Talk:USS Attu

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).

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

GA Review

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)[reply]

I will take a look at this one. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for the review, I've addressed your points. Stikkyy t/c 07:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The changes looks good and I like your extra additions. Am passing this as GA as I believe that it meets the necessary criteria. Good work. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]