Talk:USS Portland (CA-33)/GA1
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ed! in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Always try to remember to tell the reader what type of ship a given ship is, even if you've linked it. So aircraft carrier Yorktown, etc. Clicking through gets tedious when there are a lot of ship names in an article. The ship type generally suffices for readers not that curious.
- Screened for Yorktown reads oddly to me. Perhaps escorted?
- Start a new sentence at the comma that begins something like: The torpedoes heavily damaged her or somesuch.
- Reword this (too many campaigns) conducting shore bombardments in support of campaigns at the Aleutian Islands campaign, Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign, Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, and New Guinea campaign.
- She stayed at Okinawa for the rest of the war? supported landings during the Battle of Okinawa until the end of the war.
- No bullets in the infobox. Use breaks or plain list template
- Fix the quotation marks around Sweet Pea.
- I reworked the infobox to suit my preferences. I like the default triple conversion for nautical miles and knots so I restored that as well as linking a bunch of terms and I moved the relevant data to the newish ship power entry
- Looks good. —Ed!(talk) 03:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Convert the amount of fuel oil in the infobox.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 03:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you using metric tons in the infobox and description? They should be long tons for an American ship. Short tons are not needed. The proper code for the convert template is "LT|t"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 03:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- What date is the data in the infobox valid? As built?
- Yes. Put this in. —Ed!(talk) 03:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I moved this to the header where it will be more prominent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Put this in. —Ed!(talk) 03:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're discussing a hell of a lot more than just construction in the first section. I suggest renaming it to Design and description and the 2nd section to Construction and service or somesuch.
- Link treaty cruiser
- You swapped the definitions of CA and CL in the first para of the construction section.
- Fix Portland's displacement. In the template you've got t instead of LT. And specify that the displacement when completed is standard and not full load.
- Change naval director to gunnery director or fire-control director. That term should be abolished from wiki as I've never seen it used anywhere else.
- What are Parsons GT geared turbines? Some Parsons model number?
- As far as I can tell, yes. —Ed!(talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fix this: and she speed of 32 knots this: her anti-aircraft defenses of both ships were upgraded and this and 3.25 inches (83 mm) and in thickness.
- Bilge keels should be plural (one on each side of the hull)
- Move her range sentence after all of her speed sentences.
- I'm about 99% certain that the 3 pound Hotchkiss guns were saluting guns, not AA.
- Surely the ship had her AA defenses upgraded before 1945? You'll probably have to thumb through Friedman though to track any refits. Do you have access to Friedman's book on US cruisers? It's kind of a necessity if you want to work on any other cruiser articles.
- Actually, she didn't. Lack of good anti-aircraft armament was a deficiency of the class for much it WWII. She actually even tried to use her main guns at one point at Guadalcanal. —Ed!(talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- What does "these" refer to? but during construction these were substantially up-armored
- What kind of bulkheads. Transverse or longitudinal?
- Change this up some. Armor on the bulkheads was between 2 inches (51 mm) and 5.75 inches (146 mm), while armor on the deck was 2.5 inches (64 mm), armor on the barbettes was 1.5 inches (38 mm), armor on the gunhouses was 2.5 inches (64 mm), and armor on the conning tower was 1.25 inches (32 mm). See any FA-class warship article for some ideas for better language. And how is deck armor in the infobox 2+2 inches, but only 2.5 inches in the main body? Actually there are some other differences between the two in the armor section that need to be fixed as well.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not enough and make sure that the data in the two sections matches.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hyphenate Portland class as it's a compound adjective: Portland class cruisers
- Reword this bit as you're using "space" too many times: cruisers were designed with space to be outfitted as fleet flagships, with space for an Admiral
- Combine these two sentences: The class also featured an aircraft catapult amidships.[3] She could carry four aircraft. Did she have a hangar for her aircraft?
- This is awkward: Her total crew complement varied, with a regular designed crew complement of 848, a wartime complement of 952, which could increase to 1,229 when the cruiser was operating as a fleet flagship.
- How is this (The hull and machinery was provided by the builders.) possible if she had Yarrow boilers and Parsons turbines?
- It sounds like the builder had already procured some of the equipment for another contract but it was then re-purposed. —Ed!(talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Who is Ralph D. Brooks? Mayor?
- Sources don't specify. —Ed!(talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bethlehem Steel at Quincy Shipyard "its" Quincy Shipyard
- More later. BTW, if you're working on articles on other ships in this class, I suspect that all of these changes will need to be made there as well. I'd suggest copy-pasting this once we're done with it and then making all the necessary changes to suit each individual ship.
- Thanks. I'll apply these changes to Indianapolis after the GA is done. —Ed!(talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Link and capitalize Fiscal Year since you're specifying a specific one.
- Fix this: She rolled badly until fitted with a bilge keels
- Too many "ands"; mix up the verbiage She was equipped with four propeller shafts and four Parsons GT geared turbines and eight Yarrow boilers Perhaps something like: "Her four turbines each drove a propeller shaft using steam provided by eight boilers"
- a superfiring pair fore and one aft Superfiring pair "forward"
- Fix this: her anti-aircraft defenses of both ships were upgraded and this caslauties herself
- Link hangar, drydock.
- Akron, which was down at sea Do you mean crashed?
- Prewar section is a little light. Do you have any info on places visited, participation in fleet maneuvers, etc?
- I have to imagine it took part in the fleet problems, but I can't find any references specifically mentioning the name of this ship in any of the operations. —Ed!(talk) 14:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- What carrier was Portland assigned to escort on 7 December?
- What did she do when she operated between the West Coast, Hawaii, and Fiji? If she escorted convoys and carriers or whatever, then say so.
- Move the link for aircraft carrier to its first occurrence in the lede.
- Don't care who commanded Yorktown, nor do I care about coordinates. Your rough locations are sufficient.
- Change "alongside" to "together with"
- You already told me that it was a carrier so change that word here to "ship". And, if you're going to use she for ships, then be consistent about it.after fires on that carrier became uncontrollable it was abandoned and sunk.
- What's a splinter shield?
- Not sure myself, but I see a ton of references to splinter shields in other ship articles. Am redlinking it. —Ed!(talk) 14:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Missing the word "fired" Shortly thereafter, Portland was struck by a torpedo by either the destroyer Inazuma or the destroyer Ikazuchi at 01:58
- What the quarter?
- Casualty? Do you mean problem?
- Tell the reader how. She was eventually able to withdraw on her own power.
- Missing some "the"s here: From there, she was towed to Sydney, Australia by tugboat Navajo and escorted by destroyers Meade and Zane
- Link overhaul; you'll need to find it on Wikitionary.
- The sailors were on leave, not the ship: crew died in accidents during this leave More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me; the problem is that there's no previous mention of leave anywhere. You need to say that the crew was given leave and that some of them died during it.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you know how long she was actually under repair at Mare Island?
- No, only when she went in and when the began the post-repair activities. —Ed!(talk) 21:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fix this: Parry Island ahead of 19 February landings
- Streamline this: She then moved to screen carriers to something like "She then screened carriers..."
- Too many uses of "steamed" in the 1943-1944 section
- Missing an "an" here: Mare Island for more extensive overhaul
- Huh? providing support artillery clearing positions
- Capitalize Allied. Conversely, don't capitalize "the" in The Philippines
- Need a preposition here: Seeadler Harbor, Manus Island
- What battleship, only mention Mogami before this She continued firing on the battleship for
- She supported troops participating in the campaign, not the campaign itself in support of the Okinawa campaign
- Wouldn't "endured" be better than your "underwent"
- Too many "before"s and an unnecessary comma: ground forces before, departing on 17 June for maintenance at Leyte before
- Have you given a link for naval gunfire support or shore bombardment anywhere?
- Forgot something here: The crossed the Panama Canal
- Surplus comma: Union Mineral and Alloys Corp., in New York
- Need a comma or a preposition here: Fort Allen Park Portland
- Howabout "making" rather than your "placing"
- DANFS is online and should be linked. Also fix its title capitalization and formatting to match other cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Still a couple things left:
- This is really awkward and not literally true. Artillery supports a ground advance, it can't blast a hole by itself without prodigious expenditure of ammo. providing support artillery which cleared Japanese ground positions to allow the advance of Allied forces
- Reworded to be a little more generic. —Ed!(talk) 16:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Still have the leave issue mentioned above unresolved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed it. —Ed!(talk) 16:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please review all of my comments; there are still some unresolved issues, like use of metric tons, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK. I think I've finally fixed all of your comments. —Ed!(talk) 00:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Almost. This is still a problem (copied from above):
- Change this up some. Armor on the bulkheads was between 2 inches (51 mm) and 5.75 inches (146 mm), while armor on the deck was 2.5 inches (64 mm), armor on the barbettes was 1.5 inches (38 mm), armor on the gunhouses was 2.5 inches (64 mm), and armor on the conning tower was 1.25 inches (32 mm). See any FA-class warship article for some ideas for better language. And how is deck armor in the infobox 2+2 inches, but only 2.5 inches in the main body? Actually there are some other differences between the two in the armor section that need to be fixed as well.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Not enough and make sure that the data in the two sections matches.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- You were using she way too often in the design section. I rotate "she", "the ship", and "name" to avoid monotony and I fixed most of that section for you. Read through the article and see if you're doing the same thing elsewhere.
- BTW, if you want to take any of your cruiser articles to FAC, I'd advise you to get a hold of Friedman as he's got info on refits, dates, radars, etc., that you'd need there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I reworded this graph to improve the flow, and checked the infobox and graph to make sure the numbers matched. —Ed!(talk) 03:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Did you forget to save the changes? The last three edits in the history are mine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've done it again. I don't see any flow problems with this graph now. —Ed!(talk) 17:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)