Talk:Taiyō-class escort carrier

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)

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)

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)

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
  • I think that you're looking at the pre-conversion stats
    • No, one says 18,116 and the other says 18,120. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

• • Thanks for your usual thorough review. See if all of my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Peacemaker67 Ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
      • There's just that displacement thing I noted above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Ah, sorry, I'd missed that. Damn rounding errors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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)