Talk:USS Philippines (CB-4)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Please note that due to the extreme similarities between the articles USS Philippines (CB-4), USS Samoa (CB-6) and USS Puerto Rico (CB-5) I am for the moment combining the reviews because all three articles have the same problem.

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far, these articles are well capable of making GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, set your standards high! Easier to go through hoops now, with one reviewer, than later with four reviewers at A-class or (maybe) FAC.... :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues preventing promotion

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Very well written, probably an 8/10 or better.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

All fine apart from question over one source, see below.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

Big problem. I'm not and never have been a fan of simply boilerplating text on several articles because it applies to all of them. I much prefer each article having individually written text. That said, my reservations are not adequate grounds for denying these articles GA status. What is actionable however is that the information about the cancellation appears only in the lead in each instance. These paragraphs should be moved into their own section, after "Designing the class" and expanded if possible, elaborating on any individual details about the seperate ships. The lead should then contain a short summary of the information in this new paragraph. Anything else that makes these ship distinct from one another should be included in the article and emphasised (otherwise, there is a valid case for merging all three into a single article, perhaps Alaska class battlecruiser)--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

Why is Britain the only nation linked in the opening paragraph of "Designing the class"? Either link them all or not at all.
- Delinked!
What makes navweps.com a reliable source (WP:RS)?
- See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Iowa class battleship/archive1...it was cleared by the RS noticeboard.

Then its fine by me!

It would be nice to have some sub-headings (===) in the designing the class section to break up the text into stages of design.
- Done

Reply to boilerplate

The design and weapons for the ships would ahve been the same, so even w/o boilerplating, the paragraphs would have been very similar. :) I'll move stuff around and do what I can. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, boilerplate sound much worse than I meant it to. The article as written is very good, my issue with it is that it is essentially the same article three times. This is not encouraged, but neither is it a barrier to becoming a GA. What I would like to see is the small things that make these ship individual from one another and individual from the other ships of their class emphasised and expanded if possible, principally the second paragraph of the lead, which should really be in the main body of the article. I certainly didn't mean boilerplate to indicate that the writing was substandard (its very good), just that its essentially been copied into three seperate articles without changes. Keep up the good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that seperates these ships from their constructed sisters is their cancellation. At the moment, this isn't mentioned in the main body of the article at all.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=) No problem. Does Samoa look better? If it does, I'll do the same thing to the other two (i.e. moving and combining, not boilerplating =]) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better. I'd be happy to pass Samoa now, but if its OK with you I'll wait until all three are up to standard. Very nice work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just another thought, although its not a barrier to GA, make sure that all citations come after punctuation.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I have done that in awhile :)...may I ask where? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new "ships" section, also the second paragraph of the lead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which sentence?

"Hawaii, the third, was canceled; construction upon her was suspended on 16 April 1945[13] when she was 84% complete.[22]"

[13] references 16 April, while [22] references 84% complete...

"Construction had still not begun when steel shortages[23] and a realization that these "cruiser killers" had no more cruisers to hunt—the fleets of Japanese cruisers had already been defeated by aircraft and submarines—made the Alaska class "white elephants" that were surplus to the goals of the Navy.[3]"

This is right because [23] references "steel shortages" and [3] references the rest... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you are referencing specific things, but MOS states that refs have to come after punctuation. Since its not essential for GA, I recommend leaving it until future review processes and seeing what is said there.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) What do you think now? I ended up boilerplating a lot of it, but... =/ —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will now pass all three. Please be aware that although I personally have no issue with the three "ships" having seperate articles, so much of their substance is identical that there will inevitably be calls at some point for all three to be merged together. Have strong arguments prepared for such an eventuality. Really good work, and regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]