Talk:USS Lunga Point

Someone has previously denied that text here is a copyvio. But there are a number of odd typos (some of which I've corrected) which might be consistent with it having been scanned in from some published source. Maybe the earlier editors could comment on this? rossb 10:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look at the source information at the bottom of the page. It is from the PUBLIC DOMAIN Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. David Newton 08:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Lunga Point/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Stikkyy I appreciated you want to make this article a GA-class, but, we've some little issues here. First both "Okinawa" and "Post-War" needs a citation at the end of every paragraph. Second I think this article needs a "Design and description" with the general characteristics from the infobox in the section. Right now the general characteristics do not have citations which are linked to the sources. It looks in my eyes that the general characteristics are Wikipedia:OR. As of last big issue, why is there an @ in the Range in the infobox? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: The "@" represents at, other Casablanca-class carriers also have the 15 knots in their range, since you can't reasonably expect them to stay at their top speed. Unsure why it's represented as a symbol, none of the others have it. I'll get rid of it. The "Okinawa" and "Post-War" sections are basically verbatim to DANFS, which is public domain, and is cited. Stikkyy t/c 19:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'll wait until you are done with the major issues. In the meanwhile, I will make it "on hold" ping me when you think are done. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: I've tried addressing some of the issues that you pointed out, how does it look? Stikkyy t/c 00:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• It looks a lot of better I'll have the full review tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Review

• I think because it is a short article with only 20,000 bytes every subject with an article and is linked to this article should be linked only once.

• Link spam reduced.

• Maybe add some information in the lead like the original name, the year when she changed her name, her carrier in the WWII and post-war era.

• Done

• 10,902 long tons (11,077 t) with a full load. Link full load here.

• Done

• The ship had a cruising range of 10,240 nautical miles Change "the ship" with "she".

• Done

• constant speed of 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph).[3][2] Suggest to re-order citations in numerical order.

• Done

• was mounted on the stern, and she Link stern here.

• Done

• Try not to use the word "however" that much. I can see three "howevers" in this nomination which is a lot in my view.

• Reduced to 2

• and a TBM-3P reconnaissance plane, for a total of 30 aircraft.[5][6][2] Suggest to re-order citations in numerical order.

• Done

• The escort carrier was laid down on 19 January 1944 I think we should use "she" here again instead of "the escort carrier".

• Done

• on 14 May 1944, Captain G. A. T. Washburn in command.[7][1] Suggest to re-order citations in numerical order.

• Done

• brief training during the early summer of 1944 Try to avoid the use of seasons here per MOS:SEASON.

• We don't have specifics here, so I'm just working off of DANFS, which is the only source about training exercises and the sort.

• alongside fellow sister ships Makin Island, Bismarck Sea, Salamaua, and Hoggatt Bay. Maybe add her before "fellow".

• Done

• From 13 November to 22 November, she provided Maybe remove the first "November" here.

• Done

• to Manus Island, Admiralty Islands, to prepare for the Luzon campaign. Link the Luzon campaign here instead of linking Luzon.

• Done

• For the next few day, her You mean "days"?

• Done

• off Lingayen Gulf on 6 January, and Remove the comma here.

• Done

• She quickly sank, with the loss of 95 crewmen. [9] No space between "crewmen" and the citation.

• Done

• supporting their landings on 19 February. This paragraph needs a citation.

• Done

• On 16 February 1945, Vice-Admiral Kimpei Teroaka British Vice-Admiral.

• Japanese rank is the equivalent of vice-admiral, don't really see the issue here.

• shipping sweep along the China coast Unlink China because of common term.

• Done

• Change the name of the "Post-War" section to "PostWar".

• Done

• Do we know what happened to her between 1946 and 1960?

Nope. Some articles get lucky in that you have books like this as a source, but escort carriers are ultimately unimportant, and therefore you just get data.

• Do we know how many men she had as her crew?

Hard to tell, you really only get exact figures when a ship sinks.

• "Lunga Point (1944-1960)" --> "Lunga Point (1944–1960)" in the infobox.

• Done

• Link "full load" in the infobox.

• Done

• Link "kW" in the infobox.

Breaks the template's unit conversion, unfortunately.

• The body of the article doesn't tell us that she had a catapult two elevators.

• Done

• "United States Pacific Fleet (1944-1946), Pacific Reserve Fleet (1946-1960)" --> "United States Pacific Fleet (1944–1946), Pacific Reserve Fleet (1946–1960)" in the infobox

• Done

• It's not necessary to add operations in the infobox.

• It's more information, not a real problem for me.

• Citation 3, "p. 34-35" --> "pp. 34–35".

• Done

• Citation 8, "p. 279-280" --> "pp. 279–280".

• Done

• Citation 11, "p. 292-297" --> "pp. 292–297".

• Done

• Citation 13, "p. 178-179" --> "pp. 178–179".

• Done

Source review

• Optional: we better can separate the websites' sources and the books here. Maybe split the section and add an "Online sources" section and change the "sources" section in a "Bibliography" section.

• Done

• I think we better can add archives in the online sources to be sure that they wouldn't become dead links.

• Done

• The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships source's title should be "Lunga Point (CVE-94)" not "Lunga Point".

• Done

• Add Robert Gardiner as an author in Chesneau's book.

• Done

• The book as above, WorldCat claims that it was made in London instead of Annapolis, Maryland?

• Done

• Optional: it is not necessary to link locations and companies in the references.

• I suppose so, but it's more work to remove.

• May I ask you why WorldCat says to me that it was published first in New York instead of Abingdon-on-Thames?

• I'm basically pulling locations and publishers from Google Books. Probably different in WorldCat.

• And as of last if Y'Blood's book is an e-book then I think we should add "e-book" in it if the pages are really different.

• Done

Image review Looks fine to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I will have a source and image reviews tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I should note that for this book and for Conway's, I'm using an e-book with adjustable font sizes and no page numbering. I haven't fiddled with font sizes, as far as I'm aware. (although I just noticed that for the first book, my e-book and Google books has a different amount of pages, oh gosh...) Stikkyy t/c 23:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: I implemented your suggestions, and for clarification, is the "|location" parameter for the publisher's or the author's location? Naval Institute Press is based in Annapolis, hence why I set that to the location. Thanks, Stikkyy t/c 21:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think the location of the puplisher. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hey Stikky just let you know that this one is still ongoing? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Yes, what of it? Stikkyy t/c 22:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not of all my comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: I put a response to each of your points. Please highlight any that you think merit further contributions. Thanks, Stikkyy t/c 23:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying that fast Stikky. I think we're almost done here. The only think we need to do is remove "(CVE-94)" in the lead and add "(CVE-94)" in the title of the article most articles use this kind of methode. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: It actually got moved from that title to its current title., per WP:NC-SHIPS. Stikkyy t/c 20:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oh BB did it, I see. Well that were all of my comments they are all adressed so I'm happy to promote this one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)