# Talk:USS Roi

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Roi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 10:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Prose
Design and description

"..the most numerous type of aircraft carriers.." Unless this is an AmEng/BrEng split, it should be "aircraft carrier" singular here.
"..in order to replace heavy early war losses.." What war? At this point in the body of the article, no war, nor even era has been specified.
Construction

"She was renamed Roi on 26 April 1944, as part of a new naval policy which named subsequent Casablanca-class carriers after naval or land engagements." Is there any detail on what specifically she was named after? The infobox links to Battle of Kwajalein, but this isn't mentioned in the body?
Lead

Includes information not mentioned in the body of the article, and not sourced. Could do with being a bit longer to better summarise the article.
Sourcing
What makes "www.ShipbuildingHistory.com" and "Hazegray.org" reliable sources?
Hazegray seems to be mostly the work of an "Andrew Toppan", and he's published a book and refers to himself as a "historian", but I can't find much on him. The source is mainly used in the absence of anything better, which is that of the ship being scrapped. The information provided is scarce, and I haven't seen anything that contradicts with Chesneau or DANFS. There is some curation, so it's better than nothing. Stikkyy  t/c 21:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I can live with that source now. Same question for "ww2db.com" though. Harrias talk 09:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
If their claims are true, then it should work. It's curated enough.
"The replenishment carrier fleet enabled the fast carriers to operate at sea for a sustained period of time without having to return to port to replenish." Doesn't appear to be in the source provided.
Close para-phrasing:
Article: "After loading 61 replenishment aircraft, she sailed for Guam, where she joined Task Force 30.8"
Source: "Loading 61 replacement aircraft in a 30-day combat ready state, Roi sailed to Guam, where she reported to Task Group 30.8"
Article: "Following the end of the war, Roi joined the Operation Magic Carpet fleet.."
Source: "Following the end of the war, Roi was used in "Magic-Carpet" operations.."
Article: "She was struck from the Navy list on 21 May, and sold on 31 December to Zidell Machinery & Supply of Portland, Oregon for scrapping."
Source: "struck from the Navy list 21 May; and sold 31 December 1946 to Zidell Machinery & Supply Co., Portland, Oreg."
DANFS is public domain.
"before being discharged from the fleet at towards the end of 1945" Doesn't appear to be in the source provided.
"and sold on 31 December to Zidell Machinery & Supply of Portland, Oregon for scrapping" The source doesn't mention anything about scrapping.
There appears to be unsourced information in the infobox which is not included in the body of the article.
Could you clarify? I don't see anything that's particularly egregious in the terms of sourcing.
The following facts are in the infobox, but not the article:
"as a Type S4-S2-BB3 hull, MCE hull 1140"
S4-S2-BB3 is just the designation for a Casablanca-class hull. As mentioned in the article, it's standardized.
"Awarded:	18 June 1942"
"Identification:	Hull symbol: CVE-103"
"Honors and awards:	1 Battle star" Harrias talk 09:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Images
File:USS ROI (CVE-103).jpg On what basis are we sure this is a "work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person's official duties"?
Photo was, per Navsource, published in the U.S. Navy's "Our Navy Magazine".
Are we sure that all images in the Our Navy Magazine are PD? Even if so, this needs to be made clearer on the image page. Harrias talk 09:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Part of the reason the Navy employed photographers during this time period was to produce media for publications like the magazine, so if it's published in there, it's safe to say that it's public domain.
I will place this on hold awaiting your responses. Harrias talk 11:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: I've responded to your points. Stikkyy  t/c 21:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: I have made changes accordingly. Stikkyy  t/c 05:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Further comments
The lead could still do with some expansion to more adequately summarise the article. A sentence or two on her war duty would suffice.
"She was named after the Battle of Roi, which captured the island of Roi-Namur." A battle can't capture an island; a participant in a battle can. Maybe something like "She was named after the Battle of Roi, in which the United States captured the island of Roi-Namur."
"..the ship was launched in June 1944, and commissioned in July, and acted as a replenishment carrier." Repetition of "and". Remove the first one.
There is some major repetition in the Construction section which needs trimming. Harrias talk 11:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias:  Done Stikkyy  t/c 05:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work on this, I'm now happy to pass it as a Good article. Well done. Harrias talk 08:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)