Talk:HMS Archer (D78)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
the article needs a substantial copy-edit

B. MoS compliance:
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:

B. Focused:
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:
File:HMS Archer (D78).jpg needs a source; it does not appear at history.navy.mil.

Done

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

Second para, "Mormacland" section. What is GRT?
Gross register tonnage, linked on first mention in infobox. Mjroots (talk)
"USS Archer" section
- What makes Navsource and the Royal Navy Research Organization reliable?
  I'd say that they are reliable. Info given there is corroborated by other sources Mjroots (talk)
- What does BAVG mean?
- I added a clarification tag. Which aircraft dove into the sea? First, second, third...?
  Clarified, it was the first one. Mjroots (talk)
- Plagiarism issues:
  - Text: "The conversion consisted of a lightweight wooden flight deck on a truss frame being added on top of the ship which covered about 70% of the ships' length. The deck was serviced by a single lift aft where the aircraft hanger was situated."
  - [1]: "Her conversion consisted of a lightweight wooden flight deck on a truss frame being added on top of the ship which covered about 70% of the ships' length, [...]"
  - Every sentence cited to the Research archive is really close to the original wording, with many of the sentences just having been reordered or some details removed. This needs to be addressed...
"Tasmania" says "She was sold to a Taiwanese buyer in 1961". But then you give the company that she was sole to right below it? Doesn't flow, IMO. (same thought with the end of "Anna Salén" and the beginning of "Tasmania")
To me, the "Propulsion" and "Official Number and Code Letters" sections are unneeded; the former is covered in the infobox, while the later doesn't seem to have much to do with this ship.
I'd say that the propulsion section is relevant because of the unusual method of drive, which gave so much trouble during the war years. The Official Number and Code Letters section allows the infobox to remain uncluttered with loads of refs, which looks ugly IMO. Mjroots (talk)

I'm going to fail this for the reasons above, but please feel free to renominate it when you feel that the above issues have been dealt with! Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy Research Archive reference was erroneous in stating that Brazos was a "Peruvian merchantman" as a number of other references make very clear the frighter was U.S. flagged, New York, N.Y., operating with Atlantic, Gulf & West Indies Lines (Agwilines). Correction made with cites on 27 April 2021. Palmeira (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]