This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Boxer (CV-21) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
Don't we use "U.S." generally on American articles? Likewise .. shouldn't it be "United States (U.S.) Senator, given we should always explain abbreviations on first use?
Nothing to link to. I imagine "refit" can be assumed to mean the same thing in this context as in any other. —Ed!(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Like other Essex-class ships, she could be armed with 12 5 inch (127 mm)/38 caliber guns arrayed in four pairs and four single emplacements, as well as 8 quadruple Bofors 40 mm guns and 46 Oerlikon 20 mm cannons. However, unlike the typical ships of the line, Philippine Sea was armed instead with 72 40mm guns and 35 20 mm cannons." ... errr... is "Phllippine Sea" a typo for "Boxer" or if not, why do we care since this is the Boxer article? We want to know what Boxer was armed with ...
Oops. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"U.S." is generally used in the US, not "US". (pet peeve - we aren't Brits, scared of periods - err. full stops.)
Why the HECK are we naming US warships after British warships we captured??? Curiosity abounds here...
I think the capture was a big victory at the time. Really, I can't imagine why five ships would get the name though. —Ed!(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The ships' cost is estimated at $68,000,000 to $78,000,000." - shouldn't this be "ship's cost was estimated"?
"She returned to San Francisco on 10 September 1946, embarked Carrier Air Group 19 flying the F8F Bearcat, and began a series of peacetime patrols and training missions during a relatively uneventful period during 1947, all off the coast of California." Runon- can we break this up into something easier to digest?
"On 10 March 1948, an FJ-1 Fury launched from Boxer, the first such launch of a jet aircraft from a carrier, which allowed subsequent tests of jet aircraft carrier doctrine." This tidbit would be cool in the lead...
"She carried 145 P-51 Mustangs and six L-5 Sentinels of the.." I think the MOS says that when making sentences like this - you use all numerals, not the mix you currently have. Yeah, see WP:ORDINAL, second bullet point.
"The ships prompted a large destroyer screen, though MiG-15 attacks against them did not occur." I cannot make heads or tails of this sentence - I think it means that the ships had a large destroyer screen .... but not idea if that's correct or not.
This occurs elsewhere - but why the mix of using and not using "USS"? "On 23 and 24 June, her planes conducted strikes against the Sui-ho hydro-electric complex in conjunction with USS Princeton (CV-37), USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) and Philippine Sea." I think we need a bit more consistency here and throughout the article.
I tend to use it on first reference. Other ship people like to drop "USS" entirely, but in this case the article has links to ships of other nationalities so I prefer to clarify on first mention. —Ed!(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"She returned to the battlefield and from 28 August to 2 September she tested a new weapons system..." Battlefield? Fight, I'd think, or something similar - but I don't think of carriers deploying aircraft for sorties as involved in "battlefields".
"She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, ending the war." Technically .. an armistace doesn't truly "end" a war - a treaty does. There is no treaty. Suggest "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, ending combat operations." or "She also provided close air support for UN troops for the final weeks of the war before an armistice was reached at Panmunjom in July 1953, effectively ending the war, although no treaty has been signed."
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I can't speak to the prose requirements of FAC, so you may want a copyeditor to look at it before you head there. It'd be cool if you could dig up WHY we keep naming ships after the HMS Boxer - that might give this a bit less of a "cookie cutter" feel to the article - i.e. some human interest. Did anyone important serve on her or similar? Not needed for GA, but might be a bit more interest for FAC. Promoting now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The USS Boxer CV-21 was named, as most WWII era carriers were, for a battle in which US forces were engaged. In this case, the Boxer Rebellion in China. It was not named for any HMS Boxer. Nor, to my knowledge, has any other US warship been named to a British warship. Wilsonse (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[1][2][reply]
.jpg)
b (citations to reliable sources): 