Talk:USS Osage (1863)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Moswento (talk · contribs) 11:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I'll be taking care of this review. The article looks good after an initial read-through, but I'll do a detailed review with any queries later. Moswento talky 11:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Overall
Overall, a very good article. I have a few queries on the text, below, but the article covers all the main aspects of the ship's design and service history, without any obvious gaps. There's no evidence of OR or plagiarism, and the references all look like reliable sources. The picture's good. Almost ready to pass this. Moswento talky 14:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Lead
- "She participated in the Red River Campaign in March–May 1864, during which Osage" - it seems odd to me to put the "she" before "Osage" in the sentence. I would suggest either switching them, or using "she" both times
- There's some important stuff in the lead that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body of the article, but probably should be: "After completion in mid-1863, the ship patrolled the Mississippi River against Confederate raids and ambushes as part of Rear Admiral David Porter's Mississippi Squadron." / "Osage supported the capture of Fort DeRussy in March "
- Design
- "The turret were..." - This is maybe nautical lingo (in which case, please correct me), but should this be "turrets were"?
- Service history
- First paragraph is currently uncited. Adding FN 9 at the end would cover it, I would think.
- "could not be refloated even when some of her armor was removed due to the rapidly falling water level. " - there's potential ambiguity here, i.e. I first read it as if the rapidly falling water level was the reason for the armor being removed rather than the reason she couldn't be refloated. I would suggest adding a comma or two (depending on your comma philosophy)
- "New Orleans 22 November 1867" - New Orleans on 22 November 1867?
All fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well then, I'm happy to promote this to GA. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Moswento talky 17:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)