Talk:USS Munda/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Short but interesting article. I had no idea the US built so many escort carriers. I have a few comments:

Instead of the first two sentences, suggest one sentence: "USS Munda (CVE-104) was the last of 50 Casablanca-class escort carriers to be built for the United States Navy during World War II." with the appropriate links of course
suggest "She was named after the Battle of Munda Point, which occurred on New Georgia in the Solomon Islands in 1943"
Drop "Built for service during World War II" as you will have already explained that with the first sentence
link ceremonial ship launching and ship commissioning
suggest "and served as an aircraft transport and replenishment carrier in the Pacific"
suggest "Operation Magic Carpet, the repatriation of US forces from overseas."
link ship breaking
full stop after 1960

all dimensions in the infobox need to also be in the body, with citations. eg wl and extreme width
suggest putting lk=in for power to link kW in the conversion
state what sort of hp in the body, and perhaps pipe the link to the shp section of the hp article
installment→installation
in the Design and description section is says 27 aircraft capacity (I assume that is flight deck?), but she set sail with 71. Does a source provide a definitive maximum including the hangar deck? I suggest moving the aircraft capacity information to immediate after the catapult and elevator information as it fits better there. Also the infobox says only 27, which clearly isn't right

I believe 27 is for the hangar deck, as you probably need the flight deck to be clear in order to conduct operations. I haven't seen anything providing a good cap on the amount of aircraft one could conceivably fit in, and any such source would probably only exist in some sort of offline journal. If I had to guess, it would be around seventy, with possibly a couple more depending on how courageous the ship's captain happened to be.

for Anti-aircraft defense link Anti-aircraft warfare
per MOS, there should be a space between a calibre and mm, not a hyphen
"She was initially named after Tonowek Bay"
battle of Munda Point→Battle of Munda Point
"in the Solomon Islands, which was fought in July and August of that year."
link ship commissioning
link Shakedown cruise
Upon finishing, she was assigned to→She was then assigned to
delete "on board"
say Espiritu Santo was in the New Hebrides and link
"She then stopped at Finschhafen then Manus Island, both in the Territory of New Guinea"
is there any detail available on where she went during her other five runs?

Short of primary documents, which are probably floating around in some abandoned Navy drawer, the only real source is DANFs, which doesn't provide much clarification.

I would assume from the West Coast (doesn't make sense to single out a transit between islands), but DANFs doesn't specify.

There weren't any replenishment fleet carriers as far as I'm aware, so both terms are synonymous for the most part.

ShipbuildingHistory complements that of DANFs, in that they share the exact same dates and information. I only really use it because having all the data organized in a handy chart feels a lot more intuitive than slogging through DANFs articles.
Hazegray seems to be mostly the work of an "Andrew Toppan", and he's published a book and refers to himself as a "historian", but I can't find much on him. The source is mainly used in the absence of anything better, which is that of the ship being scrapped. The information provided is scarce, and I haven't seen anything that contradicts with Chesneau or DANFS. There is some curation, so it's better than nothing.

That's me done, placing on hold for the above to be addressed. I suggest addressing the issue of the reliability of the sources first, as if they are not reliable then the nomination is going to be questionable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 6 March 2020 (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 acceptably licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I should add that while the two identified sources might be ok at GAN, I wouldn't expect them to pass muster at Milhist ACR or FAC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply