Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-9)/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Grabbing this one for a review shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No issues. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are public domain. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) No issues with captions. Pass Pass

Result

Result Notes
Pass Pass The article meets all the criteria to be marked as a Good Article.

Discussion

  • Description
    • Just for the lay person - does the layout of her guns make her a Dreadnought type or not?
      • Good catch, fixed.
  • Pacific and Asiatic Fleets
    • The two factions in Panana - can anything more be said about this? i.e. who were the factions and is there any other articles you could link to from that so that the reader could get more information?
      • As it turns out, the treaty was to end the Thousand Days' War - the text in DANFS wasn't particularly clear.
  • General
    • Just suddenly realised as I was reading through that British date formats have been used throughout - is this also the same format used by the US Navy? Otherwise as the article is about an American subject, it should really be formatted in the American style.
      • Articles on the modern US military (basically 20th century onwards) use DMY - there's a line here about it. Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is everything. Miyagawa (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - happy to promote now. I didn't know about the DMY bit, but I do now! Miyagawa (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:USS_Wisconsin_(BB-9)/GA1"