Talk:Attacker-class escort carrier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
You've got a lot of compound adjectives, Attacker class ship, strike carrier role, British built ships, etc. that need a hyphen between the two adjectives. I've changed a few, but there are others. I've cleaned up your conversions of lift, flight deck and hangar dimensions.
I have done another round of copy edits and hopefully caught everything. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Dual-purpose guns are not AA guns by definition, although I'd not call the Mark V 4-inch gun a DP gun. Best to call it an AA gun, I think. Convert 98 tons of oil. Link lifts and hangar. You have boilers and steam turbines in the infobox, surely you mean diesels as per the main body?

B. Focused:
Not sure that I like the individual ships listed in the infobox, but that's your call and doesn't affect this review. I'd strongly suggest that you build a table listing significant dates for each ship like laid down, launched, commissioned or completed, etc. You've covered the general activities of each ship nicely, but the basic facts are missing.
I've added the data for the eight ships of the class that are discussed here, but where are the other three, Searcher, Ravager and Tracker? What about modifications to the ships after the accident with Dasher in 1943? And substitution of British radars and guns for American ones? Friedman, pp. 187-88 covers all this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searcher etc were Ruler class escort carriers --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Friedman, Conway's and Brown. The Attacker/Tracker class consisted of the ships ordered under FY42 and the Rulers were FY43 ships with significant internal differences. Friedman discusses the whole thing pretty thoroughly in his chapter on Trade Protection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what about the American catapult the ships carried?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thanks for the review. I'll tackle whatever issues haven't been handled today or tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is "technically" fixed. If 3B remains a concern, then one of the OMT people will probably have to do some improvements to fix that; I'm far from an expert on this kinda stuff and probably wouldn't be able to put it in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the necessary info on all the ships at home; I'll add it once I get there after the 30th.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]