USS Marcus Island was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 5, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated Start-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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met 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

Sadly, putting "This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships" at the foot of the article does not meet the standard of "It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations", which is Wikipedia's minimum requirement.

Can I encourage any editor to use this source, and others if appropriate, and insert appropriate inline citations. As a broad rule, one reference at the end of each paragraph, which fully covers any facts in that paragraph, is an acceptable minimum. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• References:
  • What makes http://shipbuildinghistory.com a reliable source?

• • It's only used for the MC number, I've removed it.
    • It's back now, but used only for the MC number and to demonstrate the Casablanca-class carriers were constructed under MC contract. Besides, the sole contributor is Tim Colton, and he seems reasonably qualified.

• • What makes https://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_esc2.htm a reliable source?

• • I've been told that it's marginal for GA, and the only part that's exclusively cited to it is the location of scrapping.

• • • I'm not seeing that it's a reliable source - looks like a hobbyist's site to me.
  • What makes https://ww2db.com a reliable source?

• • It's the only source I could find that explicitly states that Casablanca-class escort carriers commissioned later usually followed the naming conventions of fleet carriers.

• • • It's not looking to me like a reliable source. Unfortunately ... digging deeper into this - You've got "Her construction was awarded to Kaiser Shipbuilding Company, Vancouver, Washington, under a Maritime Commission contract, on 18 June 1942. She was laid down on 15 September 1943 under the name Kanalku Bay, as part of a tradition which named escort carriers after bays or sounds in Alaska." sourced to the Marksel article - but that's not supporting the information given - in fact, it doesn't even support the "as part of a tradition which named escort carriers after bays or sounds in Alaska" as the bit in the Smithsonian article is "During World War II, as the Navy began to acquire escort carriers, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox decided to separate them from CVs and CVLs by naming them after “sounds, bays, and islands.” (This was later amended to “sounds, bays, islands, and famous American battles.”" ... which doesn't say "Alaska". And it certainly doesn't support the "Her construction was awarded to Kaiser Shipbuilding Company, Vancouver, Washington, under a Maritime Commission contract, on 18 June 1942. She was laid down on 15 September 1943 under the name Kanalku Bay". I'm going to have to do some more spot checking of the sources and what they support to make sure that we don't have a bigger problem here. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • • MC contract is supported by the reintroduced shipbuildinghistory.com, Kanalku Bay is supported by DANFS, rest is supported by the Ship Naming Report.
      • Unfortunately, that's not how it is set up in teh article. Right now "Her construction was awarded to Kaiser Shipbuilding Company, Vancouver, Washington, under a Maritime Commission contract, on 18 June 1942. She was laid down on 15 September 1943 under the name Kanalku Bay, under Frank Knox's directive naming escort carriers for "sounds, bays, and islands". She was laid down as MC hull 1114, the twenty-third of a series of fifty Casablanca-class escort carriers. On 6 November 1943, she was renamed to Marcus Island as part of a modified convention that set escort carriers to be named after "sounds, bays, and islands, and famous American battles". is followed by a footnote linking to page 38 of this source. When a series of sentences has a footnote after that series, it is assumed that the source given in the footnote supports ALL the information before that footnote. So that construction above is understood to mean that ALL the sentences starting with "Her construction was awarded..." and ending with "...and famous American battles"." is supported by the ship building report footnote. But even if we go by what you're saying above ... there is nothing on page 38 of that source that supports or even mentions Marcus Island or anything similar. In fact, a search of the pdf fails to find ANY mention of Knox on page 38. The quote about "sounds, bays, ..." is on page 35. I'm ... very much afraid that this is just reinforcing me grave concerns about the source-text integrity of this article. I am leaning towards failing the article, but if you would like, I can request yet another third opinion on things from someone else from the GAN pages. Or I can fail this right now, but I do not feel comfortable passing the article with these issues .. I do think it very much needs the attention of an expert with access to the printed sources to compare the footnotes to the sourced text. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ealdgyth: I reckon that it's easier for a reader to go for page 38 of the PDF rather than navigate via page numbers, as that's what I would do. I'm confident that there's a good link between the Y'Blood book and the contents in the article, so I would like you to request a third opinion. Stikkyy t/c 00:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know how to explain this any better but it's not JUST the Y'blood .. it's the above issue that I've pointed out explicitly twice now. The sentences beginning "Her construction was awarded to Kaiser Shipbuilding Company..." and ending with "...and famous American battles"." claims to be able to be found in the shipbuilding report reference. It is not verifiable there. It does not exist in that source. So the article has issues with text-source integrity right this minute without me having access to the printed sources... THAT is the issue. The fact that I continue to point this out and it's not being fixed is a huge concern to me that the nominator does not understand the issue ... and thus I can't trust the rest of the sourcing to be correct either. Frankly, I'm at a loss here, this is a major concern and it's not being addressed or even acknowledged. A third opinion isn't going to fix the fact that a basic necessity of sourcing isn't being understood. 01:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Ealdgyth (talk)
          • Okay, I see that now we have some fixes, but it's still not there. We still have the sentences starting with "She was laid down as MC hull 1114, the twenty-third of a series of fifty Casablanca-class escort carriers. On 6 November 1943, she was renamed to Marcus Island as part of a modified convention that set escort carriers to be named after "sounds, bays, and islands, and famous American battles"." sourced to the naming report - but .. that report never names Marcus Island so it cannot possibly support the "She was laid down as MC hull 1114, the twenty-third of a series of fifty Casablanca-class escort carriers. On 6 November 1943, she was renamed to Marcus Island as part of a modified convention that set" part. The ONLY thing the naming report supports is the convention part ... nothing else. THis is a problem. And because it's there, it's not possible for me to take on faith that the other sourcing is sound. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Ealdgyth: Kaiser Vancouver associates MC hull 1114 with "CVE 77, renamed Marcus Island, scrapped 1960". DANFs states "Marcus Island (CVE‑77) was laid down as Kanalku Bay under Maritime Commission contract by Kaiser Co., Inc., Vancouver, Wash., 15 September 1943; renamed Marcus Island 6 November 1943;" Stikkyy t/c 03:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead:
  • "She was named after an engagement on 31 August 1943 over Minami-Tori-shima, known on American maps as Marcus Island. A carrier task force consisting of the fleet carriers Essex and Yorktown, the light aircraft carrier USS Independence (CVL-22), and their escorts inflicted heavy damage on a Japanese naval facility on the islet. Notably, this action marked the combat debut of the Grumman F6F Hellcat fighter, of which 12,275 would be built." This is extraneous detail not about the ship. Suggest just "She was named after an earlier engagement in August 1943 over Minami-Tori-shima, known on American maps as Marcus Island."
  • " she served in the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, the Philippines campaign, where she participated in the climatic Battle off Samar, the largest naval engagement in history, as well as the Battle of Okinawa." confusing - I think what is meant is " she served in the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, the Philippines campaign, and the Battle of Okinawa. During the Phillipines campaign she took part in the climatic Battle off Samar, the largest naval engagement in history."?
  • I think given the size of the article, it might make a bit more sense to have a bit more in the lead ... some more information on the ship itself.
• Design:
  • "By the end of their production run, the time taken between laying down the hull and launching the ship had been cut down to nearly one month."? I think this is probably extraneous detail here and can be cut.
  • "During the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, she carried" ... I'm assuming Marcus Island is meant by "she" here? Suggest making this clear, as we've been discussing the class as a whole right before.
  • "At the beginning of the Philippines campaign, including the Battle off Samar, she carried" the "including the Battle off Samar" is just extraneous and distracts from the topic
• Marianas and Palau:
  • "On the first day of the landings, her aircraft contingent lost an Avenger along with its pilot in combat, although losses were generally light for the rest of the battle" - we give full details on the first but gloss over the rest of the losses - which seems a bit ... POV or lopsided. Maybe "Although an aircraft was lost on the first day, losses were light for the rest of the battle."? which has the advantage of cutting down on some of the too much detail which occasionally clogs up the article.
• Battle of Leyte:
  • "Although none of the Avengers' crew sustained life-threatening injuries, the Avenger was deemed unsalvageable and stripped for parts." This is entirely too detailed for an encyclopedia article - suggest just removing.
  • "During the initial landings, the crew of VC-21 flew 261 sorties over Leyte, attaining its first aircraft kill on 24 October against a Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero." ... I'm not sure why we are being told the detail of the type of kill? And I suggest that instead of "VC-21" we make it clear and say "the aircrew assigned to Marcus Island" or "the air squadron assigned to Marcus Island"
• Battle off Samar:
  • There is too much detail on the parts of the battle that aren't directly related to the ship. The first paragraph could do with some condensing of details, while we need some broad strokes of the battle, we probably don't need a chunk of this detail.
  • "with the Center Force consisting of four battleships, six cruisers, and a large destroyer screen" this just feels like unnecessary padding - it could usefully go away
  • Here's an example of the overloading of details not needed - "As the American command came to an understanding of the severity of the situation, with the Center Force consisting of four battleships, six cruisers, and a large destroyer screen, the entirety of Taffy 2's aircraft were recalled to join the defense. Marcus Island's aircraft were very ill-equipped for the situation at hand. Of the eleven operational Avengers on board the escort carrier, ten had been outfitted with a cargo of water, food, and ammunition to resupply the 96th Division. These Avengers comprised the vast majority of Marcus Island's anti-ship capabilities, and having departed for their mission at 5:45 in the early morning, an hour before "Taffy 3" reported its first contacts, they would only return at 10:30, by which time Kurita's Center Force was already withdrawing from action." You can get the same information across without bogging down the reader with "As the American command awoke to the severity of the situation, all of Taffy 2's aircraft were recalled to join the defense. But most of the Avengers onboard the Marcus Island were on a mission to resupply the 96th Division, and their absense greatly diminished the ship's anti-ship striking capacity, By the time of their return at 10:30, Kurita's Center Force was already withdrawing from action." This is a problem throughout the prose of the article - extraneous detail and convoluted sentences make the prose difficult to parse and a bit of a slog to read through. You could then continue with "The one Avenger still onboard was dispatched, as well as all her available Wildcat fighters. The Avenger recorded a torpedo hit on a Japanese heavy cruiser, and her fighters strafed and bombed the advancing Japanese ships, recording fourteen hits and claimed five kills of Japanese planes."
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation - the one that is over 20% is mostly titles and a few simple phrases.
• I'm going to stop here and make sure that the nominator is okay with me doing a rather hefty prune on the article. I've already turned up enough problems with the refs and then the need for a heavy copyedit to remove extra detail is going to make this a bigger job and I want to make sure the nominator is okay with this sort of editing before continuing. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ealdgyth: I've addressed your points. Stikkyy t/c 00:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

• Battle of Mindoro:
  • "In late November, the escort carriers began leaving Seeadler Harbor for Kossol of the Palau Islands." did MI do this? If so, state so explicitly... otherwise it's useless detail.
  • "She transited Surigao Strait on 13 December, with her aircraft shooting down a Japanese plane on 14 December." we're an encyclopedia - we don't need to detail every single movement nor every single plane shot down by her aircraft - is this necessary detail?
  • Again - we're an encyclopedia AND this is an article on a specific ship - "At around 4:30, about 40 Japanese aircraft, divided approximately in half between kamikazes and escorts, began taking off from Clark Field and Davao to engage Task Group 77.12. At 8:00, TG 77.12 began turning back towards Leyte, having been relieved of their duties covering the landing forces by Army Air Forces aircraft, but the Japanese kamikazes pursued closely. At 8:12, a probing kamikaze attempting to access the escort carriers came afoul the Bagley-class destroyer Ralph Talbot, which shot it down." Most of this detail is just unneccesary detail for an encyclopedia to cover about one specific ship (which isn't the Talbot)
  • "At 8:22, three kamikaze Zeros were spotted approached Marcus Island from the port quarter, at about 15,000 ft (4,600 m) in altitude, when one Zero disappeared into a cloud, and the other two reoriented themselves towards her. One Zero crossed over the carrier towards her starboard quarter, whilst the other one made a steep bank to remain at her port. After conducting a chandelle, the latter began its dive towards the escort carrier, aiming for a dummy aircraft elevator that her crew had painted on her flight deck. Taken under intense anti-aircraft fire, the kamikaze skimmed just over her flight deck, making impact with the water just 20 ft (6.1 m) off her starboard bow. As the Zero passed over, its left wingtip glanced the starboard lookout platform, beheading one lookout and injuring another. Scarcely ten seconds after the first attack, the second Zero began its descent. Diving in from the starboard, it also targeted the dummy elevator. Buffeted by anti-aircraft fire, the kamikaze made a sudden 90° roll 500 ft (150 m) out from the carrier, before careening into the water 30 ft (9.1 m) off her port bow. As the kamikaze entered the water, its bomb detonated, spraying shrapnel across the flight deck and injuring six of Marcus Island's crew." Again - too much detail. The whole thing can be summarized by "Three kamikaze planes attacked without directly damaging the ship, but debris from their destruction injured some sailors." And the whole next paragraph can be added to this with similar cutting of detail.
  • And then ... we're NOT told what MI did during this battle - did she take any further part in the battle?
• Image caption:
  • "Marcus Island docked in a South Pacific port, 17 June 1944. As evidenced by the packed flight deck, she is conducting an aircraft ferry mission. On the flight deck, from amidships to the stern, there appear to be parked TDR-1 unmanned drones. From amidships to the fore, there are TBM Avengers, which are likely control aircraft used to pilot the drones. The aircraft onboard are likely bound for Special Task Air Group (STAG) 1, which used the drones with some success against Japanese ships. Marcus Island is painted in Camouflage Measure 32, Design 15A." THis is all original research, it appears - all the "appear to be" or "likely" stuff is just (1) unneeded trivia and (2) WP:OR.
• Invasion of Lingayen Gulf:
  • "As one of the midget submarines raised its periscope to look around, a plane from Marcus Island dropped a depth charge onto it, leaving it dead in the water and with a severe list. It was finished off by the Fletcher-class destroyer Taylor, which rammed it." Again, too much detail - suggest "A plane from Marcus Island dropped a depth charge onto one submarine, damaging it before another ship in the convoy destroyed it." We're supposed to be focused on one particular ship ... we don't need all the details for other units.
  • "On the morning of 8 January, she launched two divisions of fighters at 7:00. At 7:16, a large group of Japanese aircraft was detected approaching from the east, which was intercepted by her air contingent. In a series of short engagements, her aircraft shot down four Japanese plane, but nonetheless, a kamikaze managed to dive down and damage Kadashan Bay. On 10 January, Kadashan Bay was ordered to transfer her entire stock of aircraft to Marcus Island and withdraw." What do we care in an encyclopedia article (it'd be different if we were reading a book on the ship, but we're not a book) that the planes launched at a specific time? Or the exact time the other planes were spotted? You can easily cut this down to "On the morning of 8 January, she launched two divisions of fighters who spotted Japanese aircraft approaching. In a series of engagements, her aircraft shot down four Japanese planes, but a kamikaze strike managed to damage another ship." And then combine the next paragraph into this "During this action, Marcus Island averaged launching or landing a plane every 3.8 minutes, setting a record for an escort carrier in combat."
• Battle of Okinawa:
  • "By the end of March, her aircraft between transitioning their strikes towards Okinawa Island itself." This makes no sense.
  • "On 5 April, Composite Observation Squadron (VOC) 1, which had previously been operating onboard Wake Island, which had been damaged by a kamikaze," suggest instead "On 5 April, Composite Observation Squadron (VOC) 1, previously operating onboard Wake Island, was embarked by Marcus Island due to Wake Island's battle damage." And I can't make heads or tails of what "who exchanged her aircraft contingent to be ferried back to Guam" is supposed to mean - did MI's previous aircraft go to WI who then ferried them back to Guam? If so - suggest "Marcus Island's previous aircraft contigent were ferried back to Guam by Wake Island."
  • "On 13 April, the escort carriers turned their focus back towards the airfields" "turned their focus back" makes no sense since we haven't been told they had previously struck at those airfields...
• Spot checks:
  • "She was launched on 16 December 1943; sponsored by Mrs. Samuel Lazarus LaHache; transferred to the Navy and commissioned at Astoria, Oregon on 26 January 1944, with Captain Charles Frederick Greber in command." is sourced to DANFS - to "Marcus Island (CVE‑77) was laid down as Kanalku Bay under Maritime Commission contract by Kaiser Co., Inc., Vancouver, Wash., 15 September 1943; renamed Marcus Island 6 November 1943; launched 16 December 1943; sponsored by Mrs. S. L. La Hache; acquired by the Navy 26 January 1944; and commissioned at Astoria, Oreg., 26 January 1944, Capt. Charles F. Greber in command." - but we don't know from DANFS the full names -
  • "Upon being commissioned, Marcus Island underwent a shakedown cruise down the West Coast. Upon its completion on 19 May, she began transporting aircraft from the West Coast to bases in the South Pacific. Returning to the West Coast on 1 July, she embarked Composite Squadron (VC) 21, and departed westwards from San Diego on 20 July." Sourced to DANFS - but "After shakedown and training along the west coast Marcus Island made a round trip aircraft ferry run to U.S. bases in the South Pacific between 19 May and 1 July. Thence, she embarked Composite Squadron 21, departed San Diego 20 July, " is a bit different. We don't know that the shakedown cruise completed on 19 May, just that her first cruise started that day. Nor do we know that she returned to the West Coast on 1 July, just that her ferry run ended on 1 July - not where.
  • "She continued providing air cover and launching strikes until 2 October, when she retired to Manus of the Admiralty Islands, arriving on 4 October." is sourced to DANFS - and is supported.
  • "On 15 December, during the morning of the Mindoro landings, Marcus Island and her sisters came under intense kamikaze attack. At around 4:30, about 40 Japanese aircraft, divided approximately in half between kamikazes and escorts, began taking off from Clark Field and Davao to engage Task Group 77.12. At 8:00, TG 77.12 began turning back towards Leyte, having been relieved of their duties covering the landing forces by Army Air Forces aircraft, but the Japanese kamikazes pursued closely. At 8:12, a probing kamikaze attempting to access the escort carriers came afoul the Bagley-class destroyer Ralph Talbot, which shot it down." is sourced to DANFS - "Her patrolling aircraft splashed one enemy fighter 14 October and shot down three more planes on the 15th. Marcus Island came under attack the morning of the Mindoro invasion, and between 0810 and 0930 enemy planes made three suicide runs and one bombing strike against the carrier. All the planes were splashed or deflected by intense antiaircraft fire, although two kamikazes splashed close off the bow to port and starboard causing minor damage and several casualties." ... which unfortunately does not support what is currently in the article - at least the details which are given.
  • "During the Battle of Okinawa, planes of her air contingent had flown 1,085 sorties, shooting down 11 Japanese aircraft and destroying another 13 grounded aircraft. She took on a load of damaged aircraft at Guam, steaming on 5 May for the West Coast, arriving back at San Diego on 22 May, where extensive overhaul and refitting was conducted. She sailed westwards again on 10 July, ferrying troops and replacement aircraft to Pearl Harbor and Guam. She returned to Naval Air Station Alameda on 15 August, the same day that the Surrender of Japan was announced." is sourced to DANFS - which does not support some of these details - specifically "where extensive overhaul and refitting was conducted"
  • "At Alameda, Marcus Island was assigned to the Operation Magic Carpet fleet, which repatriated U.S. servicemen from throughout the Pacific. Her first Magic Carpet trip went to Okinawa, making stops at Pearl Harbor and Guam, arriving in San Francisco on 24 October. For the rest of 1945, she conducted more Magic Carpet runs to Guam and Pearl Harbor." is sourced to DANFS - this "Sailing once more via Pearl Harbor and Guam, she reached Okinawa 28 September and embarked returning troops, arriving San Francisco 24 October. By early January 1946 she completed additional "Magic Carpet" runs to Guam and Pearl Harbor." section of DANFS - which does not support much of the information in the article.
  • All in all, we have some issues with sources actually supporting the information they are supposed to be supporting. And I can't access the Y'Blood book to check it. I have some major concerns about the sourcing on this article. I am not sure this is salvagable - there are enough issues with the sourcing and without being able to check against the printed/ebook works that are most of the sources, I'm not sure I trust the source-text integrity here. I'll put this on hold while I solicit some other reviewers to look into it and see if it is such a big problem that we need to fail this nomination. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hog Farm, Gog the Mild, and Buidhe: Can I get some opinions on the source-text integrity issues here please? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take a look later today (t · c) buidhe 15:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm out of town for work - I'll see what I can do but it might not be much. Hog Farm _Talk 20:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not going to be able to do anything on this today ... way too busy. Hog Farm _Talk 03:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2nd review by Buidhe

• I checked some of the source-text integrity issues raised by Ealdgyth and I agree, the article needs a thorough check/rewrite to ensure all claims are backed by cited source.
• The article needs to be edited for MOS:IMAGES compliance, especially image sandwiching.
• Does Chesneau & Gardiner 1980, p. 109. really support *all* the info in the "General characteristics" section of the infobox?
• "As evidenced by the packed flight deck, she is conducting an aircraft ferry mission. On the flight deck, from amidships to the stern, there appear to be parked TDR-1 unmanned drones. From amidships to the fore, there are TBM Avengers, which are likely control aircraft used to pilot the drones. The aircraft onboard are likely bound for Special Task Air Group (STAG) 1, which used the drones with some success against Japanese ships. Marcus Island is painted in Camouflage Measure 32, Design 15A." Looks like OR to me.

Issues sufficient to quick fail at this point (t · c) buidhe 21:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ealdgyth: I've remedied the issues with the sourcing and cut some of the images. Stikkyy t/c 01:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for a second opinion on this. There are some issues with the sourcing that have been identified and I've tried to explain to the nominator what they are and how they need to be fixed, and they are still not fixed. The nature of the concerns are extensive enough that I have concerns about the rest of the sourcing failing wp:integrity. The above exchange with the nominator has brought up yet more issues where the nominator says that "Kaiser Vancouver associates MC hull 1114 with "CVE 77, renamed Marcus Island, scrapped 1960". DANFs states "Marcus Island (CVE‑77) was laid down as Kanalku Bay under Maritime Commission contract by Kaiser Co., Inc., Vancouver, Wash., 15 September 1943; renamed Marcus Island 6 November 1943;" (but note that this information is still not actually sourced to those sources in this article) but this shows up two more issues - (1) "the twenty-third of a series of fifty Casablanca-class escort carriers" ... which is not in the source it's attached to p. 35 and (2) "On 6 November 1943, she was renamed to Marcus Island as part of a modified convention that set escort carriers to be named after "sounds, bays, and islands, and famous American battles"." - the "she was renamed to Marcus Island as part of a modified convention that.." the source attached to the information (p. 35) does not mention Marcus Island at all. So it cannot support the fact that the ship was renamed because of this modified convention on the names ... this is pure WP:OR - taking two facts related in differing sources and combining them to come up with a new statement.

Given just this small issue, I have real concerns about the sourcing. I'm inclined to fail the article, and honestly, I'm not going to ever feel that I can pass it. But it's possible I'm totally off base here, and I'd like a second opinion from another reviewer. If the second opinion is that I'm off base, I'm going to pass the review off to whoever is feeling up to taking it over, this isn't something that I feel comfortable saying is a GA. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion here! Ealdgyth, you're not wildly off-base here. I'm seeing lingering issues, and I found a new one.

• "twenty-third" is not supported by the cited source, as noted by Ealdgyth. I don't believe an in-line citation is required for this claim, but I'd like to know which reference does verify it.

• For Kaiser Vancouver, 323 - 300 (Casablanca was hull 301), results in twenty-three.

• "renamed to Marcus Island as part of a modified convention" is not supported by the cited source, as noted by Ealdgyth. I have every reason to believe this is true, but if it's not original research then please provide a source that makes the claim explicitly.

• The naming conventions detailed within the source are delineated to be for escort carriers as a whole. Chesneau's book doesn't directly attribute the displacement, the length, the beam, nor the draft to a single carrier, it takes the standardized dimensions, and then lists the various carriers afterwards, implying that they all share the same characteristics. I don't think it's OR to have a source that states that escort carriers as a whole took on the names of naval engagements, and then to use that as support behind an escort carrier being renamed.

• the reliability of hazegray.org, raised as an issue by Ealdgyth, has not been addressed, and it is being used for more than just the scrap date

• The only aspect that Hazegray covers that isn't supported by another source is the location of scrapping. Digging around, Andrew Toppan, the site's maintainer, has a book that's published by Arcadia Publishing, which seems to be in a weird niche between self-publishing and "self-distributing" (whatever that means). If it's notable enough to have a Wikipedia page yet also not be on WP:SPSLIST, I think it's ok for gauging an author's reliability.

Having confirmed that these issues are ongoing, I picked a spot at random and started checking the sources. The first I reviewed, source 17, does verify the preceding content. The next citation, #6, failed verification. Y'Blood p. 251 does not say that Marcus Island was the flagship of Task Unit 77.4.4.

Stikkyy, when Buidhe urged a "thorough check/rewrite to ensure all claims are backed by cited source", it does not appear as if you actually "remedied the issues with the sourcing". You responded to her question about Chesneau & Gardiner in the infobox by adding a citation to hazegray.org, deepening the article's reliance on a dubiously reliable source. I see many of your good articles on other Casablanca-class vessels have similar language and citations and have passed with few issues. I encourage you to review your work across the whole group of articles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Firefangledfeathers: p. 277 has Marcus Island as the flagship of TU 77.4.4. Besides, if the book demonstrates Marcus Island acting as a flagship at various points from mid-1944 to mid-1945, including on p. 251, it very much acts as support that her status didn't suddenly deviate at the end of October, especially since Sample's retinue probably consisted of around 80 men. I'll concede that this probably isn't making it through GA, so Ealdgyth (talk · contribs), feel free to fail it. Stikkyy t/c 05:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give the second opinion, I'm regretfully failing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]