Talk:John Hoskins (officer)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Hoskins (officer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041017232054/http://history.navy.mil/wars/assault.html to http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/assault.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Hoskins (officer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 04:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this over the next couple days :) Hog Farm _Talk 04:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, dude. You would be doing me a huge favor if you walked me through your reviewing process as you go. I have recently decided I wanted to improve some of my better pagespace, and theleekycauldron is helping me prioritize. I abandoned an A-class review of this when it was new; that review may prove useful. I think there's FA potential here if I can find a few more sources. Ultimately through participating in my own reviews I can feel like doing more reviews myself. It's a confidence problem. I like demonstrations to help me see the overall process; I've done the reading, but don't think like a reviewer. BusterD (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm an auditor in RL, so my brain has become trained to think like a reviewer. My process is generally to start by reading through the lead, making sure that everything make sense, and checking that all major details in the lead are in the body of the article. I'll then check the infobox to the rest of the body to make sure that pretty much everything is cited somewhere and to make sure there aren't any contradictions between the two. I'll then read through the body to make sure that the writing is comprehensible and no grammar/spelling errors, that the layout makes sense, and that there aren't any gaps suggesting comprehensiveness issues. Once I get through, I'll check the sources to make sure they're all reliable enough for what they're citing. If it's a nominator who I'm not familiar with, if any of the sources are easily accessible, I'll check a few to the article to make sure that the article doesn't commit copyright violations and that the source does support what it's citing. You can ask nominators to provide quotes from print or paywalled sources if desired. (I generally don't do this for nominators where I know they keep track of sources for GA, although I'll almost always do that for FAC). After reading through the whole article and the sourcing, it's then time to assess to make sure that the article is neutral and gives due weight. For GA, you'll also want to go through the images to make sure there are no blatant licensing errors (this isn't my strong suit). I used to use User:Hog Farm/GA rubric (with the numbers at the comments aligning with the numbers of the sections), but I haven't used that in quite some time and tend to give my comments more free-form now. Hog Farm _Talk 13:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I know this is asking a lot, but walk me through your rationale as you go. I don't intend to hamstring you, but I want to know the whys (like a three year-old). BusterD (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that as I go through it! Hog Farm _Talk 21:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Process

Lead

• So the first step is to read through the lead for spelling/grammar/writing problems. Nothing here stands out to me as problematic.
• Next step is checking to make sure the stuff in the lead is in the article body - for instance, I checked the date of birth/date of death, the ship and year for the explosion that took his foot, the jet aircraft bit, important role at Inchon, the film

Infobox

• Cross-checking any details/dates in the infobox to make sure they're either minor and cited in the infobox or included in the body

Body

• Reading for spelling/grammar/writing problems
• Looking for gaps that suggest more detail is warranted
• For GA, an article shouldn't have any inline tags such as [citation needed] or [when]
• Checking to see if something is given excess coverage - too much detail or too little weight

Sources

• Are all source reliable?
• Are there obvious source formatting errors (missing page numbers, missing author, missing publisher, error messages appearing, etc)?
• (optional for GA, but not a bad thing to do if sources are easily accessible) - Does the source fully support the information it is being cited for? Is there any copyright violations or close paraphrasing from that source?

Images (not as great with image licensing)

• Are there any obviously wrong licenses (clearly not own work when claimed as such, etc)
• If a source link is provided, does it work?
• Do any fair use rationales appear to be reasonable?
• Are the images reasonably relevant?
• Are there so many images that the page's layout is made a mess?

Comments

Lead - I'm not seeing where the information about jet aircraft is in the body

 Done I've reduced this information in the lede; it appears the best sourcing I can find at this time is a historical military review of the movie which says the film takes "few liberties."

Infobox - the date of death listed in the infobox is different than that in the lead/body (March 30 vs March 31)

 Done Fixed. Source says 3/30/64.

Infobox - infobox has Commander, Naval Air Forces and body has Commander Fleet Air

 Done I see no source which lists his command as NAF, several which describe him as Fleet Air.

Infobox - Sue's year of birth and year of death aren't cited (and probably aren't necessary anyway)

 Done Removed.

Body - "after which he requested flight training and became a Naval Aviator.[when?][how?]" - these tags are extant from 2015. I personally don't agree with them, as the when seems to be from the text to be about 4 years after 1921, and the how is clearly flight training. I'd be okay if they were just removed with an edit summary pointing towards the GA review, although if you feel that it would be helpful to add a touch more detail here, that'd be just fine as well

 Done Sourced it and may build built this section a bit.

Body - If possible, I think there should be a bit more detail of 1927 to 1937. Surely he got promoted during the decade, and if possible, the transfer from Memphis to Lexington should have a date

 Done New Inter-war section deals with this.

Body - did he see action with Ranger?

 Doing... Not much action until Operation torch, in which Ranger launched 500 missions in the first three days. Looking for more sourcing on this.

 Done I may need some help formatting page numbers on multipage sources used.

Body - since you mention that a new Princeton was being build, I'd recommend mentioning that the other Princeton sunk

 Done Seems the least one can do...

Body - mention the end of WWII

 Done Also in the category of Captain Obvious. Thanks for pointing it out.

Body - maybe briefly indicate what the disaster on Bennington was? Our article on the ship suggests an explosion

 Doing... Partly done. Most of my work so far has been over at Bennington. It turns out this particular incident and the court of inquiry was influential in getting the Navy to move directly into steam catapults from the riskier H 8 hyrdo-pneumatic cats. Hoskins's extensive direct experience with catapults was essential for the Navy's better understanding the risks involved.

Sources - not sure that hyperwar is RS

 Done Removed. You are right. Hyperwar is a mirror of the US Navy's Naval Historical Center at the Washington Navy Yard. I am looking at the actual NHC site and not seeing the text. I will find this and recite. A search in that site has found me a bunch of really sexy photos of aircraft carriers, including the subject on board. Thanks for pointing out my error. That was helpful.

Sources - "Promoted to captain in 1944, " - source does not say when Hoskins was promoted

 Doing... I find at least two sources stating his captain rank at the time he took over Princeton, but don't see a promotion list or marker. I don't see his promotion to commander either. Both of these occured between 1942-44. I see his RADM is dated from June 1944, but not yet finding the exact date of promotion. Not sure I can find this, though I've looked.

Sources - "Hoskins returned again to Quonset in April 1954, this time as Commander Fleet Air" - source doesn't necessarily say this is when he returned to Quonset, just that he was in Quonset at that time

 Doing... Finding this. Will insert.

 Done Changed phrasing to "by April 1954" which the source confirms. Not finding a better source yet.

Stopping after the lead/infobox. Is this helpful for the rationale, or is there a better approach I could take with this? Hog Farm _Talk 01:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm following just fine. Thanks. I'll be afk for the next few hours. Tomorrow and Thursday I'm swamped but will have more time to respond/repair Friday and Saturday eves. I will continue to follow and make changes as time allows. Appreciate the baby steps. BusterD (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Mostly through it now; will check images and finish the source stuff later. Hog Farm _Talk 14:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help rescuing sources needing archiving. We'll have to discuss the tool you used.

If you go to the page history, there should be a "fix dead links" box. I generally go for the option of archiving live links, too, since if the link is dead in the sense that it redirects to a homepage, only archiving dead links won't catch it but archiving live links would. Hog Farm _Talk 19:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This evening I've discovered a reference I've long been searching for. This is the official government biography presented in the congressional record for Hoskins during his confirmation hearings to head the Office of Declassification. Since this is in the public record and produced by the war department, it's a connected source but we should have every reason to expect it accurate. It wouldn't count towards notability, but it certainly can support an already notable subject. Looks like it answers many of the questions raised above. Back in a few hours and should be able to give my reviewer opportunity for another pass after tomorrow evening. BusterD (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Status query

Hog Farm, BusterD, where does this nomination stand? It looks like the last time this page and the article were edited was on May 10, four weeks ago. It would be great if this could make progress. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe Buster is on break and they will start work after they return. Hog Farm _Talk 16:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I am also slothful. Will work on this today. Thanks for the reminder. BusterD (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: - No rush; just want to make sure it didn't slip your mind. I'm a mess with forgetting things. Hog Farm _Talk 15:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm:: Lots of stuff done now, let's give this another look please. I feel much better about it but not everything is done. In particular there's a multipage source and I'd like a strategy for page numbers, which I don't do well. I really prefer having the reflist ALSO be the only list of used refs, so I don't like separating them as I've seen so often done on great pagespace. BusterD (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to use Template:Rp for the page numbers then (it'll put the page numbers inline after the ref). I'll try to get back and read through this again soon. Hog Farm _Talk 23:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thx. BusterD (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I forgot about this - will begin now. Hog Farm _Talk 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Round 2

Body - "and was on the staff of Lucky Bag during his senior year". Recommend indicating what Lucky Bag was in the text

Body - "and his plane the Spirit of St. Louis" I think the names of individual planes are italicized

Body - " In November, Ranger escorted 20,000 Canadian troops convoy leaving Halifax, Nova Scotia" - I'm not sure that this sentence works grammatically

Body - " Between May 1941 and February 1942, Ranger made four deliveries of Curtis P-40 Warhawk aircraft transported from NAS Quonset Point to Accra." - citation needed

Sources - not finding the details about the convoy in the cited source?

Body - "The carrier dodged a torpedo attack from Vichy submarine Le Tonnant, but Ranger's air groups shot down 16 enemy aircraft and sank three submarines during successful operations with no losses in men or aircraft." citation needed

Ready for the Korean War stuff, will resume soon. Hog Farm _Talk 00:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources - "and served until retired in 1957" - supporting source is from 1954, so you'll need to add another ref in here

This is looking much better now. Hog Farm _Talk 18:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: - I haven't been able to follow the article closely. Have you gotten a chance to get to these, or do you need a bit more time? Hog Farm _Talk 15:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience. I did find some newspapers.com sources detailing the movie and in so doing verifying much of his career. Give me 48 hours. BusterD (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination. For reasons I can't explain, I just keep putting this off. @Hog Farm: I'm very sorry to the reviewer who has shown enormous patience. I'll bring it back when it's ready. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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.