Talk:USS Colorado (BB-45)/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

There appears to be several things that the initial reviewer missed. Please address this issues within the next 7 days and I will add more (if needed) after.--Dom497 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review

"...and during an NROTC cruise" - Maybe bad grammar on my part, but shouldn't it be "a" not "an"? Done
"She then sailed to Luzon on 1 January 1945, she participated in the preinvasion bombardments in Lingayen Gulf." - Doesn't really make sense. I know what it is supposed to mean, but the way it is worded, it doesn't make sense. Needs to be re-worded. Done
"She returned to Okinawa on 6 August sailed from there for the occupation of Japan, arriving in Tokyo on 27 August." - Yet again the worded ruins the flow/ability to make sense of the statement. Done
A lot of the sentences use "she"...a lot...and multiple times for the start of a sentence. Mix things up a bit. Done
"Many of her anti-aircraft guns are in museums or mounted on the Olympia. There are many parts of her in museums across the state of Colorado, including her teak decking and her bell." - Why are we stating the museum fact twice? This could easily be merged into one sentence. Done
Looks like the convert template is missing for a few measurements. Done

Let's start with this. After these issues are addressed, I will continue to re-evaluate the article.--Dom497 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - this article is a substantial copy of the DANFS entry, and needs to be rewritten to avoid plagiarism issues, per my comments in this related GAN review. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, please address Parsecboy's issue as well.--Dom497 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, I've done a light copy edit, but it will probably need a bit more work. A couple of things I noticed are:

at five paragraphs, the lead is too long per WP:LEAD Done
also the lead includes some details that are not in the body of the article, and are not referenced. For instance the information about helping in the relief of Long Beach after the earthquake and in the search for the missing Amelia Earhart. Done
- G'day, just to clarify, I think the information should still be included, just not necessarily in the lead. I suggest rewriting it, and putting it in the interwar years section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Done[reply]
good luck with the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Closing review.--Dom497 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]