Talk:USS Mission Bay

USS Mission Bay has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 6, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / North America / United States / 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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States 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

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Elevator#Elevators for aircraft|elevators]] The anchor (#Elevators for aircraft) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Elevator#Elevators for aircraft|aircraft elevators]] The anchor (#Elevators for aircraft) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Mission Bay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: L293D (talk · contribs) 02:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice article expansion there, kind of like what I did with submarines some time ago. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images look fine. Even if the uplaoder of File:CVE59 Mission Bay 1.jpg didn't own the copyright, its PD because it was taken by the US Navy.

Source review[edit]

All sources look reliable, except for https://www.hazegray.org/ . I've never been really good at determining the reliability of online references, but I have some doubts about it. I think most if not all of the info found there could sourced by other sources.

Most of the information within hazegray is mirrored in the other sources. I suppose it's rather redundant.

Lead[edit]

I really think that the lead could be expanded at least a few lines with more details of her wartime career. I'll re-review afterwards.

Design[edit]

link stern
This section looks good except that I would suggest changing the caption of the image from "A profile of the design of Takanis Bay, which was shared with all Casablanca-class escort carriers" to something like "Profile of a Casablanca-class escort carrier".

Construction[edit]

remove the redlink for the captain, I really don't think he would be notable or that anyone would write an article on him.

Career[edit]

rm the William Ellis Gentner redlink
link mothballed to Reserve fleet.
The rest looks good.

GA Progress[edit]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@L293d: I've responded to your points. Stikkyy t/c 04:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@L293D: Reping. Stikkyy t/c 04:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. The lead still needs some more content though. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: I've added a bit more. Stikkyy t/c 07:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, closing as promoted. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.