Talk:USS Ohio (BB-12)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 23:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Grabbing this for a review over the weekend. Miyagawa (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

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[edit]

  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 article is fully referenced. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All sources used are reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No obvious original research, taking good faith on the content of the offline sources. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Unsurprisingly, since you're one of the masters are this type of article, it covers all major aspects. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) No problems. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    No neutrality issues. 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 stability problems. 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) Both images are in the public domain. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All captions are fine. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion[edit]

  • Lead
    • Is it worth specifying that she was a dreadnought battleship, or is that inherent from her armament? (That query goes for the description too)
      • A good idea - it would be obvious to someone familiar with the subject area, but it would be best to link since most readers will not be familiar.
  • Description
    • Is there a reason why you've linked two types of gun, but not the other?
      • Just an omission - good catch.
  • Service history
    • Per WP:OVERLINK you might want to check the links to some of those cities.
      • Fixed.
  • Other than that very minor niggle and the two queries, I think that's it. Always a pleasure to read your articles. Miyagawa (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your thorough review! Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, happy for this one to receive its GA symbol! Miyagawa (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Ohio_(BB-12)/GA1&oldid=1038140084"