This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Military history: Maritime / North America / United States C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

Agree IMHO, the stub article about Gary can't be further expanded as the ship never entered service. In addition, there's nothing in that article that cannot be said in this article dedicated to the ship's class. Regards, DPdH ( talk) 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Merge Nothing notable about a ship that was never built. Merge into the class article and then delete the page... JonEastham ( talk) 16:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree Not only was this ship never built, it never was started. Some uncompleted ships have quite interesting stories, like the battleship Kentucky and the large cruiser Hawaii, and are worth a page, but certainly not this one. Busaccsb ( talk) 03:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

 Done   Ed ( talk • majestic titan) 04:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This article asserts that the Juneau class was a primary design influence on the Worcester class. This is not true.

• The gun caliber of the Worcester class is not only the same as the Brooklyn, Cleveland and Fargo classes (and not that of the Juneau class), but the mounts had the same range of elevation due to the very similar mount machinery. The main difference was the Worcester class' shell ammunition autoloading mechanisms; had these mechanisms existed for the Brooklyn, Cleveland and Fargo classes they would have had their turrets modified to allow their guns to fully elevate for true DP use.
• Most of the assertion for a Juneau class ancestry appears to lie in the number of turrets and their use of twin rather than the triple mounts seen in the Brooklyn, Cleveland and Fargo classes. However, Friedman in his U.S. Cruisers, An Illustrated Design History (1984) on page 352 documents that a superior triple mount was considered for the Worcesters; it was dropped only because of time constraints, not because of any technical superiority.
• A quick review of the Wiki pages for all of these classes will show that the hull and machinery of the Juneau class look nothing like the Cleveland, Fargo, and Worcester classes. For example, the Juneau class had only half of the turbines, shafts, and propellers of the other three classes. Design ancestry is as much seen in hull and machinery as in weaponry, if not more so.

All references to the Juneau class in this article need to be appropriately revised. Any objections? Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk) 23:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the delay in responding, but as I'm the one who inserted that assertion, I feel it's up to me to defend it. The source which is cited in the article, "American Battleships, Carriers, and Cruisers," explicitly states that the Worcester class was a derivative of the Juneau and Atlanta/Oakland classes.

If you want to insert something showing Friedman's position on the Worcesters as well, I'd be fine with that. Wandavianempire ( talk) 16:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply

No need to apologize, I've been busy too.

May I ask, is the Lenton book simply a popular overview of the subject? If so then Friedman - being a scholarly work - should take priority. Also, how do we know that the Juneau assertion is not just Lenton's personal opinion, based on simple appearance?

Another point: Friedman makes it very clear that the development of the abortive CL-154-class cruiser - the true successor to the Juneau-class - was protracted precisely because the designers found it difficult to avoid it becoming another Worcester but with 5-inch guns. Again, everything about the engineering plant in the Worcester-class screamed Cleveland/Fargo derivation and not Atlanta/Juneau derivation.

I think the only reason to leave Lenton as a source is to point out how wrong it is. Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk) 17:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply