# Talk:USS Bismarck Sea

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Bismarck Sea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this review. Nice to see articles about the smaller WWII USN ships being improved. 

Alikula Bay is misspelled throughout the article per DANFS as the original ship name (and a contemporary newspaper source spells the ship name as Alikula), though BGN does acknowledge Akikula as an alternate name for Alikula Bay here.
Right, fixed.
Lead

The lead should be expanded to incorporate generalized construction dates and more service details before her sinking. As it stands currently, it jumps straight from the name to the sinking.
I'm trying to avoid repeating parts covered in construction, but I've added a bit more about service.
Mention that she was the last US carrier sunk by enemy action in the body and move the cite to that mention as that she was the last sunk due to enemy action is not an extraordinary claim and does not need to be cited in the lead. After this is passed at GA, you can nominate this article for WP:DYK based on the fact that she was last US carrier sunk in WWII and by enemy action
Yeah, you're probably right. Part of me wants to keep it in the lead, because it is notable that there weren't any further CVE shipwrecks in Okinawa.
Apologies for my being unclear. I meant that the ref should be taken out of lead but that you should keep the mention of being the last  US aircraft carrier sunk by enemy action there (essentially mention both in lead and in body). Kges1901 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
so far --> to date.
Done.
Infobox

An example of a possibly more elegant way of explaining the renaming in the infobox can be seen at Soviet destroyer Baku
She had a really short service history, she only was in action for about 3 months, so there's not much to work with besides the sinking. I've tried to model it, the best I can.
I must have been unclear on this, so I have made the minor changes myself as this isn't worth holding up promotion with.
The ship was primarily named for the Battle of the Bismarck Sea per the DANFS entry for Alikula Bay so the link in the namesake parameter should be to the battle, not the body of water
Done.
The ordered: parameter is typically used for the date the ship was ordered (which you have under awarded:). The exact detail of the hull type seems too detailed for the infobox
In Template:Infobox ship career/doc, "awarded" seems to be a bit more specific, and the difference between "awarded" and "ordered" seems rather slim. The infobox is using "awarded" because I feel as if it's more specific, being limited to USN ships.
That's ok, my error.
MC hull 1132 in the infobox can go under the yard number parameter
Done.
Battle stars can go under the honors and awards parameter
Done.
Generally exact causes of sinkings have not been included in the fate section of infoboxes, suggest Sunk during the Battle of Iwo Jima, 21 February 1945
Done.
If you can mention all of the details under the General characteristics section in the infobox in the design and description section, you can dispense with the infobox citations (citations in the infobox are generally frowned upon unless for extremely controversial cases such as battle casualty counts where those are disputed)
Done.
In the design section, the installed power, number of shafts, complement, aircraft elevators, catapults, and difference between the design and ultimate armament should be mentioned. Good examples of what to mention in a design section are USS_North_Carolina_(BB-55)#Design for a general example and USS_Hornet_(CV-12)#Design_and_description for another carrier. Kges1901 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The service record section is generally not used, as battle stars tend to go under the honors and awards parameter
Done.
Description

Suggest renaming this as "Design and description"
Already done so.
Suggest briefly mentioning the purpose/mission of the escort carriers in this section (one or two sentences will do)
Done.
and displaced - redundant 'displaced'
Done.
assuming that it traveled it --> she
Done.
Location of the 5" gun is mentioned but not the AA guns
Done.
Mention Wildcat and Avenger as common names of the FM-2 and TBM-3
Done.
As a general note, gun calibers should be converted to meters on first mention in the body of the article
Only mention of a gun caliber in imperial units is the 5" gun, which doesn't convert well into metric, and is only mentioned once.
Generally a profile view of the ship is included in this section, suggest using File:Inboard and outboard profiles of a Casablanca-class escort carrier, 1946.png here.
Done.
Construction'

In general, USN ship articles should be worded away from being copied from DANFS, so some examples of ways that you can rephrase the laid down...launched...commissioned bit are here and here.
There are some variations, and there isn't much wiggle room with the dates to work with. I've gotten rid of some of the semicolons, and made it a bit wordier, but there isn't much I can do without significantly detracting from the essentials.
Mention contract award date in this section
Done.
Bismarck Sea was a Casablanca-class escort carrier, the most numerous class of aircraft carriers ever built, and designed specifically to be mass-produced for the United States Navy. - Unnecessarily repetitive of text in the Description section
Strange. Probably just a bad cut-and-paste job by me.
If the name of Wallgren's wife isn't known, the mention could just be sponsored by the wife
There's this, which gives her name.
The meaning of the names can be briefly mentioned here
I've elaborated further.
The construction section can be combined under the service section and the service section renamed 'Construction and service' or similar as there aren't enough details here for a standalone section
I suppose so.
Service History

Every paragraph needs an inline citation; good job paraphrasing DANFS
Done, but mostly just DANFS.
ferrying aircraft to  --> ferrying aircraft and pilots to per DANFS
Done.
DANFS says she was covering convoy movements east of Mindanao in early November, not off Leyte
Y'Blood's book states that the task group stayed to the east of the Philippines to cover convoys supplying the Leyte area, which was being harrassed by aircraft from Mindanao.
Is there any information available on what squadrons she embarked?
I have no idea what sort of units she transported, but her aircraft contingent was VC-86.
I was also unclear here, but your addition satisfies my question. Kges1901 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Link Calvin T. Durgin, spell out his full name on first mention
Done.
Bennion could just be mentioned as 'a destroyer'
It's more specific, and I don't see any disadvantages to the detail.
supplemented the strike group with four Avengers and four Wildcats --> supplemented with four Avengers and the same number of Wildcats
Done.
Is it known if any of the Bismarck Sea-launched aircraft scored hits on either destroyer?
Nope.
, and the aerial strike force inflicted serious damage on both of the destroyers, sinking Momi. --> suggest splitting the sentence at The aerial strike force...
Done.
DANFS implies she was part of TG 52.2 during Iwo Jima
Clarified.
heavy role --> major role
Done.
The amount of detail on the formation of the Kamikaze units does not appear relevant and could be condensed into the next paragraph by briefly mentioning that the Kamikaze attacks were an attempt to counter the invasion
The amount of planes and their origins are somewhat relevant, but I've cut down on it a bit.
On 16 February 1945 - Unnecessary repetition of the year date
Reformatted.
eleven of her crew was --> eleven of her crew were
Done.
There were no fatalities. She was able to continue operating in support of troops on Iwo Jima. - Suggest combining these sentences.
Done.
rendered dysfunctional - More specificity needed here. Was the rudder jammed or was she dead in the water?
No idea, only states that steering control was lost.
Note that Lawrence C. Taylor was a DE, Helm was a DD, and  Dickens and Highlands were attack transports
Done.
Note that the other ships you mentioned being damaged were also on the same day
Done.
How many Japanese pilots were killed in the attacks on 21 Feb is not really relevant to the ship history
It's just a sentence, and it highlights their impact to me.
Suggest mentioning the date of being struck here by adding , and was struck from the Navy List on 30 March. after Bismarck Sea was the only ship to sink as a result of the attacks -->
Done.
Awards section is too short, suggest merging in at the end of the service history; perhaps it could be mentioned what operations the stars were for
It's already in the infobox, so I've just dispensed with it altogether.
Sources

If you rephrase the text such that there are no substantial verbatim copies of DANFS sentences remaining, you can dispense with  Template:PD-notice
Done.
Peter C. Smith's name is misspelled on Google books, it seems pretty clear from his Wikipedia article and the book cover that he spells his last name as 'Smith' not 'Smiyh'
Done.
Overlinking of Annapolis
Done.
Inconsistent linking of publishers
Not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify?
That's me done. Overall, this article was an excellent read and I applaud you taking the time to expand and rewrite these USN articles. Kges1901 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kges1901: I think I've addressed most of your points. Please respond with anything that merits tweaking. Thanks, Stikkyy  t/c 22:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I’d like to know who wrote the Wikipedia article. It mentions my wife’s father and I’d like to know why. He never spoke of it 2600:4040:7FDA:3600:5913:E08F:B7A1:140D (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Presuming this about the mention of Shull, I haven't been able to verify yet per the sources if he was mentioned. Sarsenet (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I was not able to verify the added information, and have since removed it. Sarsenet (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Will Shull was a surviving airman on the Bismark Sea. I wondered about the source of the comment that appeared in the earlier version 2601:8A:4000:C5C0:EC25:129E:4004:891C (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It was @Peanutgrandmom, who has not edited since. I am unsure of where they found Shull's name related to this topic, as it was not mentioned in the already-present citations. Sarsenet (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The current intro paragraph includes: "Notably, she was the last aircraft carrier in U.S. service to sink due to enemy action."
However, the Attack on USNS Card in 1964 was a commando action rather than naval assault, but it did result in the sinking of an escort carrier. 
Should this be amended? John Kim (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@John.h.kim: I'm a bit late, but good catch. Stikkyy  t/c 18:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)