Talk:USS Hoggatt Bay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 17:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take this one. Feel free to challenge or correct any of my comments!

Prelim

Earwig reports no copyvio
Duplicated links: kamikaze, Invasion of Lingayen Gulf, United States Navy, Atlantic Reserve Fleet
No edit wars
Images are correctly licensed. I particularly like File:Heavy Seas on the USS Hoggatt Bay (CVE-75) 5 December 1945 2.jpg!

Lede and infobox

"Later, Hoggatt would serve as the sixth governor of Alaska between 1906 and 1909." this seems completely irrelevant to the subject at hand
Why is the "...Type S4-S2-BB3..." order not part of the main text? Seems like a useful thing to describe
Stupidly minor, but is it "Kaiser Shipyards" or "Kaiser Shipbuilding Company"?

* It makes sense for a contract to be awarded to a company, and then for that company's shipyards to do the actual construction.

Add May to the scrapping date
Boiler information not in main text? (it's cited in the infobox, just wondering what your reasoning is), ibid complement
You say two shafts in the text but two screws in the infobox; might want to change to one or the other for the benefit of those less technically-minded readers!
Assume the "30 × Oerlikon anti-aircraft cannons" are 20 mms, this could be clarified so that people don't think they're a different type when reading infobox
Having been commissioned in 1944, how could she have started her service in the United States Pacific Fleet in 1943?

Design and description

Link escort carriers
Don't abbreviate feet, inches, etc, in main text
Link reciprocating steam engines
Link shafts/screws
Link stern
Do you need to state that the bofors were in single mounts?

* I think it's somewhat useful in emphasizing that there were eight gunwells prior to modification, and eight gunwells after. Without specifying, it might be reasonable to assume that four Bofors gunwells got tacked on.

"thirty 20 mm (0.79 in) cannons" note that these are still oerlikons?

Construction

(MC) after "Maritime Commission" to make later abbreviation clear
"She therefore" therefore seems out of place here, there's nothing explanatory about this sentence
Link shipwright
Suggest replacing one of the semi colons in the last sentence with "and"

Service history

Link outfitting
Did she fit out at the NAS or at U.S. Naval Ship Yard Tongue Point, as the NAS article says escort carriers did?
Why is composite squadron abbreviated as VC? (just interested!)

* V = "heavier than air / basically aircraft rather than blimps, C = Composite.

You've introduced Saunders already, no need to give his rank each time; also later similar examples
"She spent April undergoing overhaul" this seems awkwardly phrased to me, perhaps "she spent April undergoing an overhaul" or "being overhauled"?
"Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago", ibid for all mentions "of" islands

Marianas and Palau Islands campaign

"CortDiv" is this an abbreviation? If so should be changed for the full name
Quotation marks seems unnecessary for "NA line"
"Hoggatt Bay's escorts" what ships are these escorts?
Does Hoggatt Bay play any role in the actions described in the paragraph starting "Early in the morning..."? If not, as it seems, then this could be at most trimmed to be a single sentence
"posted" this is a strange turn of phrase, is it not?
"light globes"?
Replace "she" with Hoggatt Bay at beginning of paragraph starting "After replenishing..."
"a procedure that was halted"?
"Task Group 30.7" what's this? You haven't mentioned it before, is there more to it than Hoggatt Bay and the noted escorts?
"Steele, Bebas, Samuel S. Miles, and Seid" why not note their classes as you do for previous ship introductions?
"in the planned" saying the battles were planned seems unecessary, why not "protecting the various ships engaged in the battle..."?
Are the three images of gunnery practice necessary? One on the left or right of the article seems appropriate, but having three very similar images in a gallery like this seems unnecessary
Link starboard

Philippines campaign

"at least one attempt to strike..." is there a date or any specifics available for this action?

* Nothing asides from some generalized indications of being menaced by submarines.

"Captain Josephus Asa Briggs raised his flag over Hoggatt Bay" is this a change in captain or something else? As a captain he would have no flag to fly.
"Task Force 77" you haven't noted when, or even that, she had joined this task force
"the first of many kamikaze attacks" this reads a little like this was the first kamikaze attack full stop. Perhaps "the formation was attacked for the first time by a kamikaze..."?
Assume Tulagi is part of her task group but you haven't introduced her as such; also include her class/designation?
"skipper" is somewhat informal, replace with commander/leader?

Battle of Okinawa

"kn" and "yd"; repeat request that these types of abbreviations are removed
Same query with Sargent Bay and Natoma Bay as with Tulagi

Post-war

"off of Samar" > "off Samar"
"she left for Adak, Alaska" can you say why?
"had received" Hoggatt Bay departs on 31 August and the surrender in on 6 September, so the "had" is unecessary
"American prisoners of war" ex-prisoners of war?
"was evacuated onto Hoggatt Bay" why?
"The following day, she put into Richmond" remove comma
"Magic Carpet" quotation marks unnecessary
"Her second "Magic Carpet" trip" no need to repeat that it's a magic carpet trip
"She was discharged..." is this also 30 January? Could be clarified
Link helicopter carrier
Link broken up

Sources

What is the provenance of World Aircraft Carriers List?

* My understanding is that Hazegray is marginally acceptable for GA, and the article only uses it for when/where the ship was broken up.

The recommended citation for The story of USS Hoggatt Bay (first page of source) has the author as the United States Navy
If you keep reference #3 it needs a retrieval date

That's all I have for now, will await your responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgille-Cunliffe: I've addressed your points. Stikkyy t/c 06:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Stikkyy t/c 06:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stikkyy I've made a small amount of hopefully uncontroversial edits to help clean up a few minor leftovers. With that in mind I'm happy to pass this article as satisfying the good article criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]