Wikipedia:Peer review/Carrier Strike Group Seven/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carrier Strike Group Seven[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs some wider views before being listed for A-class review. I'm particularly interested in trying to make such an article comprehensible to the majority who have little exposure to U.S. Navy terms and acronyms.

Thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
I've only taken a quick look and focused mainly on referencing (I made a couple of prose tweaks):
  • there are a few places that I think citations are needed if you want to take this to GA and beyond. For example:
    • the last part of the second paragraph of the Historical background section;
    • the last part of the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the Historical backrground section;
    • the last parts of the first, second, third and fourth paragraphs of the 2004-06 operations section;
    • the last parts of the first, second, fifth and sixth paragraphs of the 2007-09 operations section;
    • the last sentence of the first paragraph of the 2010 operations section;
    • the last sentence of the Exercise RIMPAC 2010 section;
    • the last part of the COMPTUEX section;
  • in the Notes section there is some inconsistency in the date presentation for the retrieved dates, for instance "Retrieved 2011-09-09" v. "Retrieved 20 December 2011".
  • Anyway, good work so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "U.S. Navy carrier strike groups are employed in a variety of roles, all of which involve gaining and maintaining sea control." - as well as bombing targets hundreds of kilometers from the sea... (including in land-locked countries on occasion)
  • The first para should give the dates this unit was active between
  • Some of the prose reads like material written by the US military - a run through to remove jargon and wordy military PR-type grammar, over capitalisation, etc, would be helpful. Case in point: "Tactical action officers from the different countries coordinated the overall operational picture and provided direction to the enlisted personnel".
    • Comment: Yes, the original writer did a grand job repackaging over a hundred military press releases and DANFS etc to compile the text. It's great that it is all PD, but it remains U.S.-military written text and may need additional changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful explain what exactly a carrier strike group is. If instance, do they comprise a consistent group of ships?
  • "the group departed Naval Base San Diego, California aboard Ronald Reagan" - all the ships obviously weren't onboard the carrier ;)
  • Some terms (for instance, RIMPAC) are linked several times
  • Some material isn't referenced Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author for the article in question, as I have in the other carrier strike group article, except Carrier Group Eight really needs work but it was not done by me. I was not consulted, nor did I agree to this peer review. I have no interest in A-class for this article. If anyone has any suggestion, please use the talk page, leave any comments under Article revisions and suggestions, and we can discuss. My preference is to make any changes myself since I did do the origiinal article. Thank you and please respect my contributions. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen, I have heard your call, and in the interest of comity, I have undertaken an extensive re-write of the article in question. I have eliminated such feature involving change of command, training and maintenance details, and minimized the use of jargon. Regarding the of U.S. Navy sources, given the contemporaneous nature of current carrier strike group operations, there is few little alternatives, and I have employed these news releases strictly for specific historical facts and operational details. I will undertake to rewrite the other carrier strike group article to conform to the Carrier Strike Group Seven. This new paradigm will be easier to maintain, less labor intensive, and very likely can be contained in a single article. Thank you for your input and my apologies for any misunderstandings. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Sorry for taking my sweet time to finally reading through this very interesting article. There's not much for me to add.

  • Historical background. Does the source give any upper and lower limits as to how many aircraft carriers served in Night Carrier Division 7 at any one time?
    • According to Clark G. Reynolds' Fast Carriers and Edward P Stafford's Big E, the Enterprise and Saratoga operated very briefly off Okinawa in February 1945 until Saratoga was detached to cover the escort carrier and amphibious force, and poor old Sara was subsequently damaged by kamikaze attacks. Initially, Night Carrier Division Seven operated as a separate carrier task group within Task Force 38 and operated only at night. When the Bon Homme Richard arrived, it was integrated into an existing task group, and the commander of Night Carrier Division Seven directed the night operations within that task group. So, overall, Night Carrier Division Seven was a high-specialized carrier formation. I hope this clarifies things.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Command structure. What is the Fifth Fleet's area? Third Fleet is well covered by comparison.
  • Deactivation. Which carrier strike group did the Ronald Reagan go to?

Other than wanting to see every paragraph at the very least ended with a reference, I think that's about it from me. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Carrier_Strike_Group_Seven/archive1&oldid=492178138"