Talk:USS Salamaua

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 05:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This review is conducted as part of WikiProject Military History 2019 Backlog Bonzai. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Design and description

• the most numerous type of aircraft carriers ever built This bit of text would be better placed after the sentence it's currently in, on its own.

•  Done

• which provided a force of 9,000 horsepower (6,700 kW) "a force" is redundant; remove.

•  Done

• What makes shipbuildinghistory.com a reliable source?

• Nothing really, I just like the convenience of not having to slog through DANFS articles. I've never found the dates to be unreliable, but the information found within the site is mirrored in the other sources.

• That is not quite how WP:RS works. I've done a little bit of Google-digging into the operator of that site (Tim Colton), and while he doesn't seem untrustworthy, this isn't readily verifiable; there's no accountability for his website. I would recommend removing this source from the article, unless you can quiet my concerns about Mr. Colton being unreliable as compared to the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships.

• I suppose you're correct. All the information found within the list is also mirrored in DANFS, so it's existence is rather redundant.

• The last sentence in this section has no in-line citation.

• The Historical Narrative article mentions Salamaua carrying 50 aircraft during transport runs.

Service history

• Could you introduce the year being documented (1944) to this section at its start?

•  Done

• She departed [...] She joined These openings to the first two sentences of "Lingayen Gulf" are samey and not particularly strong. Consider replacing the first one with the ship's name.

•  Done

• On 1 January 1945 [...] On 3 January See last bullet-point. Too similar.

•  Done

• Albeit fighters from the carrier This is an erroneous use of "albeit"

•  Done

• and the only successful interception was when P-47 fighters intercepted two enemy planes Generally, it is inadvisable to use a word twice in the same sentence (intercept).

•  Done

• and two planes were bagged by Salamaua's anti-aircraft gunners Not neutral. War should not be spoken about like a turkey shoot.

•  Done

• the task group had relocated The "had" here is redundant and erroneous; remove.

•  Done

• [...] it penetrated deep into the lower decks, leaving a [...] gaping hole in the flight deck, from which a pillar of smoke emerged. From a fire the kamikaze kicked up, or did one of the bombs explode? The sentence(s) immediately after this talk about the bombs.

•  Done

• The after engine room Should this be aft?

•  Done

• Her limited carrying capabilities forced some aircraft to be stored on the flight deck, but they were bolted down onto the tarmac. The "but" here should be replaced a semicolon or "where".

•  Done

Fate

This section's content, consisting of three sentences, should be combined with "Post-war". No loss in quality to the article will be sustained will be sustained by this condensation.

• Fair enough.

GA Progress

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

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.