 million, per MOS:NUMERAL Done
- 82 mm should be 82 mm to ensure a non-breaking space, this should be implemented for all such measurements DoneThanks for your edit on this, I didn't understand the significance of the non-breaking space at first
- comma after alarms on the bridge Done
- LST should be in full Done
- I don't think the description of the Mk2 dual mount is adequate. It was a unique set-up and few will be familiar with it.
  - @Peacemaker67:There is no article on the mount in Wikipedia or I would have linked it. The two links are the closest I could come to giving more information on the mount. ~~There was no M-number ever used to describe the mount because it was a lash-up solution to a problem.~~ Any detailed description of the mount moves away from the focus of the article which is the squadron and its operations. ~~What do you suggest that I do?~~ I stand corrected, after some research, I did find an article on the internet that discusses the Mk 2 mount so I have included it in a footnote. If the reader is interested, they can follow the link in the footnote. ( A side note: I may try to develop an article on the Mk 2 mount if I can find a second source of information...possibly using Wells in the reference section.) Done
    - I suggest the following , in place of which each cutter was fitted with a combination mount consisting of a 81 mm mortar which could be either drop-fired or trigger fired, above which was mounted a .50 caliber M2 Browning machine gun. The mortar could be fired in both indirect and direct modes, and was equipped with a recoil cylinder. Done
    - I also suggest that you attempt to obtain a free photo of the combination mount for inclusion in the article.
      - Need to find something for this very fine suggestion...may take a day or two, if such a picture exists. Found picture on official CG site and put in article Done
- Given that Operation Market Time has already been introduced, the final sentence seems redundant.Removed Done
Crew training and unit commissioning
- What ranks were the officers that were added to the complement, esp what rank were the commanders of the cutters?clarified officer ranks Done

Naval Base Subic Bay
- the handling of this reads a bit weirdly, because the first two divisions deployed there and to Vietnam before the third division even deployed there.
  - @Peacemaker67:This is handled in chronological order. I am not sure how else to do this. The Division 13 activation was an afterthought and a follow-on deployment of additional cutters and crews. The two other divisions were already actively in combat when the need for additional coverage in the southern area of the country was decided upon. Suggestions?
- Division 11 consisted of nine cutters and a U.S. Navy support ship Was the support ship the LST USS Floyd County? If so, I would state it in this sentence. Done
- Division 12 consisted of 8 cutters but then in the following sentence the LST USS Snohomish County is listed as the support ship? Did this support ship allocation continue? It isn't clear.
  - Edited paragraph for clarity Done
- the map in this section needs some work. I suggest getting rid of the "North Vietnam", "Laos", "Cambodia" and "South China Sea" labels, which obscure the important information, which is the locations and labels of the bases. Also, the label for Phu Quoc Island is partially "off the map", and should be moved to the "top" position. The labels also use a lower case d for div, and I think that should be rendered as Div.
  - ~~Left South China Sea label as I don't think it covers anything important~~. Done
    - Actually, it covers Cat Lo (which again, you could move to the top position), but I really don't see what the South China Sea label adds.
      - This is interesting. The map displays on my computer with nothing covered up. I will remove the South China Sea label because if you can't see the Cat Lo label then I am sure there are others that have the same issue. Done
Operations
- U.S Navy, U.S. Coast Guard or RVN is missing a period after U.S Done
- the areas varied in size, do you mean length? Done
- "stateside" is too informal, perhaps "used by the CG in the U.S."? Much better... Done
- at Cat Lo on 22 February 1966 Done
- suggest in an effort to deny food, water and ammunition to the Viet Cong operating in the Rung Sat Special Zone Done
- suggest mentioning that Brister was a DER, also Haverfield Done
- suggest mentioning that the F-100 provided close air support, as the purpose isn't clear from what is there. Done
- suggest stating that Tortuga was a dock landing ship Done
- suggest specifying what type of aircraft strafed Point Welcome rather than just providing their numbers, ie B-57 Canberra tactical bomber and F-4 Phantom fighter-bomber Done
- suggest severely damaged and despite nine 5 to 9 inch (13 to 23 cm) wide holes in the main deck, the hull was undamaged Done
- was there an inquiry into the Point Welcome incident and what was the outcome?
  - Yes, there was a board of investigation. I will need to research this and put it in some kind of order. Thank you for you input on this. ~~I will need a day or so to check my references and write this up.~~ Done
- suggest mentioning that Gallup was a gunboat and Walker a destroyer Done
- suggest dropping ~~swift boat~~ PCF-79, as you've already established that PCFs are swift boats Done
- suggest At 02:00 on 15 July, the trawler was boxed in and ablaze, and ran aground 200 yards (180 m) from shore. Done
- worth mentioning and linking to Owasco-class cutter when you mention the Androscoggin, Winona, and Minnetonka Done
- you could safely delete {xt|~~a U.S. Navy swift boat, the~~}}, again we know PCF means a swift boat Done
- assisted Regional Forces troops Done
- describing NGS provided by a 81 mm mortar as "heavy" just doesn't sound right, perhaps just drop it
  - I guess it would only be heavy if you were on the receiving end! Having been on the receiving end of Viet Cong 82-mm mortar personally, I can attest that it is at least impressive, if not heavy...anyway, I took the "heavy" out of the article. Done
- delete ~~U.S. Navy swift boats~~ again, we know what they are. Done
- wounded Regional Forces troops Done
- when mentioning Hernandez's BSM, drop Zumwalt's rank, firstname and initial, per MOS:SURNAME, as he's already been mentioned in full on first mention. Done
- was killed inby ambush fire Done Much better!!!
- Qui Nhơn needs to drop the diacritic for consistency Done
- dignitaries from many area naval activities is very wordy. Perhaps naval dignitaries from many areas? Assuming that has the same meaning.
  - Actually, the were probably a dozen "naval activities", or "naval commands" in other words, in the Saigon area. Most were support commands(Seabees, supply, medical, etc. plus Coast Guard and RVN commands.) for ships and aircraft based in the South China Sea as well a riverine operations. "Naval dignitaries from many areas" does not quite describe the gathering. You have to remember that significant part of the "Vietnamization" was pure politics and all commands (or "activities") were told to make a showing for the dog and pony show that it was. I would be inclined to leave this as it stands... Done
1970 – Vietnamization and disestablishment
- The COGARDRON ONE quote should probably end this section, not begin it. Also, COGARDRON ONE hasn't been defined before its use. I suggest it be introduced in the "Crew training and unit commissioning" section. Done
- Zumwalt should just be Zumwalt, per previous point Done
- I expect explosive ordnance detachment should be explosive ordnance disposal Done
Unit and service awards
- It is not clear what the source is for the statement Squadron One cutters were entitled to display the VSM by virtue of having served in Vietnam for more than thirty days during the eligibility period of 15 November 1961 to 30 April 1975. Done
See also
- should not contain any links already included in the text of the article, ie Operation Sealords Done

Great job with this interesting article, I had previously not known of the USCG involvement in Vietnam. That's me done. I have not checked images. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:07, 30 November 2015 (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.