# Talk:USS Makassar Strait

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Makassar Strait/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: From Hill To Shore (talk · contribs) 20:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll be starting the review now. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Prose: The last line of the lead says it ran aground "on April 1961". Is there a specific date? If not, "in April 1961" may be a better fit.
Spelling: "most numerous type of aircraft carriers ever built," - is the plural on carriers needed?
Links: "She displaced 8,188 long tons (8,319 t) standard, 10,902 long tons (11,077 t) with a full load." All three links point to the same article. I'd suggest dropping the extra links.
Prose: The Construction section has repetition of Maritime Commission and Kaiser Shipbuilding Company. Can this be rephrased? If not, as a minimum, the duplicate links should be removed.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Lead: The lead ends abruptly at 1961, when the article has content up to 1965. I think an extra sentence or two is needed so the lead can summarise the whole article.
Layout: No issues identified.
Watch words: No issues identified.
Fiction: Not applicable.
Lists: Not applicable.
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.
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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Construction section: The cited sources make no mention of naming policies or traditions. Can the nominator please add citations for these, as used on their last article I reviewed?
C. It contains no original research: 
Service history paragraph 4 includes a claim that 50 planes were offloaded at Hawaii at the same time as she took on 387 passengers. That isn't mentioned in the DANFS source. Is there another source that covers this or is the offloading an assumption?
Service history paragraph 5 includes a claim that she joined the reserve fleet on 12 January 1946. However, DANFS says she joined the 19th fleet on 12 January and implies that she joined the reserve fleet at a later date. United States Navy reserve fleets#Pacific Reserve Fleet says that the 19th fleet became the reserve fleet but is unclear on the date. Is there another source that supports the 12 January for joining the reserve fleet?
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Copyright violation: a copy vio check flags up some similarities to DANFS but, as this is a public domain source, there are no copyright concerns.
Plagiarism: Some of the text closely paraphrases the public domain DANFS source. This needs to be acknowledged somewhere in the article to give the source credit for our wording.
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 use as a target for firing practice. One area that would be useful to expand on is its fate after 1965 - is it still there or has it sunk in the intervening years?
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.
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 purposes were for training and logistics support, it is unlikely that there were any controversial issues that could affect neutrality.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No signs of edit warring in article history. No record of protection in page log.
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.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
The 5 current images are relevant and suitably captioned.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Review on hold pending answers to queries above. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Issues now addressed in article. Review updated to a pass. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:52, 26 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. Per the last review I did on one of the ships of this type, I believe it is meant to be shaft horsepower.
@From Hill To Shore: I've replied to your points, thanks for the review. Stikkyy  t/c 00:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)