Talk:USS Steamer Bay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 20:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one, comments to follow. Zawed (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: the namesake is mentioned in the lead but not article body. Might also pay to mention that Etolin Island is in Alaska for greater context.

Partially Done, I don't really like including the namesake in the article body. It's a way to introduce the subject, and beyond that, there isn't much relevance.

The issue here is that because it is only in the lead, it effectively isn't cited. Like with Kadashan Bay, I would stick it in the constructions section. Zawed (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" Uniflow reciprocating steam engines": the infobox refers to "Unaflow steam engines"?

Consistency - some numbers are written out but some expressed as numerals, e.g. "8 Bofors 40 mm...", "12 Oerlikon 20 mm..."

Consistency - generally dates are recited as 15 May, 10 July, but there are a couple of instances of e.g. the 15 May

The citations ending the first paragraph of Design and description are out of order.

Some battles are mentioned in the Design and description but not linked here. They are mentioned later but really should be linked on first mention.

Both of those are distinct from the main section, i.e. it is OK to link the lead, infobox and main body. Zawed (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16 FM-2 fighters, it may pay to include Wildcat in the description as not many readers will recognise the FM-2 designation. Same with the TBM-3. I note the infobox says 27 aircraft carried but the text refers to 28.

Done, body does mention that the carrier was designed to carry 27 aircraft, but she spent most of her career with 28.

Whoops, sorry, I totally missed the context of the 27/28 aircraft. Zawed (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic choice, I remember someone saying that battle stars aren't really notable unless there's a whole bunch of them, which isn't the case here. I would be open to putting them in the body, but I'm not sure where it would fit in.

This is another citing issue - everything in the infobox needs to be supported by the text so the absence of a commentary on the battle honours means that the mention in the infobox is uncited. I would suggest sticking mention at the end of the World War II section, something like, "She finished the war with six battle stars for..." I just did a review on USS O'Flaherty which cited her battle stars to this websource, [1], that may help. Zawed (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Fair enough, I've addressed your points. Stikkyy t/c 04:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This all looks good, passing as GA since I consider the article meets the criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]