Talk:USS Alaska (CB-1)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments:

I skipped over one because it was from the same series and therefore quite similar to the article I just reviewed.

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:

Needs work

- I tweaked the lead section and some of the other paragraphs extensively. In some sections you had three or four sentances starting with the same words, "She XXXX" or "She YYYY" over and over again. That's not easy to read. I also did some CE in the rest of the article.

- "Alaska and her sister Guam, two cruisers, and several destroyers were detached to create Task Group 58.2.9 to escort the crippled Franklin back to Ulithi." - Alaska and Guam are two cruisers, so do you mean that the group was Alaska, Guam, and the destroyers or do you mean Alaska, Guam, two additional cruisers, and several destroyers? Please make this sentence less ambiguous.

Fixed.

- Did the bombardment of Minamidaitō achieve anything? Did the Japanese respond? Same questions for the Oki Daitō bombardment.

Nothing I came across had any further details on the effects of the bombardment - the Japanese were by this time essentially unable to respond to attacks like this.

b. MoS compliance:

Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references:

Acceptable

b. proper citation use:

Acceptable

c. no original research:

Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects:

Acceptable

b. focused/on topic:

Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct:

Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned:

Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them:

b. general catch all and aesthetics:

- Please upload PD files to Commons, and please use a complete Template:Information form (failure to do the second one may wind up with the deletion of the file by a careless admin, it does happen). I will perform the transfers for the files here, and then maybe look around your upload history for other files, time permitting.

Comments after the initial review:

I donno, this seemed less polished than the last article of yours I did a GAN for. I performed a lot more CE on Alaska than I did the German ship. As I'm not an expert in the field and don't have access to the sources in your library, it'd be a good idea to make sure my CE didn't make anything incorrect.

Other than the CE there's some stuff in 1a that needs looking at. I'm still trying to decide which, if any, of the images need alt texts, although if I remember correctly, the last time I suggested alt texts to you it met with some resistance. Rest assured that alt texts won't hold up a GAN.

Finally, please take my comment in 7b into consideration.

I'll be around, at earliest, sometime on Saturday, so don't feel any need to rush to complete the 1a stuff. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 03:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my internet has been out since Wednesday - hopefully it should be back up this weekend, but I won't be able to get to anything until then. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits all look fine to me, thanks for making them. I did this article in about 2 hours, which probably explains why it was less polished than the other one :) I don't really like to mess with alt text, as it's not really clear what is actually helpful to blind users. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PROMOTED I think it's at GA standard. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]