The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:35, 26 November 2010 [1].

---

Thomas C. Kinkaid[edit]

Thomas C. Kinkaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Thomas C. Kinkaid/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... American World War II admiral who served under General Douglas MacArthur in the Southwest Pacific. A-class article. Has been on the front page as a DYK Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/History%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Marine%20Corps%20in%20WWII%20Vol%20V%20-%20Victory%20and%20Occupation%20%20PCN%2019000262800_2.PDF won't load. Ucucha 12:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just tried it and it downloaded for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Working for me now. Ucucha 01:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Whew... for a second I thought someone had bothered to work on the Painter o' Light :P Anyhow, image comments:
  • Images should really not just deeplink to the actual image but place it in context on an image description page of some sort. For example, File:Thomas C. Kinkaid.jpg should link to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/k02000/k02749c.htm, so people can verify the content in the description (unless you've dealt with the NHC numbers before, for example, you wouldn't know that the 80-G's are all former Navy-owned photos now at the Archives.) Same thing with File:Kinkaid July 1942.jpg, File:Kinkaid May 1943.jpg; if you don't want to actually hunt for the proper entry pages on the Heritage & Historical Command site, you can just link to the Kinkaid page you found the images at since it's got most of the same info.
    • Done. I did not upload most of them. I just selected from pictures that had already been uploaded by various editors. But yes, I know about the 80-G, NH and the SC numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, most images are nicely formatted with a template. It would be nice if they all were.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • In terms of compliance with image use policy, WP:ICT and WP:FA?, all are marked public domain and should be so as works of US military authorship. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:USS Lexington under attack at Coral Sea.jpg Isn't US goverment. It's PD in japan but it's US status would appear to be more complicated. If it was first published in Rear Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison's "History of U.S. Naval Operations in World War II" it should still be under copyright. If it was published in japan first then yes it should be PD.©Geni 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As established in my previous correspondence with the NH&HC, they believe all of the images they post to be in the public domain, so I think this is alright. It may have been war booty seized after the war's conclusion? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Oh, thank you for not forcing me to review the painter.
  • You're welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason you put the state for New York (in the Hoyt ref) but not the state for Philadelphia (Blair)? Likewise you omit the state for Lexington (Leary), and Boston (Morrison all of them). You can get away with not using a state/country on something like New York/London, but if you use it for Greenwood CT, you need it for Lexington, KY. And if you use it for New York, NY, you need to use it for ALL of them.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2c (minor quibbles) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your use of Cherpak, E. M., ed. (2004), being as they are the edited memoirs of H. Kent Hewitt, surely your detailed citations, such as Cherpak 2004, p. 101 are inaccurate, as this would be content authored by Hewitt, correct citations to indicate the primarily responsible author or editor of the actually cited content
  • Cherpak's name is on the cover, and the libraries file the book under that name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Frank, Benis M.; Shaw (1968). Shaw lacks a first name. You've cited the Volume Title as the Work Title.
  • Fixed Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Morison, Samuel Eliot (1950). Series title missing.
  • Fixed Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Morison, Samuel Eliot. Are these works in series, or volumes of a work?
  • Volumes of a work. There is a wikipedia article on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- passed at GA a while back and supported recently at MilHist A-Class review -- believe structure, prose, detail, referencing and illustration all make this worthy of the bronze star as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support --

Our library happened to have Wheeler's biography of Kinkaid, and I double checked the facts in the Early life and Early career section since it only has a single source for most of the facts.

• You have a range of 1-8 for most of the content in Early life & I would recommend adding another footnote for pg 1-3 for the text before 'Georgetown, Washington D.C' and start a new paragraph, and 4-8 for the rest of the section.
  • done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Pages 1-8 doesn't support Kinkaid having to do anything specific based on where his parents lived - remove "Because he lived in Washington, D.C., he had to seek" or put another reference there explaining why he couldn't go to the Secretary of the Navy or the Vice-President. Or you may need to explain the nomination process circa 1904.
  • done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• He was required to complete an examination by the president for the nomination, then an examination for the appointment then he was admitted after passing both exams. Also, just because 283 of the 350 who took the examination were admitted, that doesn't mean only 283 passed the exam - some of them could have been appointed but didn't attend the Naval Academy, or some of them failed and were admitted anyway.
  • Done. The perils of paraphrase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You left out the part where he had failed his medical examination due to hearing loss, but was graduated anyways and was re-examined two years later. Wheeler doesn't mention the medical re-examination either; I guess he passed.
• Article text:Machias replied with its M1895 Colt-Browning machine guns. When one jammed, Kinkaid exposed himself to fire to clear the weapon. but Wheeler indicates that he assisted in clearing the weapon, and fired the weapon as well. Maybe check another source on this incident? (DANFS was no help)
• You also ommitted Kinkaid being nominated for the Distinguished Service Medal (which he didn't receive) in 1919.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk)

I'm going to quit there but in addition to addressing the preceding items I would recommend adding/varying references in the sections that rely on a range of pages from Wheeler's biography. Thanks for nominating such an interesting article! Kirk (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One more thing; Wheeler is pretty consistent using the rank 'passed midshipman' after he graduated and before he was promoted to ensign, but you use 'midshipman' instead; I actually think 'midshipman' is correct but I would recommend checking what his official rank was 1908-1910. Kirk (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind - I checked the 1910 Register of the commissioned and warrant officers of the United States Navy and Kinkaid was a midshipman (Academy students were Midshipmen on probation). Kirk (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I did not think it would be misunderstood as it stands. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, this is one of the perils of relying heavily on a single 'reliable' source, who turns out to occasionally unreliable. I think leaving out the failed medical examination is ok since it doesn't seem to have affected his career; I'm ok if you leave the Machias action the way it, and of course I'm still pondering on why Wheeler used passed midshipman which was phased out as a rank in the 1860s; you have it right when Wheeler had it wrong. Switching to support - thanks! Kirk (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I'll add comments here as I work through the article.

• From the lead: "During the Battle of the Surigao Strait he commanded the last naval battle between battleships in history". Surely this should be "commanded the Allied forces during the last naval battle"?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Over the next few years the family successively moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Norfolk, Virginia, Annapolis, Maryland and Georgetown, Washington, D.C..": Per MOS:CONSECUTIVE you don't need that second period at the end of the sentence. In addition, the use of commas both as internal punctuation and to divide elements of the list is confusing to someone who doesn't know US geography and has no idea that "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" is a single place, not two. I'd suggest trimming this to the names of the towns, possibly adding "(in Virginia) after Norfolk, since the default Norfolk is not the town.
  • Another editor wanted them to consistently use city/state. Changed the commas to semicolons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK -- it's not great but I can see the reason for keeping the state, so I'll strike the objection. Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "which, while much newer, were by this time no less obsolete" is a bit tangled. Perhaps "which were newer than the Hartford, but by this time no less obsolete"?
  • Changed to "which, while much newer, were by this time also obsolete" Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll strike, since this is clearly better, though I suspect it could be further improved. Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The comments about his time at Midvale Steel and Bausch & Lomb are uninformative -- I can guess that Midvale made gun components and Bausch & Lomb made target finders or something similar, and that's why he went there, but is there any information about this in the sources? E.g. he went there to oversee naval procurement from those firms?
  • He was studying the manufacture of naval weapons as part of the training course mentioned at the start of the paragraph. The narrative problem here is that this was interrupted by the tour of duty in the Caribbean. Tightened up the wording and hope it is clearer now. Unfortunately my sources, which rely on his personnel file supplemented by interviews with Helen, do not go into more detail. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's much improved. Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "At that time his father was in charge of the Naval Engineering Experiment Station there, allowing him to stay with his parents and study for his navigation examination." I changed "At this time" to "At that time" since you're not using historic present, but looking at it perhaps it should be "At the time". I also think "allowing" doesn't quite work; the reader takes the subject as "his father", rather than the fact of his management of the station. How about "which allowed Kinkaid to stay ..."?
  • Changed to: "At the time his father was in charge of the Naval Engineering Experiment Station there, which allowed Kinkaid to stay with his parents while studying for his navigation examination." Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "he visited Sperry Gyroscope and Ford Instruments to consult with them on the fire control systems": perhaps "their fire control systems", or just "fire control systems"?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1922 Lieutenant Commander Kinkaid became": do we need his rank here? It was mentioned above (and linked there too).
  • Removed Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Kinkaid reported that Italy was unprepared for war. Only in May 1940 did he warn that Italy was mobilising, shortly before it declared war on France and Britain on 10 June 1940." Is there an implication here that he should have noticed that Italy was prepared? I think it would be helpful to give whatever inference the sources draw, if any.
  • Wheeler (p. 124) says that Kinkaid's judgement was flawed because his sources were poor. I disagree. He reported correctly that Italy was unprepared for war. He reported the correct date shortly after Mussolini made his decision. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I take your point, but we have to reflect the sources. Surely if Wheeler feels Kinkaid's judgement is flawed something to that effect should be mentioned, even if there is (sourceable) way to qualify it? Mike Christie (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have put forward the facts and left out the opinions. The reader can make up her own mind. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      I've struck my comment, since I've no expertise in this area, but often a historian's evaluation of an incident is very much worth including, and it would be doing readers a disservice to exclude all such opinions. Mike Christie (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kinkaid now faced the problem of selection to rear admiral. Speaking to the officer in charge of detailing, Captain Arthur S. Carpender, a classmate who had recently been selected for flag rank, a problem was identified with Kinkaid's lack of command experience." Two uses of "problem", and "speaking" is a dangling modifier. How about: "Kincaid reviewed his qualifications for promotion to rear admiral with Captain Arthur S. Carpender, the officer in charge of detailing and a classmate of Kinkaid's. Carpender, who had recently been selected for flag rank, identified a problem with Kinkaid's lack of command experience." This makes it actively Carpender who identified the issue; if the sources say the two of them together came to that conclusion then I'd make it "Carpender had recently been selected for flag rank. The two officers concluded that Kinkaid's lacked sufficient command experience for promotion." Or something along those lines. Incidentally, I am not sure what "officer in charge of detailing" means; is this something for which a link could be provided?
  • I've reworded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good. Any link available for the "officer in charge of detailing"? Mike Christie (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, unfortunately detail is a disambiguation page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      OK, but I guess I didn't make my original point clear: I don't know what "detailing" means in this context. It seems to me to be a specialized term that would benefit from either a link, or, if that's not available, an explanatory parenthesis, or a rephrase. Mike Christie (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Naval officers alternated between duty afloat and ashore every year or two. Combined with separations, and promotions every four to six years, this created considerable "churn". Who got posted where was the responsibility of the Office of Detail, part of the Bureau of Navigation. As ships became more technically complex, it became increasingly difficult to man them with officers and ratings possessing the required skills. Chips Carpender was in charge of officer detailing, meaning that he selected officers up to the rank of captain for assignments, which is what is meant by "detailing". He did not actually assign them himself; such orders went out under the signature of the chief of the Bureau of Navigation; nor did he select officers for promotion. However being able to decide who went where made him an important figure to more junior officers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        That's a very helpful explanation. I won't oppose on this point, since it's not a weakness in this article, but how about linking "detailing" to either Office of Detail, if that's a plausible eventual article, or else to Bureau of Navigation, which presumably should eventually cover the topic? FAs aren't responsible for the quality of the articles they link to, though if you wanted to drop a version of your explanation above into the Bureau of Navigation article that would be beneficial. Mike Christie (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          Struck. I think a link would be reasonable, but it's not a big deal. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kinkaid then headed north to join the screen of Vice Admiral William F. Halsey's Task Force 16,[26] under the command of Rear Admiral Raymond A. Spruance. Shortly after Task Force 16 returned to Pearl Harbor, Halsey was hospitalized with a severe case of dermatitis and, on his recommendation, was replaced as commander of Task Force 16 by Spruance." Seems like a sequencing problem of some kind -- was the task force under Spruance's command when Kinkaid headed north?
  • No, just the screen. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "built around the carrier USS Enterprise though he was not an aviator": does this mean that he had never been a navy pilot? Or just that he had never been involved with naval aviation in a command role and hence would be inexperienced in that specialization? I would guess the latter, but to a lay reader "aviator" means the former.
  • He had never been a aviator! (They don't call them pilots in the navy - as a maritime pilot is something else.) By law aircraft carriers had to be commanded by aviators; but there was nothing that said that carrier task forces had to be. However this was resented by the aviators, as noted in the final paragraph of the section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I think that's fine as written. Mike Christie (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Ealdgyth's comments, below, that some of the WWII battles don't have a good lead in. The Aleutian battle is fine, just as an example: you have "Kinkaid's command was responsible for" and then the battle is mentioned and the subsequent action clearly belongs to that. The mention of the Admiralty Islands campaign is also fine, but for the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Battle of Leyte and the Battle of the Surigao Strait, there is no such lead in. I think only a sentence or so is needed in each case.

  Looking through these again, I think the reference to the Battle of Leyte is probably OK; the subsequent comment that it "would see MacArthur's promised return to the Philippines" is the context needed. Mike Christie (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The Eastern Solomons is now OK. For the Coral Sea, how about just adding "three days later": "When Task Force 17 was attacked three days later in the Battle of the Coral Sea"? That tells the reader it's a continuation of the current events and no further context is needed. For the Battle of Leyte, how about: "For the Battle of Leyte, which began in October 1944 and would see MacArthur's return ..."? And change "In the subsequent Battle of the Surigao Strait" to "The next day, in the Battle of ..."? I think that would connect the dots for an uninformed reader a little better. It would be good also to mention that the Battle of Leyte Gulf took place in October, if that can be worked in. Mike Christie (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That looks fine. Changed to support above. Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Halsey's orders, which gave priority to the destruction of the Japanese fleet, led to the most controversial episode of the Battle of Leyte Gulf.": I suggest moving this sentence to the start of the following paragraph: the current position of the paragraph break causes the reader to be unsure if they are about to read about the episode in question.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Battle of the Surigao Strait" should probably link to the appropriate subsection of Battle of Leyte Gulf, rather than the main article as it does now.
  • That's a good idea, but I want to leave it as it is, because I am preparing a new article on Surigao Strait, so it will become an aticle in its own right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. You could always relink it at that point, but it's fine. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You give the circumstances for the awards of all his decorations except the Legion of Merit, which as far as I can see is mentioned only in the infobox and not in the body of the article. I assume this would be worth covering in the body?
  • Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see; sorry it was a slow review, and I hope some of these points have been useful. I think this is a fine article and I am close to supporting. I agree with some of the points made by Andy and Ealdgyth below; no need for me to add them to my list but I will watch those too before supporting. Mike Christie (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments not ready to support just yet as there are some concerns with the prose. All my concerns addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Really should do an audit of the links - a lot of links that may be not needed - or are linked a few too many times. Example - you link battleship in the lead and again in the first paragraph of early career. Same with United States Navy - it's linked in the lead and then again in the first paragraph of early life. Is there a need to link to London? New York City? Rome? The impression that the article gives is of a huge number of blue links, which can be off-putting to readers.
• You mention that he sought an appointment to Anapolis, but don't say what year… and did he get the appointment from T.R.?
  • Yes. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Early career: "Kinkaid came under fire for the first time when the ship was fired upon from ashore. Machias replied with its M1895 Colt-Browning machine guns. When one jammed, Kinkaid exposed himself to fire to assist in clearing the weapon. He fired it in response to gunfire against the ship." this just seems … too detailed and very choppy to me. Perhaps "Kinkaid came under fire for the first time when Mchias was engaged from shore and returned fire, with Kincaid exposing himself in order to clear a machine gun jam." Also, did he get a commendation for this act? I think the naming of the exact typo of gun is just plain unneeded here, honestly, and is too much detail.
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, too much detail "In November 1917 he was ordered to deliver a 20-foot (6.1 m) rangefinder from the Norfolk Navy Yard to the Grand Fleet." is the size of the rangefinder important? And is it important that he did this little errand? Otherwise, why include it?
  • Several reasons. It represents his service in the Great War and we keep track of the wars an officer participated in. It was brief but that is also important to note. It also involves his becoming known to senior officers, which is important in the US Navy where interpersonal realtionships are paramount. The rangefinder was the latest American technology. And I did not want people to think that he carried it in a briefcase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps then "ordered to supervise the delivery of a newly developed large rangefinder"? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And here, we're lacking details…"The Washington Naval Conference would prevent these ideas from being put into practice, however." … as most folks won't remember that this limited the number of guns on ships.
  • Yes, but this can be accessed through the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with that is that then you've lost your reader, and they may never return. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. Of course they will not look under the link. added comment to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Awkward sentence: "This tour saw the end of the Greek occupation of Smyrna and the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne by Turkey saw a draw-down of U.S. naval forces in the region, reducing Bristol's post to a primarily diplomatic one." seems run knish.
  • Broke up sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "By coincidence the ship was at anchor in Long Beach, California when the 1933 Long Beach earthquake struck. Over the next few days thousands of sailors and marines participated in relief activities." but… did he do anything important with that? Do we know?
  • Nothing notable that we know of. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if we don't know if he participated, do we need to cover that in the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added some information. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Only in May 1940 did he warn that Italy was mobilising. Soon after he learned from Count Galeazzo Ciano that Italy would declare war on France and Britain between 10 and 15 June 1940.[17] However, he provided accurate reports on the damage inflicted by the British in the Battle of Taranto." … what is the however there supposed to be relating to? It's unclear why you're using however, which implies that the reports before this had been inaccurate…can we get more detail on why that is thought?
  • Deleted "however". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What does "No lower ranking classmate was promoted to flag rank before retirement." mean? Do you mean lower ranked as in naval rank or rank from their graduating class?
  • Reworded to mean the stronger form - no one ranked lower in the class Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me get this straight… "For his part in the battle, Kinkaid was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal." both carriers he was supposed to be defending got hit and one sank and he got a medal? I think a bit more explanation is in order here…

Heh heh. I like the way you put that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • The point is that Kinkaid was responsible for TF 16, not just the screen. And he did win the battle, thereby saving the marines and soldiers on Guadalcanal, but at great cost. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a problem in the WWII sections is that we aren't given any context as to why Kincaid's commands were engaged in the various battles.
  • Add a bit of background. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Yet Kinkaid's most troublesome subordinate was once again a U.S. Navy officer, Rear Admiral Ralph W. Christie, the commander of Task Force 71, the Seventh Fleet's submarines." … err… again? I think we've missed a bit here, when before did he have issues with US Naval officers under him such that this is now ANOTHER example of an issue?
  • The allusion is to his conflict with Rockwell in the Aleutians. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we make the allusion more explicit then? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      How about: "Despite the unpromising relationship with the army, Kinkaid's most troublesome subordinate was a U.S. Navy officer, as had been the case with Rockwell in the Aleutians. This time his problems were with Rear Admiral Ralph W. Christie, the commander of Task Force 71, the Seventh Fleet's submarines." Mike Christie (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Sounds good. Changed to this wording. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I ran this through CorenSearchbot and Earwig's and nothing showed up. Also checked a couple of sentences in Google books, and no hits. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: I'm leaning toward supporting, as the narrative is fine and overall the writing is good. It seems well-researched. A few issues:
  • See WP:MOSNUM. We should probably be using the American date format since the subject is definitely strongly associated with the US. Personally I wouldn't raise the issue, but you may get editors drifting along later who try to change them all.
    • WP:MOSNUM: Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first para of Southwest Pacific, you use passive voice and thus consistently fail to tell us who sent Kinkaid ("It was announced", "MacArthur and Curtin were asked", etc).
    • Ernie King did it. Added explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Ealdgyth noted above, it's overlinked. Part of the problem is using that template for the ship names, which seems to wikilink them. Use the template on first mention, and then use italic plan text after that. I fixed one before I took in the scope of the issue.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned it, but the article seems WP:OVERLINKed to me-- a sea of blue, many countries, words like golf. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was mentioned. Some effort was made to reduce the number of links by not using the ship template on subsequent mentions of a ship name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.