Jump to content

Talk:USS Hawaii (CB-3)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • I'm assuming the missile range referred to in the article was supposed to be in nautical miles and not nanometers, right? (I changed it already. Snicker, snicker.)
    • In … due to the armor weight devoted to counter shell fire.: Not sure what is being said here. Is "counter shell fire" a type of attack or should this be "counter shellfire"? If the latter, maybe a different word than counter. Maybe "protect against shellfire"?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Other issues that won't affect whether the article passes but may be useful for future assessments:

  • Do all four of the references after the 2nd sentence of the Design section cover both sentence1 and 2? Is there any way to either put some after the first sentence, or possibly combine into a single reference (but keeping the "A 5" note separate)?
  • The prose could, however, use a copy-edit, however, because, however, some words are used a lot, however…
  • Any reason to link to the Hazegray rehosted DANFS, as opposed to the "official" version at history.navy.mil?
  • Most of the books in the Bibliography section are missing a place of publication.

— Bellhalla (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to bed, but I should be able to address these tomorrow or Saturday. Thanks for the review! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will address these tomorrow at some point. I think that I want to rewrite the Design section, but we'll see. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, the only outstanding issue, as far as GA requirements go, is the prose issue about "counter shell fire". When that's addressed, it's good to go for GA, but if you start rewriting it now, I'll feel compelled to reassess it... — Bellhalla (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; that issue has been addressed. I'll rewrite it before the A-class review, I think...don't want to waste more of your time! :/ —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No waste of time at all. :) There's just no need to reinvent the wheel if fixing a flat will get you on your way. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Hawaii_(CB-3)/GA1&oldid=1066781919"