Talk:USS Kadashan Bay

USS Kadashan Bay has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 17, 2019. (Reviewed version).

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: Aviation / Maritime / North America / United States / World War II

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Article needs to be worked on..

Maybe insert an image and someone who got knowledge to fill the missing fields. :) Nvez 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KB

What/where is Kadashan Bay? I assume it's a U.S. geographic feature? Drutt 16:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska, which I've added to the article. Apparently that bit got dropped when the article was imported from DANFS.--J Clear 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Kadashan Bay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 20:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: the namesake is mentioned in the lead but not article body. The lead is a summary of the article and as such everything there (in the lead) needs to be sourced from a cited fact in the article body. To my mind, the logical place to locate namesake info is in the construction/commissioning section.
Consistency - some numbers are written out but some expressed as numerals, e.g. "8 Bofors 40 mm...", "12 Oerlikon 20 mm..." vs "thirty 20 mm cannons"
" Uniflow reciprocating steam engines": the infobox refers to "Unaflow steam engines"?
"For example, during the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, she carried 16 FM-2 fighters, and 11 TBM-1C torpedo bombers, for a total of 27 aircraft." As an example of accommodating more aircraft that it was designed for, this isn't helpful since she was designed for 27 aircraft. The following examples make sense though.
"and as they struggled for altitude, a Nakajima Ki-43 fighter dove towards the carrier." Suggest adding that this was a kamikaze attack (and link kamikaze). The following sentence refers to the kamikaze and I think a better connection between this and the Nakajima is required. Also need to clarify which carrier.
"...the fighter crew had spotted was also noticed by the crew": rephrase to the fighters had spotted was also noticed by the ship's crew? Also crew of which ship, since it is not the carrier as is made clear by the following sentence.
The links for the battles should be on their first mention in the article body.
Dupe links: San Diego, Manus
In the bibliography, isn't Y'Blood out of order?
Images look like they have appropriate tags.

Apologies for the delay in providing these comments. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: I've responded to all of your points. Stikkyy t/c 07:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, time has gotten away from me here, sorry it has been so long for me to get back to this year. Your changes all look good and I am satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria. Passing this review now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]