Talk:USS South Dakota (BB-57)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 08:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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

• suggest implementing common issues from Talk:USS Alabama (BB-60)/GA1
  • I think I've got them all - it had occurred to me to do that before, but apparently forgot to actually do it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• suggest "controlled battleships construction"
  • Good catch
• the conversion of 16 in isn't consistent between the body and infobox
  • Fixed
• suggest changing 16"/45 caliber Mark 6 guns to 16 in, and 1.1" to 1.1 in
  • Done
• no conversion of 5 in in the body, you could probably drop the .0 off the conversion in the infobox
  • Done
• 1.1"/75 caliber guns
  • Done
• put the quad 1.1 in guns in the infobox
  • Good catch
• the deck, turret and barbette armour conversions don't round the same
  • Should be good now
• you could drop the conversion from the conning tower in the body, as you've already established what it is for 16 in
  • Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• suggest "additions to her anti-aircraft battery"
  • Fixed
• suggest "two of her 1.1 in gunsquadruple mounts"
  • Done
• "thirteen more 40 mm quadruple"
  • Fixed
• suggest introducing (RAdm) at first mention in full then using it throughout
  • Good idea
• "She evaded the torpedoes", I assume they launched more than one?
  • Indeed
• Was Gatch on the flying bridge when he was wounded? Seems weird that he was wounded if he was behind glass.
  • Clarified

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• should the subsection heading be "Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal"?
  • I suppose it should
• rank for Shintarō Hashimoto?
  • Added
• the sentence beginning "At around 23:00 on 14 November..." would benefit from being split up
  • Done
• comma after Benham
  • Done
• inadvertenly
  • Fixed
• you don't need to convert 14 in as it has been converted before
  • Good catch
• the sentence beginning "Despite the numerous hits,..." is a bit of a repetition of earlier info about the damage. Suggest a trim.
  • That section got rewritten so many times as I worked through the DANFS material, then Frank, and then Hornfischer (and trying to figure out a one-hour time difference between DANFS and the other two for some unknown reason)
• perhaps mention that Gwin was a destroyer
  • Done
• "headed to Nukuʻalofa and escorted"
  • Done
• was Gatch's relief just routine, or was it related to his ship's performance in the recent battle?
  • That I don't know - DANFS doesn't say (not that I'd expect it to, frankly) and none of the sources on the battle commented on it either, but our bio doesn't exactly paint a pretty picture of him. And given that he held no further sea-going commands and retired four years later, I'd guess it was more the latter than the former.
• suggest "included the battleships Alabama, Washington, North Carolina" as North Carolina hasn't been introduced by type as yet
  • Works for me
• TG 37.2, Third Fleet I assume?
  • Yeah
• "The ships met two carriers" which carriers?
  • Added
• comma after "departed on 23 January"
  • Done
• link Fifth Fleet, and perhaps also mention earlier that the 50-range TFs/TGs were Fifth Fleet
  • Added, but some of the earlier 50-range units predated the creation of 5th Fleet
• say that Hollandia was in the NEI
  • Added a link to New Guinea
• intro CAP when combat air patrol is introduced
  • Done
• comma after "with shore bombardment"
  • Done
• "While the Japanese were approaching"
  • Done
• suggest "6 nautical miles (11 km; 6.9 mi) widein diameter, as two instances of "wide" currently
  • Good idea
• "but observers aboard Alabama stated that"
  • Done
• suggest "248 wounded mensoldiers"
  • Done
• say Seeadler Harbor is on Manus Island, New Guinea
  • Done
• might be worth specifying USS Canberra, as there was the County-class cruiser HMAS Canberra she was named after
  • Sure
• "the two closed aircraft"?
  • Whoops
• after stating that 1st Mobile Fleet had been renamed, we use 1st Mobile Fleet again
  • It wasn't renamed, just referred to as the Northern Force for the operation - Halsey didn't know what Kurita and Ozawa were calling their units ;)
• suggest "Halsey detached the battleships Iowa and New Jersey"
  • Done
• "approached the following forming"?
  • Who knows what the fingers type sometimes...
• Hanson moves to Wisconsin then does it again?
  • It's somewhat tricky - Wisconsin nominally replaced South Dakota as the flagship of BatDiv 9 on 1 November, but the former didn't actually arrive until 18 November, when Hanson actually left South Dakota
• where was the offensive of the XXIV Army Corps?
  • Clarified
• "arriving there the next day" where?
  • Fixed
• John F. Shafroth redlink?
  • I had left it because there is a John F. Shafroth - seems it was his son
• "from Leyte on 1 Juy"
  • Fixed
• hyphenate "two and a half"
  • Done
• "flagship of the Fourth Fleet"
  • Done
• OCLCs are available at Worldcat for the Evans sources
  • Are they for those pages? Or are they for the generic DANFS? If the latter, they're probably for old dead-tree versions that are significantly shorter than what Evans wrote
• some isbns are hyphenated, some are not
  • All fixed and standardized on 13-digits as well

Just a check of image licensing to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Do we know the source used to put together the force movements on the maps: File:Naval battle of Guadalcanal, November 14, 1942.png and File:Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, November 14-15, 1942.png?
  • No, but they conform to maps in Frank - I can add citations to the image description pages. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• The image licensing looks fine.

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) 02:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)