Talk:USS Colhoun (DD-85)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.... and I might as well review this one as as well, seeing as its the same class of vessel with the same editor. :) Miyagawa (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the wording in the lead for USS Breese (DD-122), I think specifying that the ship was later redesignated is better than what is currently at the top of this article.

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Being that this is a United States vessel, would it not be better to use the US format for dates? i.e. February 4, 1980 rather than 4 February 1980? I only mention it because this sort of thing is covered in WP:STRONGNAT, but it says "should generally" rather than must, so I'll leave it up to you.

Service history: Any specifics on what sound equipment they were?

Probably something related to sonar. No source specifically says this though. —Ed!^(talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any ties date-wise between her recommissioning as APD-2 and the naming of the new USS Colhoun? I know the new one wasn't laid down till three years later, but I'm just wondering about the ordering date.

It's possible but not likely, the sources don't make a point of it on the next ship so it might have been convenient, but I doubt it was something that was explicitly planned. —Ed!^(talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World War II: Might be worth while merging that final line into the bottom of the previous paragraph as it looks unfinished there on its own.

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links: Could the photos link be expanded to say what website it is linking through to? Just a bit of fancy piping will be fine.

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just one duplicate link, references all look good. Images are all suitably licenced.

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, not a great deal of changes needed to make this one a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:STRONGNAT articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying - I've struck the comment above. Serves me right as the only military articles I've ever improved have been Royal Navy ones. :) I'll keep that in mind for myself for future use. Miyagawa (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I think this one is all done now too. Miyagawa (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]