Talk:USS Blakeley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 10:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 3a. broadness ()

3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

General comments:

The article links to three DAB pages: Fuel economy, Bulkhead and Draught (nautical) - the last one being a redirect to Draft DAB. Please adjust to correct targets.
External links are fine (no action needed).
No overlinking observed.

Images:

No problems whatsoever - licenses check out, captions are fine.

References:

No referencing problems either.

Stability/comprehensiveness/focus:

Criteria met.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review:

Is the first name of W. Brown, Jr unknown or is there another reason for use of the initial only?
- First name is unknown as far as sources go. —Ed!^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, it is possible that the redlink is not warranted, but that is not for the GAR.
In At 08:30, she altered course to pursue a sound ping on her sonar., I assume that's half past eight in the morning. Perhaps "am" (or "pm") designation would dispel doubts that readers may have regarding this matter?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In The torpedo struck between framed 18 and 24 at about 4 feet (1.2 m) below her water line., I suspect that should be "frames" but I'm not familiar with ship construction, so I'm leaving it for you to correct me or that word.
- You're right. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In She was also fitted with newer weapons and electronics systems. what were those electronic systems? Just asking out of curiosity.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A newer radar. Added that. —Ed!^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I found no disagreements with the MOS, i think there are no further issues to address except those already stated.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. It was a pleasure and made an interesting reading material. Happy to pass this GAN.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]