Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of the United States Navy

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Closed without consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States Navy edit

Nominator(s): Kirk (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class because it recently passed a GA review, and I've added some references so that it meets or is close to meeting the A-class criteria. Since I think coverage vs. unnecessary detail is going to be an issue; I've tried my best to use sources which broadly cover the subject rather than details, and Sweetman's timeline nicely highlights things he considered more significant than others which I'll probably use as a benchmark. Thanks!Kirk (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Ancient Apparition

I'll be reviewing this article, after reading through the article I'll post suggestions below. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:56pm • 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion A1

The article is very well referenced for a GA, however, Criterion A1 asserts that an article needs references for statements that can be challenged. I'll list examples below

In History of the United States Navy#Disarmament (1785-1794):

  • "After the American Revolutionary War the brand-new United States struggled to stay financially afloat. National income was desperately needed and a great deal of this income came from import tariffs."
  • "American merchant shipping had been protected by the British Navy, and as a consequence of the Treaty of Paris and the disarmament of the Continental Navy, the United States no longer had any protection for its ships from pirates. The fledgling nation did not have the funds to pay annual tribute to the Barbary states, so ships who flew the stars and stripes were targeted for capture after 1785. By 1789, the new Constitution of the United States authorized Congress to create a navy, but during George Washington's first term (1787–1793) little was done to rearm the navy."
  • this paragraph did need more citations. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In History of the United States Navy#Establishment (1794–1812):

  • "At the same time, tensions between the US and France developed into the Quasi-War, which was entirely fought at sea. The conflict originated in the Treaty of Alliance (1778), which had brought the French into the Revolutionary War. The United States preferred to take a position of neutrality, which put the nation at odds with both Britain and France. After the Jay Treaty was authorized with Britain in 1794, France began to side against the United States and by 1797 they had seized over 300 American vessels. The newly inaugurated President John Adams took steps to deal with the crisis, working with Congress to finish the three almost-completed frigates, approving funds to build the other three, and attempting to negotiate an agreement similar to the Jay Treaty with France."
  • I redid this slightly, double checked citation. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In History of the United States Navy#Continental Expansion (1815-1861):

  • "After the war, the Navy's accomplishments paid off in the form of better funding, and it embarked on the construction of many new ships. However, the expense of the larger ships was prohibitive, and many of them stayed in shipyards half-completed, in readiness for another war, until the Age of Sail had almost completely passed. The main force of the Navy continued to be large sailing frigates with a number of smaller sloops during the three decades of peace."
  • added a citation

There are more, since local libraries in my area don't have the book I'm not sure if the references at the end of paragraphs covers these statements.

  • The references at the end of paragraphs cover the statements - you don't need to have a citation after every sentence.
Criterion A2

The article is written from a neutral point of view, especially where the article deals with the American Revolutionary War and following events, that would be a big target of nationalistic bias. All sections are written with the appropriate amount of detail, significant events and important details aren't ommitted and sections don't go off-topic or into unnecessary detail.

Criterion A3

Good use of headings, concise lead section that summarises the information in following sections. Table of contents is not overwhelmingly long and the article is easy to navigate overall.

Criterion A4

I could find no problems with prose, the article is written very well, is clear to understand and the article meets the relevant style guidelines.

Criterion A5

Images used are appropriate and do not take up much space within the sections they are located which is good. The article itself is not overwhelmed with images to the point where it's no longer an article but moreso a gallery. No issues with Fair use or Copyright.

Summary

The article doesn't meet A1, which in my view is the most important of all the A-Class Criterion, at this time I cannot support the article's promotion to A-Class article until these issues are fixed as they exist throughout the article. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 2:36pm • 04:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, let me know if you have more questions. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work on the article Kirk, I support. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:54am • 22:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Buggie111

From first glance, everything looks great. However, as stated above, there are some A1 problems and maybe some A3 or A4, for me, at least. Buggie111 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The U.S. Navy recognizes 13 October 1775 as the date of the official establishment of the Navy, when the Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy". Do others recognize a different date? I sugesst changing to " 13 October 1775 was the date when Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy, the precursor of the U.S. Navy."
    • There are many 'establishment' dates one could pick; 13 October 1775 (above), 1789 (Constitution), the Naval Act of 1794, creation of the Navy department, the dates the first ship after 1794 was commissioned or the first captains were commissioned so the Navy officially picked that date as the 'establishment' date. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, if you want to read more, footnote #1 is the official USN History of the 'birthdate' [1] Kirk (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the War of 1812 section, "reduced to a hulk" and "Demolished" seem slightly POV.
  • I was more specific about their fate; this section missed some wikilinks for the ships which I added. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section on the Baltimore attack, I don't think the Star Spangle Banner should be mentioned. Buggie111 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its in bold in Sweetman's timeline, so I'm leaving it in. Kirk (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good to me.

Great job! I Support Buggie111 (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for now). It's great that so much effort has been put into developing this important article. However, I've got some concerns about whether it meets the A class criteria:

  • My main concern is that the article is heavily dependent on a single reference (The U.S. Navy: a history) - by my rough estimate, about three quarters of all the article's references are to this book. Given that there's a vast and very diverse literature on the US Navy, I don't think this is at all justifiable.
    • I can tweak the citations but it would be easier if you tell me the 'Miller ratio' number to earn your support. The 'dependence on single source' rule I don't think applies here; all the high level histories I read kind of tell the same story and while the Navy provides a bilbliography of recommended sources [2] there aren't all that many '1775 - today' monographs, and Miller is the most recent one I could easily get at the library, and its a tertiary source with hundreds of citations of its own. Kirk (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No more than 25% would be good, and lower levels than this would be better still. It might be a good book, but the heavy dependence on it is unacceptable given the huge number of books, journal articles and reliable websites on this topic (many of which are more recent than 1997). I don't want to come across as being harsh here, but I do think that the level of sourcing isn't appropriate for an A class article on a topic such as this and many of the issues I've highlighted below might be the result of over-dependence on this source. As some suggestions, Lisle A. Rose's Power At Sea trilogy is a well reviewed (though not by people on Amazon.com!), critical and recent overview of the USN and other major navies from 1890 onwards, Clay Blair's Silent Victory is probably still the definitive work on the US Navy's submarine force in World War II, Samuel E. Morrison's writings on the USN in the lead up and during World War II remains well regarded (though outdated in some points), Ian W. Toll's book Six Frigates was very well reviewed and seems to have become a standard work on the early years of the USN and the US Naval Institute has produced excellent works on most aspects of the navy (the chapter on the USN in the recent book On Seas Contested provides a good overview of its preparations for World War II, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its less than 50% now, I'm still working on this. Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the distribution is close to 25% now.Kirk (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The range of sources is still pretty narrow considering the topic, but OK for A class in my view. FA reviewers will be expecting to see specialist works on elements of the Navy's history. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the prose is repetitive (as some examples: "The U.S. Navy recognizes 13 October 1775 as the date of the official establishment of the Navy, when the Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy.", "by 1785 the Continental Navy was disbanded and the remaining ships were sold. The frigate Alliance, which had fired the last shots of the American Revolutionary War, was also the last ship sold", "National income was desperately needed and a great deal of this income") - this occurs all the way through the article.
    • I fixed some of these. Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's still prose like "During the 1990s, the United States naval strategy was based on the overall military strategy of the United States which emphasized the ability of the United States to engage in two simultaneous limited wars along separate fronts" in the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some over-linking; for instance, USS Constitution is linked three times in the 'Establishment' and 'War of 1812 (1812–1815)' sections and Confederate States of America is linked twice in the 'American Civil War (1861–1865)' section. Some of the links highlighted as main articles are also directly linked in the body of the prose, and so should probably be removed from the main article sections
    • I fixed many of these; I'll keep looking for more. Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is almost entirely focused on ships, battles, officers and politicians. There's almost nothing about important topics such as how the navy was manned (did the 'old navy' use conscription or press gangs like the Royal Navy did at the time?), the social composition of its sailors (for instance, who joined the navy, the removal or racial barriers, low morale at various points in time, etc) and its support infrastructure and bases.
    • I'll see if I can expand how the navy got sailors; I'm not sure why you think the social background is an important missing detail. I took a cue from Sweetman that individual bases weren't that important unless they were being attacked by someone.
      • Given that the US Navy wouldn't be able to put to sea without sailors or support bases, they're of central importance. The USN's excellent dockyards and training programs are a key factor in its dominance since World War II, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a section for enlisted men in the old navy;I'm going to add a sentence for the removal of racial barriers.Kirk (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That helps but could be carried further, and there still isn't anything on the Navy's bases Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I went back and I added a little more on this, also more sources. Kirk (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Did you end up adding the coverage of the removal of racial barriers? - I can't see it. There's still very little on the navy's sailors and bases. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the USMC was an integral part of the Navy for much of its history and still remains an administrative component of the Navy, I was surprised at how little coverage it received (when was it formed, for instance?)
    • I considered this but the Corps has its own history article for details like that; I can cite the creation date.
  • As some specific comments about elements of the article:
    • "World War II began for the US with the Attack on Pearl Harbor" - what about the USN's involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic which began much earlier in 1941?
      • I can reword that sentence.
    • It's a bit confusing to label the USN the "first navy in the Western Hemisphere" - the European navies had been operating in the Americas for hundreds of years by this point, and had significant numbers of warships and considerable support infrastructure.
    • "The U.S. Navy recognizes 13 October 1775 as the date of the official establishment of the Navy" - do you need the proviso that this is the date the navy recogises? - are there other possible dates?
      • Yes, at least 5 other dates so they officially picked one.
        • I'd suggest including a note to this effect. Is the date the USN selected supported by historians, or do they prefer other dates? Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand the note in this case; one of the citation is a weblink from the navy which explains the above.
    • "On 13 October, the Congress started commissioning its own ships" - I think that you mean 'ordering' or 'authorizing' rather than 'commissioning'
      • Commissioning has a specific meaning in this case.
        • Could you please explain it? In naval terms 'Ship commissioning' is placing a ship in active service, which doesn't seem to be what took place here. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done - I expanded this slightly to split out the resolution, purchase and commission. Kirk (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would probably be worth mentioning the important role the French Navy played in support of the United States during the revolutionary war
      • Huh? They did their own thing; they didn't form combined fleets or something significant.
        • The section on the ARW stresses the inadequateness of the US naval forces (which isn't surprising in the circumstances), yet through its alliance with France the US was able to access very powerful naval forces which played a critical role in their eventual victory. I think that's worth a sentence or two. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the paragraph which begins with "The American naval victories..." isn't written in the past tense (eg, "the USS President is captured" and "the Constitution captures HMS Levant and Cyane")
    • The section on the Civil War doesn't really capture the scale of the navy's expansion and the implications of this - during the war the USN became one of the largest navies in the world, as well as one of the most modern and experienced
      • I haven't read that particular tidbit, are you sure about that? Do you have a source I can use?
        • Done - added text, citation. Kirk (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That looks good, but you haven't included any bibliographic details for the reference (Naval Encyclopedia 2010) Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bern Anderson's By Sea and by River: The Navy History of the Civil War is quite good on the expansion of the Union Navy, though I'm sure there are more recent works. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The standard of living fell even as large-scale printing of paper money caused inflation and distrust of the currency." - the 'even as' is a bit confusing here - why would standard of living increase at the same time as the currency collapsed?
    • There doesn't seem to be a reason for ship identification numbers (eg, USS Puritan (BM-1)) or other disambiguations to be included in the article's prose, and this isn't done consistently
      • Done - I'm trying to use the ship/class templates which hopefully should fix this. Kirk (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The tensions of the late 1890s finally broke" - these tensions haven't been previously mentioned in the article
    • The article refers to the United States as both 'U.S.' and 'US'
      • Done
    • "President Wilson ordered the Navy to the port of Veracruz" - this implies that he ordered all of the navy to this port
      • Done
    • The coverage of the post-WW1 naval treaties should note that these formally established the USN as the equal to the Royal Navy, which had historically had the world's largest fleet
      • Done
    • "This would, in effect, be the opening shot in the Pacific War, but at the time it was viewed as ongoing strife in China going back to 1927" - given that this formed part of the Japanese invasion of China (an act which was hugely unpopular in the US), it seems unlikely that the attack on USS Panay was regarded as being just part of 'strife'.
    • The paragraph which begins "On 7 December 1941" is a bit confused - due to the international date line passing through the Pacific the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December local time actually occurred at almost exactly the same time as Japanese forces were attacking in South East Asia on 8 December local time. The para is also a bit wordy and repetitive - a lot of its links could be piped
      • This still hasn't been addressed. The destruction of the Asiatic Fleet in the months after Pearl Harbor would probably also be worth mentioning; this was obviously much more relevant to the USN than the Japanese invasion of Malaya. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done - in the long list I forgot this one - how's it look now? Kirk (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After this success, the Allies went on to the Mariana and Palau Islands" - only US forces were involved in this operation
    • "Following their defeat at the Battle of Saipan,the Imperial Japanese Navy's Combined Fleet, with 5 aircraft carriers sortied to attack the Navy's Fifth Fleet during the Battle of the Philippine Sea" - the Combined Fleet wasn't involved in the the Battle of Saipan, which was still underway during the Battle of the Philippine Sea
      • Yes it was.
        • Given that the main body of the Combined Fleet was spread between anchorages across Asia during the early stages of the battle, this seems a bit confusing. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first kamikaze missions are flown during the battle, sinking USS St. Lo (CVE-63) and damaging several other US ships; these attacks were the most effective anti-ship weapon of the war" - 'are' should be 'were' and the Australian heavy cruiser HMAS Australia was also badly damaged. Were the kamikazes really the most effective anti-ship weapons? I would have thought that either dive bombers or submarines were more effective.
      • Regarding most effective anti-ship weapon; I've read this more than one, and its cited.
    • On the topic of submarines, the World War II section doesn't mention them at all, despite the US Navy's subs sinking most of the Japanese merchant fleet and much of the IJN.
    • "but Allied forces reached the summit of Mount Suribachi" - only US forces took part in this battle
    • "Total U.S. casualties were over 12,500 dead and 38,000 wounded, while the Japanese lost over 110,000 men, making Okinawa the bloodiest battle in history" - the claim that this was "the bloodiest battle in history" isn't correct
      • Again, I've read this more than one, and its cited.
        • It's not accurate. As a single example, far more people were killed in the Battle of Verdun and the List of battles by casualties article gives lots of examples of battles which had higher numbers of casualties. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That article misses a lot of bloody battles and Okinawa has slightly more military + civilian casualties than Verdun especially if you take the high end of the civilian casualty estimate; I qualified this as 'one of the bloodiest'.Kirk (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fleets were stationed strategically around the world, and their maneuverings" - the US Navy's post-war fleets were responsible for set geographic areas, so they didn't maneuver. Task Groups within those fleets did all the moving ;)
    • "Meanwhile the Soviet fleet had been growing, and outnumbered the US fleet in every type except carriers" - it's worth mentioning here that the quality of both the ships and their crews was far inferior to those of the US Navy (and the USN also operated alongside other major naval powers)
      • I found a citation that said the opposite - the soviet Navy was pretty good by 1980. Kirk (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Several of the old battleships" - there's no need to be imprecise here as only four battleships were in reserve, and all were returned to service
    • Was Operation Praying Mantis really the " largest surface-air naval battle since World War II"? I would have thought that this was the Falklands War.
      • Sweetman says something similar, 'Largest purly naval action fought by the Navy since World War II', maybe I should use that wording? Kirk (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The falklands war was not a battle, it was a war lol. There were only minor clashes between the argentine and royal navies. Sweetman specifically states that it was the largest action fought by the US Navy since world war two rather than the largest naval action fought by anyone.XavierGreen (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no mention at all of the 1991 Gulf War, which involved much of the USN, or its roles in the various wars in the former Yugoslavia
      • DoneAdded a little on this. Kirk (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All the world's oceans are dominated by the United States Navy" - this seems an overstatement. The USN doesn't operate in the Southern Ocean, and probably can't operate very close to China these days
    • "United States naval power, as evinced by its 11 aircraft supercarriers and their supporting battle groups, is a guarantor of freedom of the seas" - for the United States and its allies. It's also an important and very effective instrument of blockade and other forms of sea denial.
      • This still hasn't been addressed. Given that the USN spent all of the 1990s with ships blockading Iraq and has taken part in many similar operations since then, it's a bit misleading to claim it's a "guarantor of freedom of the seas". Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done - sorry another one I missed. Kirk (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The United States Navy's "core values", of Honor, Courage and Commitment, were formally adopted by Admiral Frank B. Kelso II in 1992." - I'd suggest cutting this, as it's basically PR gumph - presumably the US navy was doing these things beforehand!
    • "As of 2005" - this should be updated to 2011
    • Does the 'A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower' strategy really deserve most of a paragraph when most of the other high-level strategies which have been adopted by the USN aren't even mentioned? Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A lot of this article I just cited the prose; that last section specifically needs some work. I put some quibbles above and the rest of the details you mentioned I'll review the article and report back. Kirk (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: mainly just some consistency/style comments from me:
    • at five paragraphs, the lead is possibly too long. Per WP:LEAD, I think that it should only be four paragraphs. Is there a way that something could be consolidated;
      • Done
    • in the lead "in the Mediterranean sea" - should this be "in the Mediterranean Sea" as it is a proper noun?
      • Done
    • in the lead "modern armoured cruisers" - should this be "armored" for US spelling?
      • Done
    • in the lead "Nimitz-class supercarriers" and "Ohio class submarines". For consistency, should it be "Ohio-class"? Also, should the names be in italics?
      • Done - I'm trying to use templates for the ships/classes hopefully this helps.
    • in the Continental Navy section: "On 26 August 1775, Rhode Island General Assembly passed a resolution that there be a single Continental fleet". I think this should be tweaked to be something like this: "On 26 August 1775, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a resolution that there should only be a single Continental fleet";
      • Tweaked
    • in the American Civil War section, please check the spelling of "torpedos". Should this be "torpedoes"?
      • Done
    • in the Decline of the Navy section, "four Amphitrite class monitors". Should this be "four Amphitrite-class monitors " (per above)? There are possibly other instances of this throughout the article that might need attention depending upon what style you choose;
      • Done
    • in the Decline of the Navy section, "Nine sailors and six marines received Medals of Honor in this engagement; the first for actions in a foreign conflict". Should this be: "received Medals of Honor for this engagement..."? The awards probably were made after the fighting ceased;
      • Done
    • in the Post-Cold War section watch the spacing of the emdashes, i.e. they shouldn't be spaced;
    • in the Notes some of the page ranges have endashes but others have emdashes. My understanding is that they should all be endashes;
      • I checked this but I didn't see any issues...
    • in the Notes section there is some inconsistency in presentation. For instance compare: "Howarth 1991, pp. 206–207" with "Sondhaus 2001, pp. 126–8" (the page range style is inconsistent);
      • Done (I think it was just that source)
    • in the Notes section, Note # 124: can publisher and accessdate information be added to this for consistency with other web citations;
      • Done
    • in the References section, are there location details for the Hornfischer, Howarth, and Swann works?
      • Done. Who put Hornfischer in there?
    • in the References check the capitalisation of the Sweetman work. Per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles it should probably be: "American Naval History: An Illustrated Chronology of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, 1775-Present". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I chaged this but for clarity its not a composition title its a subtitle and according to the Chicago Manual of Style you can do it either way.
  • Let me know if you have more questions. Kirk (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. Please check the accessdate format on Citation # 119, though. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friendly reminder: this ACR is due to be listed for closing in two days (28 day rule). Could reviewers please take a look at the changes that have been made to the article and state if their concerns have been addressed or not? This will help the closing co-ord make their decision to promote or otherwise. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the article is coming along well, but some of my concerns are still to be addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be helpful if you would summarize what's left to fix for your support. Thanks. Kirk (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I've addressed everything on the Nick-D list. Kirk (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. It's going to take more time than I've got to work with the writers to get it up to a point where I'd be comfortable supporting for A-class. A lot of problems would require discussion rather than a quick edit, which is what tips it over the edge for me. Comments on the lead:

  • "history of the United States Navy": descriptive title or not? See WP:LEAD.
  • "divides into two major periods:" Everything can be subdivided, but that's generally not what the lead sentence is about.
  • "the "Old Navy", a small ...": I can't tell whether the quotes mean that that's the official or best name for it (but we always try to choose the best name), or whether they mean that's a nickname or uncommon name (and if it's not the best name, why is it in the lead sentence?)
  • "eventually made the US Navy the most powerful in the world.": Depending on what date you set for when this happened, "them's fightin' words", so the date is not something you want to leave out.
    • I removed the wikilink; its an explanation of the sectioning and a nickname. More accurately, the modern navy nicknamed the sailing/monitor navy the "Old Navy"; I don't think "New Navy" is very common. Also, its an old part of the article and I never changed it. I'll look into this.
  • "The US Navy recognizes 13 October 1775 as the date of the official establishment of the Navy, when the Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy. Soon after the Revolutionary War the ships of the Navy were sold off and the Navy was disbanded.": You don't need "navy" 5 times in 2 sentences (with more in the following sentences). "its official establishment", for a start.
    • Ok. Note the Continental Navy is not the same thing as the US Navy.
  • "the Civil war": "the Civil War", or (better here) "the war"
  • "the Navy shrank to only 6,000 men": the navy is more than the men, so say for instance "only included"
  • "ships designs": ship designs
  • "had moved from twelfth place to fifth place in terms of numbers of ships.": "had the fifth largest fleet", and when did it have the twelfth largest fleet?
    • Changed those.
  • "Spanish-American War": We'll have to keep an eye on the Arbcom WP:DASH case.
    • I switched to ndashes; is that what you meant?
      • I meant we don't yet know the result of the RFC and the Arbcom case; it may be that we need to switch it back to a hyphen after those are done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nuclear power and ballistic missile technology led to new weapons and ship propulsion including the Nimitz-class carriers and Ohio-class submarines.": "including" dangles.
    • Ok.
  • "600 ship Navy": hyphen
  • "the world's undisputed naval superpower with the ability to engage": comma after "superpower"
  • - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments; the review is overdue for closing so I assume the rest will be for next time. Kirk (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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/History_of_the_United_States_Navy&oldid=1138360525"