Talk:Asiatic Squadron

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: Maritime / North America / United States C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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 met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Seems biased[edit]

this article seems biased. the words "destroy" and "effectively" hint at this bias. while changing these words may remove the impression of bias, this will not actually remove the bias. 61.80.41.26 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the bias. Can you explain further? To me "destroy" is a fairly objective term and something that militaries do. Similarly, how is "effectively control" biased? Would "de facto" be better than "effectively"? "Effective" is just a qualifier to mean that they did neither officially or legally controlled, at least in my mind. Certainly if anyone sees bias they should be bold and correct the bias. --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operational details[edit]

Missing are operational details abou the squadron, such as where it was based and what its strength was. The article would benefit from such information. --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]