Talk:USS Saratoga (CV-3)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Does the 1945 crew figure also include the flight crews? If so, make that clear.

   Done.

   The bit about the .50cal machine guns is unclear; if they were unsuccessful, why did they add another in 1934? It sounds odd to read that they were unsuccessful, but one was replaced by a pair of them.

   Friedman calls them unsuccessful, but doesn't state why. Perhaps the mounts rather than the guns themselves?

   In the inter-war section, first paragraph, you repeat "captain" in the last sentence. Might you consider switching the second to read "as the ship's commander" or something like that?

   Deleted the last little bit as redundant.

   Are you sure Rufus Fairchild Zogbaum is the right link? This one apparently died in 1925.

   Fixed, good catch.

   That's a hell of a name, by the way.

   The bit about "damaging Yorktown in an early phase of the exercise" - should you put "damage" in quotes (as you did elsewhere, to make clear that it was simulated damage)?

   Done.

   On the I-6 attack - the article just says that the list was corrected, but no details on the list itself - any info on the degree of list or how much water flooded the ship?

   Amount of list or flooding not available in any source I have on hand.

   Fair enough.

   Why are the lines about Sara's wartime summary direct quotes from DANFS? Why not paraphrase them?

   Because I couldn't think of a better way to phrase that info. Admittedly I was kinda burnt out on the whole article when I was working on that part, but feel free to suggest a better way to word it.

   I get being burned out on articles. I reworded them - take a look and make any changes you see fit.

   Essex class aircraft carrier is linked another time in the post-war section.

   Good catch.

   The section on the atomic tests is a bit choppy - it starts by talking about Crossroads and then diverges on some other details. The next paragraph starts directly with her surviving Able, and then does not make clear that the ship sank after Baker. Readers might assume that Crossroads happened in January 1946 and then be confused about what was going on with Able and Baker.

   I cleaned this up a little, but it's all strictly chronological.

   I was just hoping to connect things a bit more so the reader isn't left wondering. I added a bit, again, take a look at it.

   The last sentence says that dives began in 2011 after a hiatus - they either began for the first time in 2011, or resumed after a hiatus.

   Good catch.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citation missing in the Fire control section about the plan to replace the Mk19s with Mk33s.

   Fixed.

   Might be worth adding the final aircraft complement to contrast with the numbers/types in 1936 in the Flight deck arrangements section.

   Good idea.

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   File:USS Saratoga Kamikaze hit 21 February 1945.jpg - this needs a better source. Navweaps doesn't credit the photo to anybody, so there is the possibility that some seaman took the photo on his own, not in any official capacity (like with Haeberle's personal photos from My Lai).

   It's a cropped version of a photo that appears on page 466 of Palomar & Genda's book, credited to US Navy. No ID # provided unfortunately, but I think we can rest assured that it really was an official photo.

   Sounds fine then. You might want to replace Navweaps with the book citation, since it at least credits the image to the Navy - should help when you get to FAC.

   Can we get a caption for the lead image?

   Done. I'd planned on working on the photos before the ACR, but I can do them now, no problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

   File:Saratoga (CV3). Aerial, port bow, underway, launching aircraft, 05-31-1934 - NARA - 520810.tif - this is a good picture, but you might want to look into getting somebody to fix the rotation and clean it up a bit.

   Done.

   This and this are pretty neat images, you might consider adding them to the article. There are a few photos here of the ship under construction that show the barbettes, might be more effective to show the ship being built as a BC than the one currently used.

   I swapped out the under construction photo for one that shows the barbettes, but the other two that you mentioned don't really do anything for me that the existing ones don't do already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I just thought the camouflage scheme was visually interesting.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll go ahead and pass this now, nothing else I can see barring promotion. Great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)