Wikipedia

Talk:USS Boxer (CV-21)/GA1

< Talk:USS Boxer (CV-21)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Ealdgyth in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago33 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll be reviewing this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Just a few niggles
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
  • General note - I suspect this is headed towards FAC, so I've deliberately been a bit "harsher" than normal with some comments with that in mind.
  • Lead:
  • Construction:
  • Service history:
    • "She returned to San Francisco on 10 September 1946, embarked Carrier Air Group 19 flying the F8F Bearcat, and began a series of peacetime patrols and training missions during a relatively uneventful period during 1947, all off the coast of California." Runon- can we break this up into something easier to digest?
    • "On 10 March 1948, an FJ-1 Fury launched from Boxer, the first such launch of a jet aircraft from a carrier, which allowed subsequent tests of jet aircraft carrier doctrine." This tidbit would be cool in the lead...
  • Korean War:
    • "She carried 145 P-51 Mustangs and six L-5 Sentinels of the.." I think the MOS says that when making sentences like this - you use all numerals, not the mix you currently have. Yeah, see WP:ORDINAL, second bullet point.
    • "the UN forces" - you need to introduce this abbreviation on the first usage of United Nations ... wherever it is.
    • Suggest mentioning that the F4U Corsair is also a non-jet aircraft, since it was mentioned in the previous paragraph.
    • "En route" ... shouldn't this be "Enroute" or "En-route"?
    • "and the squadrons were the first Naval Reserve pilots to launch strikes in Korea." ... shouldn't this be "and her squadrons"?
    • "The ships prompted a large destroyer screen, though MiG-15 attacks against them did not occur." I cannot make heads or tails of this sentence - I think it means that the ships had a large destroyer screen .... but not idea if that's correct or not.
    • This occurs elsewhere - but why the mix of using and not using "USS"? "On 23 and 24 June, her planes conducted strikes against the Sui-ho hydro-electric complex in conjunction with USS Princeton (CV-37), USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) and Philippine Sea." I think we need a bit more consistency here and throughout the article.
      • I tend to use it on first reference. Other ship people like to drop "USS" entirely, but in this case the article has links to ships of other nationalities so I prefer to clarify on first mention. —Ed!(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • "She returned to the battlefield and from 28 August to 2 September she tested a new weapons system..." Battlefield? Fight, I'd think, or something similar - but I don't think of carriers deploying aircraft for sorties as involved in "battlefields".
    • "Her missions around this time were generally strategic bombing missions, however results during these final missions were mixed." HOw so?
    • "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, ending the war." Technically .. an armistace doesn't truly "end" a war - a treaty does. There is no treaty. Suggest "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, ending combat operations." or "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, effectively ending the war, although no treaty has been signed."
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fixed everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Looks good. I can't speak to the prose requirements of FAC, so you may want a copyeditor to look at it before you head there. It'd be cool if you could dig up WHY we keep naming ships after the HMS Boxer - that might give this a bit less of a "cookie cutter" feel to the article - i.e. some human interest. Did anyone important serve on her or similar? Not needed for GA, but might be a bit more interest for FAC. Promoting now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Boxer_(CV-21)/GA1&oldid=1136226521"