USS Casablanca 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, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 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

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

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 20:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stikkyy, I don't think I've seen you here for a while, good to see you are back. I will review this one in the next few day. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is in pretty good shape, just some minor stuff to resolve:

• The second sentence of the lead needs a little reworking - the usage of "Operation Torch" and "between" suggests a co-operation between the US and Vichy France, not an engagement.
• In the infobox, in the item "Ordered", what does E in the MCE stand for? It is only referred to in the construction as MC. I've skimmed through the United States Maritime Commission article and can't see usage of MCE, so raises the question, does the E need to be there?

• Zero idea. Per this, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between MCE, MCV, and MC for the type of ship being built. If I had to guess, it would probably be that it denotes the type of contract. Also reading further, seems like the Casablanca-class carriers are supposed to be MC. Oops.

• Also in the infobox, the code letters aren't mentioned in the text so technically requires a citation.
• Construction: fifty-fifth can be expressed as 55th, it is a pretty big number so numerals should be OK rather than writing it out.
• Construction: A cite is required for the end of the first paragraph.
• Construction: ...would take Casablanca's place. not clear what place is here? From the Liscome Bay article, I think maybe as a lend-lease ship?
• Construction: ...renamed to her final name of Casablanca. suggest "renamed to her final name of Casablanca." It is pretty clear that it is her last name.
• Service history: reorder the cites at the end of the first paragraph.
• Service history: Upon arriving back, she... suggest, "Upon arrival, she..."
• Service history: ...and joined Operation insert "the" after joined.
• MARCOM needs to be listed in the references
• Some dupe links: United States Navy linked twice in lead, elsewhere escort carrier and sister ship are dupe links.
• Image tags check out OK.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Service history: ...repatriating them suggest replacing "them" with servicemen or similar.

• @Zawed: I've addressed your points. Stikkyy t/c 05:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is looking all good, so passing as a GA now as I consider the article meets the relevant criteria. Zawed (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]