 | USS Attu 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: January 5, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Attu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I will take a look at this one. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is some duplication of content in the construction section, in particular the mention of the maritime contract and Kaiser shipyards (both are dupe links along with Vancouver, Washington). Essentially the portion of the sentence that follows the comma in "...on 16 March 1944, under..." can be deleted.
- Mention the specific namesake battle in the construction section (it is mentioned in lead).
- The third paragraph of the WWII section jumps around a little in terms of dates; first it refers to 5 June then 4 June. Is there a way to rewrite this to be more chronological?
- "weathering the eyewall of the storm"; link eyewall?
- I see that she was present in support of the invasion of Iwo Jima; perhaps mention in the lead?
- The infobox says two battle stars; mention in the text. Presumably one is for Iwo Jima (which is one reason for mentioning the ship's presence there in the lead), but what was the other one for? Magic Carpet? The service history doesn't suggest any other engagements/actions justifying a battle star.
- Postwar: "...deal; allowing...": the usage of the semi-colon here doesn't seem grammatically correct. A comma would make sense with the current wording or if the semi-colon is kept, rephrased something like "...deal; this allowed..."
- Bibliography: these aren't in alphabetical order and Slater needs year, publisher, etc...
- Dupe links - none other than the ones mentioned above.
- Image tags check out OK
It amazes me that this ship was sent to the scrap heap after just three years of service! Such wastage...Anyway, another tidy little article here, just the minor points as noted above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)