Talk:USS Mission Bay

Latest comment: 4 years ago by L293D in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Mission Bay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: L293D (talk · contribs) 02:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply


Really nice article expansion there, kind of like what I did with submarines some time ago. L293D ( • ) 02:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Image review

edit
  • Images look fine. Even if the uplaoder of File:CVE59 Mission Bay 1.jpg didn't own the copyright, its PD because it was taken by the US Navy.

Source review

edit
  • All sources look reliable, except for https://www.hazegray.org/ . I've never been really good at determining the reliability of online references, but I have some doubts about it. I think most if not all of the info found there could sourced by other sources.
  • Most of the information within hazegray is mirrored in the other sources. I suppose it's rather redundant.

Lead

edit
  • I really think that the lead could be expanded at least a few lines with more details of her wartime career. I'll re-review afterwards.

Design

edit
  • link stern
  • This section looks good except that I would suggest changing the caption of the image from "A profile of the design of Takanis Bay, which was shared with all Casablanca-class escort carriers" to something like "Profile of a Casablanca-class escort carrier".

Construction

edit
  • remove the redlink for the captain, I really don't think he would be notable or that anyone would write an article on him.

Career

edit
  • rm the William Ellis Gentner redlink
  • link mothballed to Reserve fleet.
  • The rest looks good.

GA Progress

edit
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.