Talk:USS Sargent Bay

USS Sargent 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 2, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 05:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well-written

Prose is clear, concise, and understandable, with proper spelling and grammar

Lead

Layout

Possibly The section for USS Sargent Bay#Construction is only two sentences long. It would be good to expand this section, although I understand that may not be entirely possible. This section could also be consolidated.

Done

Links

Partly done Some article links, such as Operation Magic Carpet are linked in the article multiple times. Generally links should only be used in the first appearance of the topic in an article (not counting the infobox). Also, the redlink to William Theodore Rassieur should probably be dealt with.

Done

Buzzwords

Fiction

not an issue with this topic

Lists

not applicable

2. Verifiable

List of references properly formatted

Partly done It looks like refs 5 and 8 should be consolidated into a single named ref, since they appear to be quoting the same page of the same book.

Done

Inline citations from reliable sources

Partly done. Can you add inline citations to the various dates in the infobox for verifiability? The dates are cited in the article so it's not a big deal, but having citations there would be nice.

Content cited in article, not big deal.

No original research

(none that I can detect).

No COPYVIO

I tested several sentences throughout the article, and they came up clean.

3. Broad in coverage

Covers main aspects

Design, construction, and service history properly detailed.

Stays focused on topic

4. Neutral Y

5. Stable Y

6. Illustrated if possible

Media tagged for copyright details

All media tagged as public domain.

Media relevant

@Hog Farm: I've responded to your points. Stikkyy t/c 06:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues mentioned have been addressed. Good job, User:Stikkyy.