Talk:Asheville-class gunboat (1917)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 04:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
There are many concerns with the article. Firstly, I strongly believe that with the present information provided the article can hardly be a GA. you need to add more context regarding the construction, launching and commissioning dates, description, service history. Also there are too many sections. I would suggest merging "1.3.1.1" and "1.3.1.2". Also "1.3.2.1" and "1.3.2.2". The modifications section may be merged with the first one. I would like to more context on the service history especially. Also expand the lead, just two sentences is very small. Take care of units, they must be mentioned in full on first mention, and abbreviated from the next. What do you mean showing the flag? And projecting naval power? Project eh naval power to whom and why? bluejackets? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I have addressed the style concerns, I will do my best to fix the context later, but I have to leave right now, I should be able to keep working on it tonight. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Iazyges: Are you done? Else ping me once you are.
- @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I believe the article is ready. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Iazyges: Are you done? Else ping me once you are.
- Lead and infobox; (Note:Infobox is out of GA criteria, just some suggestions)
- The Asheville-class gunboat was made up of two gunboats -> The Asheville-class gunboat was a group of two gunboats
Done
- One, the Tulsa was named after the city of Tulsa in Oklahoma, and was the first ship of this name -. The first ship was named as Tulsa after the city of Tulsa in Oklahoma
Done
- It was based on the model; "It"? The class or the Asheville
Done
- Some context on the ship's engagements in different wars is needed
Done
- All units in the infobox need to abbreviated
Done
- If the range is unknown, remove it; also the armor
Done
- Interchange the images in the infobox and the prose, as the class was named after Asheville, it is better put its image in the infobox
Done
- Section 1;
- There is inconsistency in usage of conversion template. Mention the units in full on the first use of the respective units and abbreviate them from the second use. For example, 241 ft 2 in (73.51 m), must be in full, and from next use these must be abbreviated
Done
- Link deep
Done
- (37 mm (1.46 in) guns and four .30 Lewis MGs; one of the braces is never closed
Done
- A comma (,) after "In 1922"
Done
- Link depth charge, antisubmarine capacity
Done
- Section 1.2.1;
- (A ship intentionally being seen sailing around to establish a presence and to diplomatically or politically influence countries); put the entire thing into a footnote
Done
- late 1920s, bluejackets and marines from -> late 1920s—bluejackets and marines from; the latter is a description of the previous one, so em dash
Done
- On the 1st of April 1929 -> On 1 April 1929
Done
- In June of 1929 -> In June 1929; also a comma (,) after that
Done
- In May of 1941 -> In May 1941; also a comma (,) after that
Done
- Asiatic Fleet and South China Sea are over linked
Done
- Link Philippines
Done
- Section 1.2.2;
- She was also attacked on 20 January 1943, when six Japanese bombers attacked her -> She was attacked on 20 January 1943 by six Japanese bombers
Done
- conversions for 3-inch and 20 mm
Done
- 6th of March 1946 -> 6 March 1946
Done
- 17th of April -> 17 April
Done
- In October of 1946 -> In October 1946
Done
- On the 1st of March 1942 -> On 1 March 1942
Done
- the Tulsa; drop "the"; also throughout the article drop "the" before the ship names;
Done
- POW; mention in full
Done
- As the article is completely based on links, it is better make an archive of links use web archives
Done
- 9.9% confidence, violation unlikely
- Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I have made all the edits you have suggested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: