Talk:USS Vermont (BB-20)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This is only the second time I have reviewed a naval ship out of all my reviews, so please forgive any newbie mistakes! I should have this complete soon. JAGUAR 17:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Initial comments
[edit]- "named for the 14th state" - named after?
- Sounds fine to me.
- The lead summarises the article perfectly, so this meets the GA criteria
- "As built, she was fitted with heavy military masts" - I would recommend wiki-linking this for reference. In contrast, lattice masts is linked in the same sentence
- Linked - I had forgotten to do this one.
- "She had a crew of 827 officers and men, though this increased to 881 and later to 896" - was this increased in World War I?
- Conway's isn't clear, but I'd guess the standard crew actually decreased during WWI, since the 7-inch guns were removed, and space was needed for trainees. Just a hunch though.
- "in Quincy, Massachusetts (MA)" - are the initials here needed? (Again, "Provincetown, (MA)")
- I guess not.
- Just curious, why is this article in d-m-y dates? Nothing wrong with it of course!
- The US military switched to DMY in the 20th century, so we normally follow that in related articles.
- The caption for the last image is messed up ("Vermont c. 1919&nsdash;20")
- Fixed, good catch. Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
References
[edit]On hold
[edit]A short review, but this is a well written article and is very worthy of becoming GA. Those were the only prose issues I could find, so once they're clarified then this will have no problem passing! JAGUAR 22:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing them so fast! This looks good to go now JAGUAR 16:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)