Talk:USS Kadashan Bay/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 20:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I will take this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Zawed: I've responded to all of your points. Stikkyy t/c 07:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- 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)