Talk:USS Windham Bay

USS Windham 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: August 17, 2020. (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

Just out of boot camp in San Diego and spent two weeks at home in Idaho. Reported to Treasure Island for my orders some time in April 1951. As a transit I boarded the Windham Bay at Oakland, California. Windham was my first time aboard a Navy carrier. We sailed under the Golden Gate on the way to San Diego to Pickup troupes and planes. 18 days aboard a slow carrier to Japan. There I departed and was flown to the Phillipines to my assignment, The USS Bisbee PF 46 and later to the USS New Jersey BB62. M Division, #3 engine room. Charles E. Ireton MM3 Served 12-28-50 to 10-28-54

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 03:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Design and description

"Standardized with her sister ships, she was 512 ft 3 in (156.13 m) long overall, at the waterline, she was 490 ft (150 m) long, she had a beam of 65 ft 2 in (19.86 m), at her widest point, this was 108 ft (33 m), and a draft of 20 ft 9 in (6.32 m). " - Since one of these list items includes a comma, set the different measurements apart with semicolons, not commas.

Service history

"which had recently been secured" - Linking only secured to the battle violates MOS:EGG, I'd recommend expanding the piped link to include the whole phrase of "had recently been secured"
Link or gloss what CVE stands for (not the hull number, the other usage)

Infobox

The exact dates of the second decommission and the selling for scrap aren't cited anywhere.

Selling for scrap is cited in Hazegray and DANFs.

Images

"spent away from the frontline carriers." - is MOS:SANDWICHed between the first two images, this needs corrected.
The final image cuts way below the actual text itself. Honestly, there's one too many image in the article, so one needs removed.

Layout

Nix the See also section, it's empty
Move the portal bar to between the commons cat link and the top template

Sources and image licensing look acceptable enough. Placing on hold. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I've addressed your points. Stikkyy t/c 06:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stikkyy: Those two dates need cited inline. We need the exact date, not just the month for the one, and the whole date for the other. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: It seems like you're correct. Both of the dates seem to have been strapped on without any sourcing. Everything else including said dates seem to be derivatives of the article. I've removed the dates. Stikkyy t/c 18:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now, passing. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]