From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Suggestion

@ Sturmvogel 66: Maybe you could specify somewhere that these are not to be confused with the Japanese aircraft carrier Taihō. L293D (  •  ) 13:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Good idea, ghod only knows how I can't keep Ryūhō and Ryūjō straight my own self.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taiyō-class escort carrier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) 08:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply


This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:

  • in the lead, "was a groupclass of three" and link ship class?
    • I think that would be too close proximity to "Taiyo-class"
  • also in the lead, "did much the same in 1942"
  • the infobox says Kampon turbines, but the body implies Mitsubishi?
  • the body and infobox don't match on displacement
  • the imperial draught conversions in the body are in decimals rather than ftin
  • the speed in the infobox doesn't reflect the body
  • suggest putting the lower range of the range in the body as in the infobox, rather than in a note
  • the aircraft lifts are also converted decimally rather than ftin
    • This type of conversion doesn't work with ftin
  • is there any explanation of why they weren't provided with arresting gear? Seems odd.
    • The IJN doesn't seem to have thought of them as escort carriers in the USN/RN mode, just aircraft transports or training carriers with slow training aircraft.
  • suggest "Her light AA consisted of eight license-built 2.5 cm (1 in) Type 96 light AA guns in four twin-gun mounts" to avoid repetition of "light AA"
  • suggest "due to the frequent need to frequently change the fifteen-round magazines"
  • there are a few conversions that would benefit from lboz conversions rather than decimal pounds
  • is it clear what combination Chūyō's 22 × 2.5 cm guns were in?
    • No, it might be that Chuyo retained her twin mounts, but I don't actually know.
  • "All three ships received their naval names on 31 August" 1942?
    • As mentioned in the preceding sentence.
  • do we know what sub torpedoed Taiyō on 24 September 1943?
    • Yes, but I don't bother with the names except for sinkings
  • is a redlink justified for Grand Escort Command?
  • do we know what sub torpedoed Un'yō on 19 January 1944?
  • a bit of inconsistency re Rasher, perhaps USS Rasher?
  • Note 3 appears to incorporate some OR, are these the conclusions of Jentschura, Jung & Mickel? Perhaps state that explicitly?
  • File:Japanese aircraft carrier Chūyō.jpg needs some English in the file information, which makes it hard to determine the licensing, same for File:Nitta-maru 1940.jpg
  • for consistency, Sturton should probably be Greenwich, UK
  • what makes Combinedfleet.com reliable?
    • Owned and operated by a published expert
  • the ELs could do with a cull.

That's me done. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Suggestion

@ Sturmvogel 66: Maybe you could specify somewhere that these are not to be confused with the Japanese aircraft carrier Taihō. L293D (  •  ) 13:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Good idea, ghod only knows how I can't keep Ryūhō and Ryūjō straight my own self.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taiyō-class escort carrier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) 08:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply


This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:

  • in the lead, "was a groupclass of three" and link ship class?
    • I think that would be too close proximity to "Taiyo-class"
  • also in the lead, "did much the same in 1942"
  • the infobox says Kampon turbines, but the body implies Mitsubishi?
  • the body and infobox don't match on displacement
  • the imperial draught conversions in the body are in decimals rather than ftin
  • the speed in the infobox doesn't reflect the body
  • suggest putting the lower range of the range in the body as in the infobox, rather than in a note
  • the aircraft lifts are also converted decimally rather than ftin
    • This type of conversion doesn't work with ftin
  • is there any explanation of why they weren't provided with arresting gear? Seems odd.
    • The IJN doesn't seem to have thought of them as escort carriers in the USN/RN mode, just aircraft transports or training carriers with slow training aircraft.
  • suggest "Her light AA consisted of eight license-built 2.5 cm (1 in) Type 96 light AA guns in four twin-gun mounts" to avoid repetition of "light AA"
  • suggest "due to the frequent need to frequently change the fifteen-round magazines"
  • there are a few conversions that would benefit from lboz conversions rather than decimal pounds
  • is it clear what combination Chūyō's 22 × 2.5 cm guns were in?
    • No, it might be that Chuyo retained her twin mounts, but I don't actually know.
  • "All three ships received their naval names on 31 August" 1942?
    • As mentioned in the preceding sentence.
  • do we know what sub torpedoed Taiyō on 24 September 1943?
    • Yes, but I don't bother with the names except for sinkings
  • is a redlink justified for Grand Escort Command?
  • do we know what sub torpedoed Un'yō on 19 January 1944?
  • a bit of inconsistency re Rasher, perhaps USS Rasher?
  • Note 3 appears to incorporate some OR, are these the conclusions of Jentschura, Jung & Mickel? Perhaps state that explicitly?
  • File:Japanese aircraft carrier Chūyō.jpg needs some English in the file information, which makes it hard to determine the licensing, same for File:Nitta-maru 1940.jpg
  • for consistency, Sturton should probably be Greenwich, UK
  • what makes Combinedfleet.com reliable?
    • Owned and operated by a published expert
  • the ELs could do with a cull.

That's me done. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook