Talk:William M. Callaghan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
In the line During the first two years of World War II, he served ..., I assume you mean in 1942 and '43, but could you specify? Some people might assume you mean '41 (since it was still 1941 when the US entered the war) and '42.

~~Relatedly, do you know what Callaghan was doing between his time as a logistics officer and his command of Missouri? There's a big gap between the end of 1943 and June 1944.~~

~~Also, what happened between the kamikaze attack in April 1945 and when he was appointed as the commander of the MSTS? Also, when was he promoted to Vice Admiral?~~

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I think this article is close to meeting the criteria for GA, it shouldn't be too hard to fix the issues pointed out above. I made some rearrangements to the article (I didn't think his taking command of Missouri in 1944—by which time he was 47—qualified as "early life"). Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback so far, Parsecboy; I will look into the points you have raised and try to address them. Janggeom (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent some time further researching the subject. Responding to points:

During the first two years of World War II, he served ... The source does not specify exactly which years (1941–1942 or 1942–1943) were involved. I have searched for further information, but have not been able to find anything. I have revised the text so that it does not suggest specific years.
Logistics officer to Captain of the Missouri. I have searched for information on 1943–1944, but have not been able to find anything.
Captain of the Missouri to command of the MSTS. I have searched for information on 1945–1949, but have not been able to find anything.
Promotion to Vice Admiral. The subject appears to have been promoted to Vice Admiral soon after taking command of the MSTS. Two sources explicitly state that he was a Rear Admiral at the time of appointment and was subsequently promoted, while two other sources are unclear on whether the promotion occurred before or after the appointment. I have added a footnote including this information, but have not been able to find a precise date of promotion.

In my research, I discovered a few more details and have included them in the article. I have also restructured the section headings to try to improve the article's organisation a bit further. Thanks for your ongoing review/feedback. Janggeom (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something: I just remembered I had scanned in a photo of him a while ago (see here). Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through my copy of Battleship Missouri: An Illustrated History, which has a few paragraphs on Admiral Callaghan. It makes it sound as though he was on Nimitz's staff up until he got tapped to skipper Missouri. Specifically, it states: Most recently, he had served on the Pacific Fleet staff of Admiral Chester Nimitz in Hawaii. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what you have found, this (source already in the article), this, and this, we see that Nimitz was CinCPAC from 31 December 1941 to 24 November 1945, and the subject was a logistics officer in his staff. I have not found evidence that the subject was on the staff of Husband Kimmel, CinCPAC before Nimitz. It looks like the answer to point 1 is 1942–1943, but I have only added Nimitz's name to the article as there is no source (yet) that specifically states that the subject served in Nimitz's staff in 1942 and 1943. Janggeom (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Missouri book isn't specific about dates, it just gives the series of posts he held before coming to command the battleship. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried searching again for the date of the subject's promotion to Vice Admiral, without success, but found that he held the rank of Rear Admiral in 1946 (now added to the article). Janggeom (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the subject was promoted to Vice Admiral no earlier than July 1950 (new source added to article). Given that two sources note him being 'subsequently' and 'soon' promoted to Vice Admiral after being appointed to command the MSTS in October 1949, it seems likely that he was promoted in late 1950. If he was promoted in 1951 (or later), that would seem to be stretching the meaning of 'subsequently' and 'soon' too far. Regrettably, we still don't have a source that explicitly tells us a date. Janggeom (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes this is the best we can do. If the information isn't out there, it just isn't out there. I think the note you added does an excellent job of describing the uncertainty over his date of promotion.

The only thing I'd like to see is if we can find anything else about his post-war activities. Again, if that proves impossible, then I'll be ok with that. Nice work so far! Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback and kind comments. I'll see what I can find, but at this stage it looks like there might not be any more. Janggeom (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more details about what happened to the Japanese pilot's remains (article by Fahr), but nothing further on the subject's career from 1945–1949. Janggeom (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a few days, I should have let you know, my apologies. In some cases, the information just isn't out there (I've run into a similar problem with an admiral I've been writing an article about: Reinhard Scheer) so there isn't much you can do. I think the article is as comprehensive as we can make it, so I'll pass it for GA. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article and for your helpful feedback. I agree that the article is probably as good as it can be, at this point in time. Thanks again for your time and attention on this article. Janggeom (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]