Talk:USS Boxer (CV-21)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Just a few niggles
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * General note - I suspect this is headed towards FAC, so I've deliberately been a bit "harsher" than normal with some comments with that in mind.
 * Excellent. Thank you. — Ed! (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead:
 * It's a bit skimpy ... suggest expanding it somewhat...
 * Expanded. — Ed! (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't we use "U.S." generally on American articles? Likewise .. shouldn't it be "United States (U.S.) Senator, given we should always explain abbreviations on first use?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Linkie for "commissioned"?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the non-military - "tours" is what? Link?
 * Linked. — Ed! (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Curiosity - you mention a lot of the peacetime duties she had after the Korean War, but none from before it - seems a bit odd.
 * Added a little. — Ed! (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Construction:
 * "Boxer was one of the 24..." Shouldn't Boxer be italicized and I think "Boxer was one of 24..." would flow better.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What the heck is "CV-21"? (I get that it's her hull number but non-miliary folks won't) needs explanation.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Linkie "flight deck"
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Linkie "refit"?
 * Nothing to link to. I imagine "refit" can be assumed to mean the same thing in this context as in any other. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Linkie "displacement"
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Like other Essex-class ships, she could be armed with 12 5 inch (127 mm)/38 caliber guns arrayed in four pairs and four single emplacements, as well as 8 quadruple Bofors 40 mm guns and 46 Oerlikon 20 mm cannons. However, unlike the typical ships of the line, Philippine Sea was armed instead with 72 40mm guns and 35 20 mm cannons." ... errr... is "Phllippine Sea" a typo for "Boxer" or if not, why do we care since this is the Boxer article? We want to know what Boxer was armed with ...
 * Oops. Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "U.S." is generally used in the US, not "US". (pet peeve - we aren't Brits, scared of periods - err. full stops.)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "She was launched on December 14, 1944..." Better specify the hull number here because the last mentioned "she" is the 1905 training ship.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why the HECK are we naming US warships after British warships we captured??? Curiosity abounds here...
 * I think the capture was a big victory at the time. Really, I can't imagine why five ships would get the name though. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The ships' cost is estimated at $68,000,000 to $78,000,000." - shouldn't this be "ship's cost was estimated"?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Service history:
 * "She returned to San Francisco on 10 September 1946, embarked Carrier Air Group 19 flying the F8F Bearcat, and began a series of peacetime patrols and training missions during a relatively uneventful period during 1947, all off the coast of California." Runon- can we break this up into something easier to digest?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "On 10 March 1948, an FJ-1 Fury launched from Boxer, the first such launch of a jet aircraft from a carrier, which allowed subsequent tests of jet aircraft carrier doctrine." This tidbit would be cool in the lead...
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Korean War:
 * "She carried 145 P-51 Mustangs and six L-5 Sentinels of the.." I think the MOS says that when making sentences like this - you use all numerals, not the mix you currently have. Yeah, see WP:ORDINAL, second bullet point.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "the UN forces" - you need to introduce this abbreviation on the first usage of United Nations ... wherever it is.
 * Done/ — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest mentioning that the F4U Corsair is also a non-jet aircraft, since it was mentioned in the previous paragraph.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "En route" ... shouldn't this be "Enroute" or "En-route"?
 * Not per the En route article. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "and the squadrons were the first Naval Reserve pilots to launch strikes in Korea." ... shouldn't this be "and her squadrons"?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The ships prompted a large destroyer screen, though MiG-15 attacks against them did not occur." I cannot make heads or tails of this sentence - I think it means that the ships had a large destroyer screen .... but not idea if that's correct or not.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This occurs elsewhere - but why the mix of using and not using "USS"? "On 23 and 24 June, her planes conducted strikes against the Sui-ho hydro-electric complex in conjunction with USS Princeton (CV-37), USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) and Philippine Sea." I think we need a bit more consistency here and throughout the article.
 * I tend to use it on first reference. Other ship people like to drop "USS" entirely, but in this case the article has links to ships of other nationalities so I prefer to clarify on first mention. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "She returned to the battlefield and from 28 August to 2 September she tested a new weapons system..." Battlefield? Fight, I'd think, or something similar - but I don't think of carriers deploying aircraft for sorties as involved in "battlefields".
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Her missions around this time were generally strategic bombing missions, however results during these final missions were mixed." HOw so?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, ending the war." Technically .. an armistace doesn't truly "end" a war - a treaty does. There is no treaty. Suggest "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, ending combat operations." or "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, effectively ending the war, although no treaty has been signed."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed everything. Thanks for your review! — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Her missions around this time were generally strategic bombing missions, however results during these final missions were mixed." HOw so?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, ending the war." Technically .. an armistace doesn't truly "end" a war - a treaty does. There is no treaty. Suggest "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, ending combat operations." or "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, effectively ending the war, although no treaty has been signed."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed everything. Thanks for your review! — Ed! (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I can't speak to the prose requirements of FAC, so you may want a copyeditor to look at it before you head there. It'd be cool if you could dig up WHY we keep naming ships after the HMS Boxer - that might give this a bit less of a "cookie cutter" feel to the article - i.e. some human interest. Did anyone important serve on her or similar? Not needed for GA, but might be a bit more interest for FAC. Promoting now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)