Talk:Attacker-class escort carrier

Attacker-class escort carrier was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 15, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 12, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Fleet Air Arm squadrons on the Attacker class escort carriers sank six U-Boats during the Second World War?

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / British / European / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Introduction[edit]

The introduction consists simply of sentences copy-pasted from the body, rather than being a distillation of the subject. Could the author rewrite it? I've removed some of the redundancy, but haven't really done justice to it.--Anon423 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing[edit]

The U-366 was sunk by the same combination of Fairey Swordfish and RP-3 rocket on the 5 March,[15] and the U-973 on the 6 March 1944, three other U-boats sighted managed to evade an attack in the foggy conditions.[20][21]

Can someone, preferably the author, clean that up?--Anon423 (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

While I'm addressing the grammatical/syntax issues, there are deeper, more fundamental issues with the style and organization of this piece that want clean-up. Some parts read like a list, and overall the article seems to need cohesion.--Anon423 (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Attacker class escort carrier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
You've got a lot of compound adjectives, Attacker class ship, strike carrier role, British built ships, etc. that need a hyphen between the two adjectives. I've changed a few, but there are others. I've cleaned up your conversions of lift, flight deck and hangar dimensions.
I have done another round of copy edits and hopefully caught everything. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Dual-purpose guns are not AA guns by definition, although I'd not call the Mark V 4-inch gun a DP gun. Best to call it an AA gun, I think. Convert 98 tons of oil. Link lifts and hangar. You have boilers and steam turbines in the infobox, surely you mean diesels as per the main body?

B. Focused:
Not sure that I like the individual ships listed in the infobox, but that's your call and doesn't affect this review. I'd strongly suggest that you build a table listing significant dates for each ship like laid down, launched, commissioned or completed, etc. You've covered the general activities of each ship nicely, but the basic facts are missing.
I've added the data for the eight ships of the class that are discussed here, but where are the other three, Searcher, Ravager and Tracker? What about modifications to the ships after the accident with Dasher in 1943? And substitution of British radars and guns for American ones? Friedman, pp. 187-88 covers all this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searcher etc were Ruler class escort carriers --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Friedman, Conway's and Brown. The Attacker/Tracker class consisted of the ships ordered under FY42 and the Rulers were FY43 ships with significant internal differences. Friedman discusses the whole thing pretty thoroughly in his chapter on Trade Protection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what about the American catapult the ships carried?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thanks for the review. I'll tackle whatever issues haven't been handled today or tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is "technically" fixed. If 3B remains a concern, then one of the OMT people will probably have to do some improvements to fix that; I'm far from an expert on this kinda stuff and probably wouldn't be able to put it in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the necessary info on all the ships at home; I'll add it once I get there after the 30th.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poolman reference[edit]

I don't have a copy of the book, and what I can find on Google, some of the things mentioned seem to refer to later Ruler class ships, such as conversion in Canada. The book I have and online references seem to show that the Attacker class were refit in Great Britain, most likely Liverpool. I have removed the section in question. If someone can provide me with evidence to the contrary I will gladly replace the information.Pennsy22 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bogue-class[edit]

Attacker is just a sub-class of Bogue?

We have articles covering the main class (Bogue) and the sub-classes Attacker, Ruler and Prince Wiliam. I was wondering if the sub-class articles should all be called up as Bogue-class escort carriers in the info box? Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]