 | USS Nehenta Bay has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 12, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Nehenta Bay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I will review this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Design and description: for the first paragraph put refs into numerical order. There is no need for the cite in the first sentence since it is also one of the ones at the end of the paragraph. In the second paragraph, a couple of numbers (8 and 12) should be written out for consistency with the other small numbers.
- Construction: just need to mention Gravina Island as location for Nehenta Bay since it is referred to in the lead.
- Service history: "dysfunctional aircraft." This seems an unusual turn of phrase. Perhaps non-functional?
- Service history: "protecting them from Japanese submarines or aircraft" Shouldn't this be submarines and aircraft?
- Service history: "rolling at about 30° to 37°, a dangerous height for an aircraft carrier." should this be "a dangerous angle?
- Overall, the service history is quite long - perhaps a couple of section headings to break it up. One of them could be in relation to the Typhoon since this forms a big chunk of this section of the article.
- Image tags OK, no dupe links, and the Earwig tool doesn't pick up anything major.
Looks a nice solid article, just a few minor nitpicks. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Zawed: I've responded to your points. Stikkyy t/c 07:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Changes look good, I actioned a couple that were missed. Passing as GA now as I consider that this article meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)