Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Kumano Maru/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 07:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting change of pace! Will review shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Prelim

 * No duplicated links
 * Article is stable
 * Images correctly licensed. File:KumanoMaru-1945.jpg is a good close up of the vessel, shame it isn't included anymore
 * Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

 * Surprised Kumano Maru-class aircraft carrier isn't an article, we're pretty well-covered for even the most minor classes of WWII.
 * I've debated this with myself several times. For me it comes down to the fact that there's really not enough info available, IMO, to justify a separate article. This article would lose the introductory para and some details on the armament to the class article which also would gain the minimal info available on Kumano Maru's sister available since she was converted into a freighter after the war and scrapped in 1953. If you think that that would be enough to justify the class article, lemme know as it would be very easy to write.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds possible, mostly depending on what extra background there is to the decision-making and design phase of the project, and if her sister is notable. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Completion date differs between infobox and main text
 * Might be useful to split out the crew from the embarked troops

Background and description

 * While the acronym is introduced in the lede, suggest repeating Imperial Japanese Army for the first mention
 * For clarity: "the number of carriers available"?
 * The second paragraph could do a better job in explicitly saying that the Kumano Maru-class are the ships discussed in the previous paragraph
 * Link port
 * A bridge under the flight deck? I've very little experience with carriers. Was this usual?
 * Flush-decked carriers have very little choice in the matter because it's the highest available spot on the ship with a forward view. One of the older British carriers (Argus?) used a retractable pilothouse in the flight deck itself, but was not usable while aircraft were flying off.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What kind of embarked troops are we talking about? Ground crew or more general troopship duties?
 * While no precise breakdown is available, but I'd bet that most were actually troops for the landing craft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "M Type C landing ships" I see this was changed by an editor after your revamp of the article, is it accurate?
 * I've seen both used, which is why I didn't revert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any information on why these were landing craft carriers when the issue they were constructed for was anti-submarine warfare?
 * The earlier Akitsu Maru had a half-assed flight deck for aircraft that would fly off to support the amphibious landing, but could not land aboard. Reading between the lines, I think that the Kumano Marus were a compromise with the IJA to make the flight deck fully usable since the IJA wasn't going to bend on their desire for more landing craft carriers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, were the Kokusais meant to attack submarines or just spot them, being liaison aircraft?
 * They could carry small depth charges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "the remainder"?
 * Good catch--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Construction and careers

 * Is this meant to be "careers" or "career"?
 * "on 19 March during the American air raid on the Kure area on 19 March" repeated date
 * Was she damaged in the above attack?
 * The lede says "fuel shortages meant that the ship never became operational during the war" but main text doesn't explicitly say this, just that fuel shortages resulted in the consideration of a change in fuel
 * See last sentence in the first para of the Construction para.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggest including mention of the Japanese surrender in main text, right now the reader who misses out the lede isn't provided with any such context
 * Main text doesn't explicitly say that she was used for troop repatriation as the lede does, only that her funnel was changed in preparation for such duties
 * Fair--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, do we know what troop repatriation she undertook?
 * I wish. Only rarely have I ever seen which destinations that the ships went to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)