Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Triton (SSRN-586)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Triton (SSRN-586) edit

Nominator(s): Marcd30319 (talk)
Toolbox

I have nominated this article for A-Class review because it has been certified as a GA article since 2006, and I have spent a great deal of time augmenting this value. Also, since Triton executed the first submerged circumnavigation of the world in 1960, some 50 years ago this year, I believe recognition of the subject of this arrticle to be both timely and appropriate.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Two dab links and one redirect are present in the article, these need to be located and if at all possible removed from the article. A disturbing number of websites are highlighted for issues related to access, these need to be located and fixed, removed, or acceptably substituted. In addition, a number of the websites listed do not appear to be reliable sources (blogspot for example), these links and there accompanying information may need to be removed from the article. Approximately 35 images are listed as being in need of alt text, please add this text to the images forthwith.
    • Shorten your introduction please, everything in the introduction is going to be brought up in the article body in greater detail, hence we do not need it all up front. My recommendation is to cut out all the extended information on the circumnavigation from the article intro save for one or two lines, and I'd recommend removing the quote from the intro as well.
    • I was under the impression that COMSUBLANT had no flagship, can you cite this information please?
    • There seems to be enough information in the design section to split out into a class article, given that the article is currently 136 kbs doing this may help the article stay WP:SIZE compliant by removing information more relevant to the class out from a page discussing the sub alone. Just something to think about.
      • Hold up Tom, this was an individual ship; I thought we didn't use them? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm looking at the 136-kb page size as possible grounds for an IAR on this article, although like all things on the wiki I'm playing this by ear and as the article gets edited this point may become null and void. If the Operation Sandblast material is moved to its own article then this will definitely be struck, otherwise I'll update this comment and the others as they are addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment struck, Operation Sandblast has reduced the size to a more manageable level. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are too many quotes in the article, can some of these be trimmed? Also, as a rule, articles shouldn't have galleries for their images if a link to the commons repository is provided, please see about trimming some images from the article please.
      • Quotes: Many of the quotes have been transferred to the Operation Sandblast article. There are now one (Aution) quote in the Commissioning section, three (DANFS, Beach, Dibner) in the Shakedown cruise section , and one (Rickover) in the Legacy section, four quotes, plus two citation for Triton's PUC and NUC. I think this is a reasonable total.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Galleries: I am open to discussion, but would it not be preferable to show the items being described by the text? Please advise.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Also, the alt= has screwed up the caption for the gallery.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed with deletion of Ship's crest, insignia, bell, and radio callsign section
    • There seem to be little bits of unneeded trivia all over the article, could you see about trimming these out of the article? For example, in the keel laying section, you've got "Although this underwater towing capability was never used, it later became a key plot element in Beach's 1978 novel Cold is the Sea." I fail to see why we need to know this, its trivia and could be removed without compromising the article's integrity.
      • I moved the Cold is the Sea text to the Cultural references section while adding a note about Consideration of under-the-ice operation by Triton per Largess and Horwitz.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire Ship's Crest, Ship's Insignia, Ship's Bell, and Radio Call Sign section needs to be moved from its current position, its obstructing the flow of the article. Put it at the top of the article in the design section or at the bottom of the page around the legacy section. Alternatively, you may consider simply deleting it.
    • On a similar note, you have way to many sections header with very short section. Section headers are meant to announce big things, not the start of every new paragraph. Eliminate some the extra headers please.
    • You need non breaking spaces between all number-size figures, but I notice that there are spots where this is missing.
    • There are too many instances of bulleted lists, please trim these down.
    • Practically all the information int he circumnavigation section could be reduced to a few paragraphs with the bulk of the information going to create an Operation Sandblast article. This event seems to be a consuming moment for the ship, but IMO it takes away from later operations. We adopted this format for USS Missouri; she got a paragraph for the surrender ceremony in her actual article while an entirely different article discusses the surrender ceremony in greater detail since it was such a highlight of Might Mo's career.
    • What's with the smoking study? I find this part of the article unneeded, and would consider trimming it back or removing it altogether.
    • Specify the year of the U2 incident in the aftermath section please, there were a few incidents and the addition of the year in the link would do much to help people remember which on you are talking about.
    • I recommend removing the commanding officers section and integrating that information into the article body.
      • Incorporated into Subsequent operations section and done.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend deleting the awards and honors section and noting the PUC and NUC in the appropriate areas of the article body.
    • To the best of your ability, remove the See Also section at the bottom of the page, anything worth noting there should be incorporated into the article text.
      • Done. Moved U.S. Navy wiki-portal to External links section.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trim the external links section, per WP:NOT we are not a link farm to other websites. Keep those links that have merit, remove the rest from the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Removed Google Map link of ship since it is undergoing recycling.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article needs a lot of work to reach A-class and Tom has covered the major issues that exist. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination and going to peer review instead. --Brad (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider my nomination withdrawn, and no need for peer review. Not when anyone can go in, change or delete anything they wanr, and not allow the person who has contributed more on a particular article than anyone else the opportunity to discuss or respond. Who care about something like a 50th anniversary around here?Marcd30319 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Added strikethrough per my talk —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Trekphiler is trying to help; not destroy. Was this your first A-class nomination? --Brad (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was. The editor is apparent upset over the SOP for a mainpage appearance, and did not appear to be happy with the idea that other people would edit the article, which has also prompted ownership issues. At this point we haven't heard back from his, but I am loath to close the ACR because the article stands a realistic shot of making it to A and FA-class if the editor is just willing to listen and trim. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shit, I don't like seeing this, I liked Marc. Has anyone sent him an email? If not, please don't; I'll send him one tomorrow. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well written, well illustrated, very comprehensive and well researched article. Due to the somewhat unusual circumstances, I made some typo-fix copyedits while reading through. I sincerely hope Marc can be encouraged to continue collaborating with us as he learns the arcana. Dhatfield (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I just reread your comments and while I agree that this article is somewhat 'unconventional' to the eye of an experienced editor - especially one with your level of nautical experience - I think that this is good enough for A and the remaining issues are appropriate for FA. Dhatfield (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Conversions are needed for displacement and horsepower in the infobox.
    • Done - Conversions are needed for displacement and horsepower in the infobox.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a fairwater housing?
    • fairwater housing — According to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, fairwater refer to the bridge and conning tower on a submarine. Also, according to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, housing iis part of a mast that is below deck, or housing part of a bowsprit that is inside the hull. Therefore, the fairwater housing is where the AN/SPS-26 radar is stowed in Triton's sail structure.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for a separate heightfinder radar is mentioned twice.
    • Triton is the only U.S. Navy radar picket submarine to not need a separate height-finding system because the AN/SPS-26 radar combines this function with a search radar capability in a single unit. This fact was noted in the Design history section and the Combat systems overview section, and this seemed appropriate.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC) In the case of Design history section , mention of the height-finder was appropriate since previous radar pciler submarines had them, and Triton did not because of the AN/SPS-26 radar combined both function into a single unit. Now, in the case of the Combat systems overview section, there was mention of elevation as it pertains to the operation of the AN/SPS-26 radar , and it would be appropriate to mention that Triton's AN/SPS-26 radar didn't need a separate height-finder and therefore, its mention was appropriate and consistent.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recycling should changed to scrapping.

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • @last point, it's called "recycling" by the navy, see Ship-Submarine Recycling Program —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • fairwater housing — According to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, fairwater refer to the bridge and conning tower on a submarine. Also, according to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, housing iis part of a mast that is below deck, or housing part of a bowsprit that is inside the hull. Therefore, the fairwater housing is where the AN/SPS-26 radar is stowed in Triton's sail structure.----
    • Triton is the only U.S. Navy radar picket submarine to not need a separate height-finding system because the AN/SPS-26 radar combines this function with a search radar capability in a single unit. This fact was noted in the Design history section and the Combat systems overview section, and this seemed appropriate.----


Changing to Support enough issues have been addressed for A-class level and Marc has shown a great effort to bring the article inline. I strongly recommend a peer review before this goes to FAC. There should be a sufficient amount of time for peer review and FAC before the main page appearance date. --Brad (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We'll start with the references, What makes the following reliable sources?

Sections
Misc
  • There are problems with uniformity in the article. Beach is referred to in several different manners: "Beach; "Ned Beach" "Captain Beach" etc. You need to find one and stay with it.
    • Ned Beach was not my copy, but another's. My rule of thumb is for each section, the first reference is Captain Edwrad L. Beach, and thereafter it is Captain Beach. If there are two reference in close proximity to each other, then the first reference if Captain Beach and the second is just Beach.
  • Other US Navy ships don't really need their full article title mentioned. Their names are sufficient enough as in this change. But again there is no uniformity in the article; I've seen all sort of versions used.
  • Overlinking is rampant. I saw for example, New London Connecticut linked twice in the same paragraph. --Brad (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overlinking - Abatement program initiated. If there are any additional excess, please identify.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved Brad101 (Talk)
Sources
  • http://donshelton.net/present.htm
  • http://www.vikingassociation.com/squadrons-and-wings.php#vs27
    • This web site is problematic until I can get verification for other sources so I am deleting this information regarding the 1966 ASW exercise from this article.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.dan-online.de/atomschiffe/zoom.aspx?bild=images/ANTI1034.jpg
    • Dead link regardin Antigua and Barbuda commemorative stamp. Will remove.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://web.meganet.net/kman/wjpg3.htm
    • Information based on contemporaneous newletter NSGA Bremerhaven Windjammer which includes information about Triton's port vist to Bremerhaven in late 1960. Please note that this port visit is well sourced.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What this cite needed as a better representation of the source. Essentially you have a published journal online. I improved the citation. --Brad (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://garrygray.tripod.com/ships_history.htm
    • This is the unofficial USS Triton web site. The webmaster is Mr. Garry Gray, and most of the text copy was reviwed by the late Captain Tom B. Thamm, who served as the Triton's auxilary system officer during the circumnavigation and designed of the Triton plaque. In a related project, Captain Edward L. Beach recommended Tom as a technical consultant and having worked with him, I can attest that he is a very exacting, precise, and accurate individual with zero tolerance for BS. He would feel quite at home in this WikiProject. Therefore, as it pertains the Triton and his historical and technical background, I am quite confident that this web site is highly reliable. In regards to this article, this website provided facsimiles of Triton's Preidential Unit Citation and Naval Unit Citation, as well as information regarding Triton's ship's crest, the Triton Plaque, and the Antigua and Barbuda commemorative stamp, ahd the ship's history.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This source will be a serious issue at FAC. The fact that you're aware of how the site is put together is irrelevant to how the site presents itself. There is nothing on the site that gives sources or how it may have been reviewed by technical experts. Right now the site appears as someones personal little webpage. --Brad (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sections
  • The references section is too deeply nested, difficult to follow and overlinked. See WP:OVERLINK. --Brad (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it is difficult to follow, but I can't think of a solution. A lot of these references are used only once and therefore can't/shouldn't be moved to the bibliography. I don't see the overlinking you see; there aren't a lot of wikilinks in there... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My rule for bibliography has been to only include sources there that have been cited repeatedly. Sources only used once belong in the single citation. The Eisenhower library sources need the citation template for uniformity along with the rest. One bibliography section should suffice without the need to point out where they came from or whether they were secondary etc. --Brad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done — Bibliography section consolidated and a number of reference works reduced to multiple cited sources in article footnotes.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did some further clean up in that section but don't understand why the Largess-Horowitz source is underneath the Gardiner source. --Brad (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Largess-Horowitz article was published in Warship 1993. If there is a better way to do this, please let me know.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Was the Largess-Horowitz article published in a chapter or appendix of the Gardiner book? --Brad (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Many links to youtube
    • Reduced to two Universal newsreels depicting the launch of Triton and Operation Sandblast.Marcd30319 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is what makes a youtube video a reliable source? --Brad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • When it hosts the contemporaneous Universal newsreel of the 1958 launching of the USS Triton, the subject of this Wikipedia article, and the conclusion of Operation Sandblast, the signature operational accomplishment of this warship that transpired in 1060. Seems QED to me.Marcd30319 (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. Youtube links have been moved to External links section.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photos
Citations
  • Instead of pp. 90 - 93 you need endash (on keyboard hold alt and enter 0150, release alt) this gives you pp. 90–93
    • Done.Marcd30319 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done. See this difference for endash. --Brad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That keyboard hold alt and enter 0150, release alt thing didn't exactly work as advertise, so I went to the Dash article, clicked into edit, and captured this: en dash (–). I then manually pasted the en dash (–) into every foot-note that had multiple page citations.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey, randomly found this page while patrolling recent changes. You can insert the endash easily, without the alt-thing. Under the save button, there should be a box, that says: Insert, followed by a bunch of random characters that are blue. The first one is an en-dash. Hope that helps! Brambleclawx 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations need to be closed with a period: pp. 90–93.

comments I just read the article and left some comments, which I managed to erase while saving. Not sure how I did that. Anyway, (1) the short of it is, the lead definitely needs another copy edit for comma faults, etc. (2) There are a lot of confusing sentences such as the one that starts the paragraph with Triton was the only non-Soviet submarine designed with a two-reactor propulsion plant The fact that this sentence alone has four cites made me raise my eyebrows. Does this mean that four different sources said the same thing, or that the information contained in the sentence was compiled from four different sources. (3) There are also a lot of convoluted verb constructions. Examples (not to be considered a limited list): Triton began her sea trial on 27 September 1959, which would transpire over the next five days Sentence beginning: Triton passed her preliminary acceptance trials (also a one sentence paragraph); Because new fuel elements had been procured and were available for installation, Triton's overhaul may have been cancelled in order to pay for repairs to the supercarrier USS Forrestal (CVA-59) which had suffered extensive damage from a massive shipboard fire while engaged in air combat operations in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam War in July 1967.[89] Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) Reworded.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) two-reactor propulsion plant: The four cites involved all of the imformation contained in that sentence regarding the SAR program, the prototypes, GE, AEC, and the Navy. Hope this clarifies.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3) Let's see...
    • Triton began her sea trial... Fixed and clarified.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Triton passed her preliminary acceptance trials Fixed and clarified.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • convoluted verb constructions De-convoluted.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

60th anniversary of circumnavigation If you want to try to get this featured, you might want to bring it up with the FA guru and/or delegates ahead of time. (btw 2010 minus 1950 = 60 years, doesn't it?) Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the heads-up. BTW - The circumnavigation took place in 1960. Nuclear subamrine did bot become exist until the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) became operational in 1955.Marcd30319 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for A-class. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Qualified Support, pending resolution of the citation needed comment toward the end (cultural references), and the resolution of the above issues. I made some minor prose fixes. Hope that is okay. One was actually rather major...incomplete sentence. The section on the park should probably be brought up to date. Ssomeone who knows ships and is a really good copy editor should go through this once more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way forward edit

I am not sure if this is procedurally correct, but in order to move forward the process of this A-List Review for the USS Triton article, I am going break this down into a more structured, finely focused approach.

Toolbox issues
  • External Links: I need assistance regarding the uncategorized redirects (footnotes 109, 110, 111).Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see what the problem is. Look fine to me. --Brad (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig Links: I corrected nuclear deterrence in Design history section & Hanford Site in Triton memorials section.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects: This link was moved to Operation Sandblast and has been removed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • alt text: This has been done, except dor the images associated with Ship’s crest, insignia, bell and radio callsign section. See below.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-breaking: I have not been provided any insight on what this issue is or how to rectify this.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some of the dashes that I could find, and ran a script which does some of it for us. Someone with the full script needs to go through and take care of the others. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources
Content
  • Conversions: I have done the conversion for displacement and horsepower in the infobox.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: I will review the copy and de-links as needed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had done some cleaning in the cultural references section but apparently you inserted a reworked version. But here is an example of overlinking:
    • It's just a sea of blue with links to articles that have little to assist the reader about Triton and is unnecessarily verbose in the links. A cleaner version would look like:
    • Note that it is unnecessary to use [[Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea|''Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea'']] to italicize when ''[[Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea]]'' does the same thing. It's sort of like bloatware in its current condition. The name of the film directors are irrelevant as is [[1961 in film|1961 film]] and [[1966 in film|1966 film]]. The overall article is a lot better now, however. --Brad (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography section: Done, except for question about the Largess-Horowitz article which I have addressed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uniformity regarding the referencing Captain Edward L. Beach: for each section, the first reference is Captain Edwrad L. Beach, and thereafter it is Captain Beach. If there are two reference in close proximity to each other, then the first reference if Captain Beach and the second is just Beach. And no Ned Beach.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complex sentence structure: I tend to write in compound sentence, but I will endeavor to simply where feasible.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other Issues

I am sure that there will be other issues that I have either overlooked or will arise going forward. Please feel free to start a new thread/section as needed. Thank you all for you help and support.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking the issues I pointed out above as I have time to get around to them. Largess-Horowitz was fixed with better utilization of the template. You're doing an excellent job cleaning the article up and I'll soon support for A-class. --Brad (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure that the cultural references section complies with WP:MILPOP. -MBK004 02:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a problem with the section. The books have somewhat trivial references to Triton, but there aren't a lot of references to the sub; I'm not sure if it violates the letter of the law, but it is definitely not going against its spirit. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galleries: Removed with deletion of Ship's crest, insignia, bell, and radio callsign section (see also above).
  • Support: I think that the article is of sufficient quality to be listed as A-class. Any concerns I had have been stated above, and the vast majority have been addressed; I'm certain the rest will be done in a reasonable timeframe. -- saberwyn 10:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End game:
Hello! Please list below any remaining issues regarding the article's A-List review that needs to be resolved, addressed or captured so we can put the proverbial fork in and declare these proceedings done. Allow me in advane to thank you all for your attention on this matter. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Now this is an A-class article! Outstanding effort, Marc, outstanding!!!! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/USS_Triton_(SSRN-586)&oldid=1217236022"