Jump to content

Talk:USS Philippine Sea (CV-47)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These two articles are my first ship pieces. Let me know anything that's out of SOP for ship articles, since I'm considering writing more. —Ed!(talk) 01:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your best bet for an SOP for ship articles are the FA-rated ones which you can use as a guide, which is how I learned to write them myself. Carriers are a bit different than other warships as you have to cover the air group's changes and operations in addition to whatever the ship is doing herself. The carrier FA articles that I'm aware of are HMS Ark Royal, HMS Courageous, HMS Eagle, Japanese carrier Hosho, and Japanese carrier Kaga. There may be others, especially for the Americans, but I haven't really looked.
You've got reasonable coverage of the air group up until Korea, but then you just give the name, which isn't good enough, especially since the aircraft change over time. Read Kirk's comments in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Eagle (1918)/archive1 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi and you can get an idea of the kind of detail that people want in carrier articles. I couldn't fully answer everything that he wanted to know as you'll see if you read the articles closely, but he did want a lot of info. For this article, you're going to need to dig up rough totals of aircraft, by type, from Korea onwards until she becomes an AVT. Hopefully some of your books already have at least some of that info. Fortunately, this is only a GAN, so these articles are excused from some of that level of detail.
I can start the reviews now if you like, but I won't pass them until the air group info is added or I can sit on them until you've had a chance to dig up that info. I'm fine either way, just let me know what you'd like for me to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's all right with you, I'd prefer you finish the reviews, so I can get the resources again and add in anything else I'm missing in one go. As far as the aircraft go, do you think they should have a seperate section for each carrier's air group in the text? I saw the Ark Royal article merged aircraft and armament into one section but none of the FAs seem to cover US carriers, whose squadrons seem to rotate around more frequently. —Ed!(talk) 21:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Add "ship" between ship and "to be named" in this: first to be named for the Battle of Philippine Sea
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • use aircraft instead of sorties in this: she sent sorties in support
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace final with last in this: was the final of the 24 Essex-class
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Link rake and flare.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link for rake is incorrect. You may have to go to wiktionary for a proper definition.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert 40 mm. Convert most measurements into English units; about the only ones that stay metric are 20 and 40 mm.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make horsepower into an adjective by adding |adj=on to the convertsion template you need to add for 140,000 shp.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use two numbers in close conjunction like 12 5 inch; spell one or the other of them out to minimize confusion.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphenate 5 inch gun.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does /38 mean?
The 12-inch gun is 38 caliber, so I included both in the link. —Ed!(talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, but an average reader doesn't know that the /38 means barrel length. Rephrase that part into something like 38-caliber 5-inch guns, etc. with appropriate links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't show the hull number of Bonhomme Richard.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Focused:
    The armament of her sisters is of little concern; just give her actual armament and mention that she was the only ship of the class not to have 20 mm guns.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Like other Essex-class ships, she could be armed with twelve 5-inch (127 mm)/38 caliber guns arrayed in four pairs and four single emplacements, as well as 8 quadruple Bofors 40 mm guns and a variable number of Oerlikon 20 mm cannons.[1] However, unlike the typical ships of the line, Philippine Sea was armed instead with forty-four 40mm guns. Reword all this bit and combine these two sentences. Philippine Sea and the other Essex's weren't ships of the line. You mean "unlike her sister ships" Tell me how the 40 mm guns were arrayed, in x quadruple and y twin mounts or whatever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked. —Ed!(talk) 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boiler pressures and temps not really suitable for infoboxes, IMO, and can be skipped for ordinary ship articles if there's a class article to cover that info. But you do need to recapitulate everything in the infobox somewhere in the main body or else add a cite (something I'd discourage, BTW). Read through the carrier FACs very closely and look at the info that's covered in those descriptive paragraphs and don't be afraid to copy paste them and change the numbers to suit your articles. That's often what I do. Also what endurance did she have? And was she coal or oil-fired?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixup the ways in which you refer to the ship. You use a lot of "the ship" which is kinda monotonous. I use the ship's name, "the ship" and "she" and try not to use any of them in succession. I changed them in the paragraph about the ship's construction and naming as an example.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through again and trimmed the passive voice that I found. —Ed!(talk) 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell me what kind of aircraft these are: Douglas R45 Skytrains, two OY-1 Sentinels, a Sikorsky HO3S-1 and generally do that on the first mention of an aircraft through out the article so a reader doesn't have to click on a link to know if it's a fighter or whatever. There's a fine line between providing just enough info and not enough and I prefer to give just enough that a well-read reader doesn't need to click on a link--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding the additional aircraft info is good, but it's still incomplete. What I'd like to see is generally like the reference to CAG 20 where you detail the # of squadrons flying each type. Your recent additions mention the main aircraft flown, but ignore all the others that need to be mentioned. And some solid numbers of each type embarked during combat tours are needed. Not necessarily for each combat tour, but something to use as a baseline is necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  3. 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:
  4. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made all the fixes and added all of the aircraft information. —Ed!(talk) 01:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Was Sowinski's book published in 1980 (like it says in the notes) or in 2000 (like it says in the bibliography)? Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think 2000 might have been a reprint, but I used the 1988 version. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At long last

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Philippine_Sea_(CV-47)/GA1&oldid=1136226498"