Talk:USS Leary (DD-158)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

MOS issues:

• There are a couple of duplicate links which need be removed per WP:OVERLINK: World War II and Gearing-class destroyer.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• There are two links to disambiguation pages: Fuel economy and Draught (nautical), the latter redirecting to Draft (also a DAB page). Please target those to appropriate articles.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Referencing:

• What makes the Andrew Hague Convoy Database a WP:RS?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure of that myself, that section was added by someone else. I do know it's been allowed in other GAs, and that there is a template devoted to citing sources on that site. I can go looking around for the discussion of its notability. —Ed!^(talk) 12:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the template seems to give some sort of credibility to the source - at least I suspect someone gave some thought to it. I saw Sturmvogel used the same source in several successful GANs, so I asked him for advice, but given the previous use in GAs (four reviews at least passed using that source) and the template, I'm leaning towards accepting it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Got a response from Sturm - it would appear that the source is quite fine for a GA, but would not suffice in a FAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Prose:

• In ... took part in a large-scale battle exercises ... is it one exercise or more - either the indefinite article or the plural suffix must go.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• The 01:58 in On 24 December 1943, the task group was caught in a storm in the North Atlantic when at 01:58, Leary made a ping on a U-Boat off her starboard bow. is not clear, at least to me - is it am or pm?
  • Generally in U.S. military articles you'll find editors prefer the 24:00 hour scheme, hence the 0 before 1:58. Added the am for clarity. —Ed!^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article. I think there are no further issues relevant to the GAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Responded to everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)