Talk:USCGC Catenary

Assessment
I've looked at this again as per request on the MILHIST page. I'd suggest, though short, that the article has several points that raise it above stub - an info box, structure, a number of references. Although the single paragraph is referenced, it doesn't cover enough to really say it is well enough referenced under B1. It could do with more content, so would fail B2. Ideally, you'd expect an image of the vessel for B5, but it does have a completed infobox, so this maybe moot in assessment terms. If you can improve the amount of information, preferably in multiple sections (look at other ship articles to see what the other sections usually are, ensure you inline cite and use a range of reference sources and put in a picture, you should be able to get this to B class--Monstrelet (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you were to add a couple of paragraphs on the construction/design information on the ship, as you did for Point Ledge, and expand the intro a bit, this article wouldn't have a problem making B-class. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion; I wish I had the references to use in developing the prose. There is little if any construction detail in any reference on this class of cutters. They played a small very unglamorous role in Coast Guard operations and were manned by a five man crew with a Chief Boatswains Mate (E-7) as the Officer-in-Charge. I don't even have a reference for that fact, I just know it from experience. Some of the cutters in this class performed heroic actions with rescues and drug busts, however Catenary had no such history that I am aware of or could reference. No picture is available, if I had one, it would be in the infobox. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)