Talk:USS Hollandia/GA1

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

Reviewer: From Hill To Shore (talk · contribs) 14:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll be starting the review now. This is my first GA review, so I may accidentally stray beyond the GA remit. Feel free to apply WP:TROUT if you think I am being unreasonable. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Spelling: A minor quibble, is "the most numerous type of aircraft carriers ever built" phrased correctly? In British English we would tend to say "the most numerous type of aircraft carrier ever built" removing the plural for carriers. I'm aware that collective nouns are handled differently in US and UK English, so I'll be happy to drop this point if you think this is normal US phrasing. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Links: "She displaced 8,188 long tons (8,319 t) standard, 10,902 long tons (11,077 t) with a full load." Both All three links point to the same article. I'd suggest either retaining the text but dropping one the extra links or putting the words together as "standard displacement" in the text and linking that one instance. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Clarity: "For the next few months, Hollandia continued these transport missions to the West and South Pacific, transporting supplies and passengers. She continued these duties until 1 April 1945, whilst she was anchored at Ulithi." The second sentence doesn't read correctly; she continued to transport supplies and passengers at the same time that she was anchored at Ulithi. I'm guessing that "whilst" should be changed to something like, "at which point". From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Prose: "In total, the air group transported consisted of 192 Vought F4U Corsair and 30 Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters." On reading "air group transported" my initial thought was that it was an air group transporting something. Would "the transported air group consisted..." be a better fit here? From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Prose: A minor point but the final paragraph includes a lot of "she was" at the start or in the middle of sentences. I'd suggest rephrasing some of them a little to add variety and make the text a little livelier. Possible changes could include more use of her name or changing some references to "the ship" instead of "she." The final sentence could even be rephrased to "Her ultimate fate was to be broken up..." From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Lead: The lead section feels a little light but acceptable for the size of article. If additional material is found to expand the article, I would recommend expanding the lead section as well at the same time. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Layout: The layout is fine for a good article but the block of four images on the left may need to be spaced out a little more if you want to take this to a higher level. Depending on your window/screen size, they can get a bit bunched up alongside the infobox. However that will be easier to fix if you find more content to add. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Watch words: No issues identified. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Fiction: Not applicable. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Lists: Not applicable. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * A clear list of sources is presented and displayed in a manner consistent with style guidelines. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Construction section: The cited sources make no mention of naming policies or traditions. I have asked for additional citations at those points. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Service history, 2nd paragraph: The cited source says the shake down cruise and the 10 July 1944 transport mission occurred at the same time. Our article text says one happened after the other. Can this be clarified? If there is another source that disagrees, it should be incorporated into the sourcing and the disagreement acknowledged. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Service history, 3rd paragraph: I have removed the DANFS citation as the online source doesn't mention any of the details in the paragraph. That leaves the offline Y'Blood citation, which I don't have access to. That is sufficient for GA as another editor can challenge any of the claims, if appropriate. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Service history, 4th paragraph: This relies solely on DANFS as the citation but there is no mention of the change in captain, Fast Carrier Task Force or Task Group 30.8. DANFS does mention the "3d Fleet's logistic supply unit" - is this either the Task Force or Task Group? If so, it would be worth clarifying this either in the text or in a footnote so readers can align the source with our article. If there are other sources that support these claims, they could be added as citations. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Service history, 5th paragraph: the article says the ship was "sold around June 1960" while DANFS says it was July and the other cited source, Hazegray, makes no mention of the date. Is there a reason for the ambiguity here? For example, is there another source that disagrees with DANFS? From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No obvious signs of original research. I'll change this to a pass if the citation issues are resolved. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * There are no obvious signs of copyright violations from the sources I can access. Some text is paraphrased from the public domain DANFS source. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Plagiarism: I note that this article previously indicated text from a public domain source was used. The DANFS tag was removed during a significant rewrite but a comparison with the source shows that a number of similarities and phrasings have been retained. While the site has been retained as a source, something more is needed to acknowledge that we have reused or closely paraphrased the original text. See WP:PLAG for more detailed guidance. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Appears to cover main areas of interest from design and construction, through wartime service to eventual scrapping. To expand the article beyong GA, editors may want to consider if there is any information about preliminary designs and changes or about any activities while it was in the reserve fleet (though I expect the likely answer is that it was moored and left to rust for much of that time). From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * The article length is dictated somewhat by the length of active service of the ship. It remains focused and the level of detail seems reasonable. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * It is possible that there are unidentified Japanese sources that could present an alternative view but as this ship's primary purpose was for logistics support it is unlikely that there were any controversial issues that could affect neutrality. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * The article has recently undergone a major expansion and rewrite but shows no signs of instability. There is no evidence of edit warring in the article history in recent years and the page logs show no periods of protection. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images recorded as being in the public domain. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The 6 current images are relevant and suitably captioned. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All issues have now been addressed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

General comments
 * I note that the ship was rated as having 9,000 horsepower. Unfortunately there are several different measures of horsepower. For the time period, I'd guess that it was reporting shaft horsepower. Do the sources provide clarity on which version of the measure was used? From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * Reading the construction section timings, it appears that she was both laid down and launched under the name Astrolabe Bay. She was then renamed a month after she launched. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, would "She was laid down and launched under the name Astrolabe Bay, as part of..." be a clearer description for readers? From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * I note that the two named Captains are currently red links. They are fine to remain as red for GA but if there were any notable details about their activities in relation to the ship, that may present an area to expand on to take this beyond GA. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * I note from the Kaiser Vancouver source that her sister ship, USS Guadalcanal (CVE-60) was originally called Astrolabe Bay as well. That may be worth a mention but won't affect the GA assessment. From Hill To Shore (talk)
 * I've responded to your points.
 * Stikkyy t/c 06:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Stikkyy t/c 06:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * . Thank you. All issues have been resolved and I am happy to promote this to GA. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)