Talk:Attacker-class escort carrier

Introduction
The introduction consists simply of sentences copy-pasted from the body, rather than being a distillation of the subject. Could the author rewrite it? I've removed some of the redundancy, but haven't really done justice to it.--Anon423 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusing
The U-366 was sunk by the same combination of Fairey Swordfish and RP-3 rocket on the 5 March,[15] and the U-973 on the 6 March 1944, three other U-boats sighted managed to evade an attack in the foggy conditions.[20][21]

Can someone, preferably the author, clean that up?--Anon423 (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Style
While I'm addressing the grammatical/syntax issues, there are deeper, more fundamental issues with the style and organization of this piece that want clean-up. Some parts read like a list, and overall the article seems to need cohesion.--Anon423 (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Poolman reference
I don't have a copy of the book, and what I can find on Google, some of the things mentioned seem to refer to later Ruler class ships, such as conversion in Canada. The book I have and online references seem to show that the Attacker class were refit in Great Britain, most likely Liverpool. I have removed the section in question. If someone can provide me with evidence to the contrary I will gladly replace the information.Pennsy22 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Bogue-class
Attacker is just a sub-class of Bogue?

We have articles covering the main class (Bogue) and the sub-classes Attacker, Ruler and Prince Wiliam. I was wondering if the sub-class articles should all be called up as Bogue-class escort carriers in the info box? Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)