Login
Login

Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-9)/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:USS Wisconsin (BB-9)/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-9)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Grabbing this one for a review shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

=Criteria=

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

{{see|WP:WIAGA}}

A good article is—

  1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

    2. : (a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}; and

    : (b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}}. Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

  2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

    3. : (a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2a}};

    : (b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}};Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. and

    : (c) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2c}}.

  3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

    4. : (a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}};This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. and

    : (b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3b}}.

  4. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.

  5. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.
    6. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

  6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:
    7. Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

    : (a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6a}}; and

    : (b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6b}}.The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

=Review=

  1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

    2. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (prose)The reviewer has no notes here.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}
    (b) (MoS)The reviewer has no notes here.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}

  2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

    3. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (references)The reviewer has no notes here.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}
    (b) (citations to reliable sources)The reviewer has no notes here.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}
    (c) (original research)The reviewer has no notes here.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}

  3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

    4. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (major aspects)The reviewer has no notes here.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}
    (b) (focused)The reviewer has no notes here.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}

  4. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.

    5. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Notes !! Result

    The reviewer has no notes here.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}

  5. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.

    6. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Notes !! Result

    No issues.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}

  6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

    7. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)All images are public domain.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)No issues with captions.{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}

==Result==

class="wikitable"
ResultNotes
{{GAHybrid/item|pass}}The article meets all the criteria to be marked as a Good Article.

==Discussion==

  • Description
  • Just for the lay person - does the layout of her guns make her a Dreadnought type or not?
  • Good catch, fixed.
  • Pacific and Asiatic Fleets
  • The two factions in Panana - can anything more be said about this? i.e. who were the factions and is there any other articles you could link to from that so that the reader could get more information?
  • As it turns out, the treaty was to end the Thousand Days' War - the text in DANFS wasn't particularly clear.
  • General
  • Just suddenly realised as I was reading through that British date formats have been used throughout - is this also the same format used by the US Navy? Otherwise as the article is about an American subject, it should really be formatted in the American style.
  • Articles on the modern US military (basically 20th century onwards) use DMY - there's a line here about it. Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that is everything. Miyagawa (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks - happy to promote now. I didn't know about the DMY bit, but I do now! Miyagawa (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

=Additional notes=

{{Reflist}}