GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this in a couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this through and although it seems thorough, it also seems skimpy. I've asked for a second opinion. auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the ship's short time of commissioning, it's not unreasonably short. For a ship this obscure, probably the best thing to do is to use the DANFS entry as a base. You can either rework the text, and cite it as the source, or you can directly quote it, using quotation marks and citations. Some of the text is already copied and needs to be cited with quote marks. There are, however, a number of other issues that need to be addressed.

 Done

 Done

 Done

 Done

 Done

 Done

 Done

 Done

 Done

 Done

 Done

Mindoro completed her shakedown cruise along the West Coast, and in late January 1946 she cruised to the East Coast of the United States. She arrived in Norfolk, Virginia on 15 February and joined Carrier Division 14, initiating carrier air training operations. In May she joined ships of the 8th Fleet for exercises in West Indian waters.

Since DANFS is PD, a lot of content is quoted verbatim, in many US ship articles. Some GA class articles are almost entirely DANFS. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the last sentence of this paragraph, For the remainder of 1946, she patrolled the Atlantic from New England to Cuba, training naval aviators and taking part in anti-submarine Hunter killer exercises." could actually be put into the context of larger naval developments: developing the long-range capacities that joined naval and air force vis a vis the bombers, atomic bombs, etc. Wouldn't need much.....

I have looked for more sources, none to be found that can be considered reliable. I can't do it without it being WP:OR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just a thought. Especially since it is was no longer a direct quote (you said you modified it to make sense). Also, this is the third ship of that name; the one that went out of service in 1945 was sunk? decommed? What happened? You link this to a lot of other articles, but textually, it isn't linked to much at all. auntieruth (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntieruth55: It is [arguably] a direct quote, just changed with minor things, such as putting "on" in front of dates. It is also very rare to discuss what exactly happened to a ship that share this name, unless it is directly linked. For instance the article on the new USS Enterprise might, because the two are both aircraft carriers, and the old Enterprise was famous. But here the previous ones are of little consequence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]