Talk:USS Hornet (CV-12)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 05:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better version of the badge? If not no worries.
The licensing for File:Samar.jpg is pretty sketchy
- Fixed
  - Thanks Kees08 (Talk) 21:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any interest in making this file page match the others in terms of style? File:Battleship_Yamato_under_air_attack_April_1945.jpg
- What do you mean?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it is actionable, but I like the machine-readable templates (like the Commons Information template). So you can ignore this if you please. Kees08 (Talk) 21:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do too, but I was kind of burnt out while working through the images and external links and was wishing that Commons would stop expecting us to fix problems caused by their uploaders. Maybe some sort of equivalent of NPP? Well, a fellow can dream, n'est-ce pas?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would perhaps this photo or any other from here be more appropriate in the Apollo 11/12 section?
- It's a beautiful photo, but it's actually a training exercise. File:USS Hornet (CVS-12) approaches Apollo 11 space capsule 1969.jpg is far less pretty, but it's the real thing. Which do you prefer?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose the file you suggest, I was aware it was a training exercise but not aware that a photo from the mission existed. Since the mission has more encyclopedic value, makes sense to use that. I could go either way though so whatever your preference is. Kees08 (Talk) 21:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for images. That was a lot to check! Still have to review the article for prose etc. Kees08 (Talk) 05:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be 'the Philippines Campaign'? The ship then participated in Philippines Campaign in
For some reason this sentence is tripping me up; is there a better way to word it? Their designed complement was approximately 268 officers and 2,362 enlisted men, but this was inadequate from the beginning; the addition of more light weapons and other equipment greatly increased the overcrowding so that Hornet's sister Intrepid had a crew of 382 officers and 3,003 enlisted men in 1945.
One too many was's here Hornet was built with a single hydraulic catapult was fitted on the forward part
Seems phrased a little odd and little additional damage appears to have been done for the loss of one aircraft shot down by AA guns.
Remove 'on' the southern Marianas on six days later
What is a snooper? about a dozen snoopers and attack
Is there a way to avoid the double negative? was not certain that the Americans were not merely attacking
Needs fixed: and the carriers turned into the wind to being launching 140 fighters
The previous sentence has the Japanese as the subject, which implies the Japanese gave the battle that nickname. I presume they did not. Not without cause they did nickname the battle "The Marianas Turkey Shoot"
- Umm the last word of the previous sentence is "Americans"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, I think it is fine as-is. Kees08 (Talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrase The first, of about 20 torpedo bombers, was shot down to an aircraft by fighters and anti-aircraft fire
Just making sure, the sources are saying that the Japanese numbers are correct and the American estimates are wrong and there is no OR right? The American pilots claimed to have shot down 110 aircraft and destroyed 95 on the ground, although the First Air Fleet lost less than two dozen aircraft to all causes.
- Yes, we have partial Japanese records for this period.
they proceeded north awith the mission
the detonation knocked out all of the her boilers
to have destroyed? to have shot down 26 Japanese aircraft and to destroyed 29 on the ground
landings were done? With his obligation to cover the Lingayen Gulf area until the landings done
others? and two other were splashed
Rephrase this After the airstrikes flew off further attacks crippled her sister Franklin.
How were they able to launch their aircraft? The previous paragraph said they could not. Clark ordered that the damaged sisters steam backwards at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph) and launch their aircraft on 7 June as they provided the CAP over the task group.
repairs,[71],
Why are there so many quotation marks starting in this section Peacetime tensions: 1951 to 1959
- 'Cause I'm quoting the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
  - Hmm okay. For the PD material I have seen quoted from NASA, I have never seen quotation marks used (since I suppose they are not required), but if this is something that you normally do and is accepted than it is fine. Kees08 (Talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you look at the examples given in MOS:PMC, they all have quotation marks before and after the quote, so I've always assumed that Wiki quotes use the same general procedures as ordinary English, quotation marks or a block quote fore and aft of the quote, plus a cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that is only for quoting individuals, like Captain Seabridge said, "The sea is wet." I do not really care either way, but I am pretty sure you can take the quotation marks out. It will not hold up the review either way. Kees08 (Talk) 01:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just need to review the last couple sections for prose, verify the sources, and we should be good to go. Kees08 (Talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the end of the sentence Following a similar cruise, 6 January – 2 July 1958,"
Unless this is an ENGVAR this, deployement
- Good catches, both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The awards and decorations are unsourced
- Hidden--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What makes arlingtoncemetery.net a reliable source?
- legacy that I never looked at. At any rate, redundant and deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have Palomar instead of Polmar in a couple spots
- I always type the name of the observatory, persistent bad habit. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Missing accessdate: AS-202, NASA (NSSDC ID: APST202)
- Can't do accessdate with archived URLs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo 11 Archived 18 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine, NASA (NSSDC ID: 1969-059A) and A Front Row Seat For History at Archive.today (archived 19 March 2006), NASAexplores, 15 July 2004. Retrieved 10 May 2008. are formatted differently (also "Film & TV Location Rentals". USS Hornet Museum. Archived from the original on 18 December 2015. Retrieved 19 May 2019.. This is because of the access-date. I think it is caused by templates.
- I knew there was a reason why I didn't want to tackle these. Some of them were archived when they didn't need to be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo 12, NASA (NSSDC ID: 1969-099A). missing accessdate
Are there any better sources than the IMDB reference?
- That movie seems to have sunk without a trace and is often confused with a movie of the same title starring Chris Pine that came out a few years later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
endash for the date? Whirlwind: The Air War Against Japan, 1942-1945
endash? The Marianas Turkey Shoot, June 19-20
This is a blog. Saturday, Alameda Naval Base, CA, Eudaemonic blog. Retrieved 14 June 2008.
This citation is incomplete "Hornet Plus Three" at the Wayback Machine (archived 17 July 2011)
You might be able to replace citation 1 with this, it has 1991 as the date (then you will not need the note about the source being wrong)
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyway you can paraphrase a little more so the text matches [thisdayinaviation.com/tag/uss-hornet-cvs-12 This Day in Aviation] less?

I think that should be all. Kees08 (Talk) 22:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that I've covered all of these; see if my changes are satisfactory. Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple more

Missing pp? Citation 59 right now. Tillman 2010, 119, 123
- Sigh.
You could probably get rid of the IMDB citation since the USS Hornet page covers it, I will leave it to you.
- It's needed to source the bit about the movie being about the ship and not just aboard it.

So really just the pp issue and we are good to go here I believe. Sorry if I was a bit too hard in the review, been doing FA reviews more lately so might have gone a tad overboard. Kees08 (Talk) 01:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, nothing here was really out of line for a thorough GA review, so we're good. Dunno if I ever want to take this past GA, but if I do, it will be pretty well prepared. Thanks for reviewing this so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]