Talk:Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 07:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

This is a very impressive article, and I have only the following concepts:

• I'd suggest that the lead para include a flavour of the ships' operational service
  • Done.
• Was this a uniquely RN concept? I don't think that the USN or IJN had directly comparable ships - if sources are available, it would be interesting to cover why the British adopted this approach and what the other navies did (I presume some combination of more repairs in their fleet carriers and greater reliance on land bases)
  • It seems to be. My sources don't go into any detail, unfortunately, but I gather that the shore establishments in the Med and the early carriers were inadequate to sustain prolonged operations. AFAIK nobody else devoted a ship for this role during the war, although the US might have used an escort carrier or two in a similar role.
    • OK, I can't think of any sources on the US operating CVEs in this role (they tended to be used as aircraft ferries though). Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• The section on Unicorn should note that she was initially used as a auxiliary carrier, and that her maintenance equipment wasn't fitted until after the Salerno landings.
  • Done.
• Eastern Fleet is linked twice
  • Fixed.
• The article on Unicorn states that she carried 33 aircraft and this article puts the figure at 36 - can this difference be resolved?
  • Note that she carried 33 at Salerno, but she had a capacity for three more.
• The link to the IWM record for File:HMS PioneerFL 017459.jpg is broken Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries - thanks for writing this interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   New article, but highly unlikely that anyone is about edit war over it Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)