Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 10:16, 12 May 2013 (BOT: Adding |oldid=554341300 to {{GA}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
My first surprise is the lack of a design section. Practically all BB's have such a section (summarizes the class article/infobox in a paragraph or so).
A construction section would go along with the design para. I see you have a lot of info on the christening (relatively), but nothing on construction. At least throw in the laying down/launching/commissioning dates in the Christening section, which you might want to name "Construction"
The inscription quoted says the ship was launched with christening on March 10, while the infobox gives March 24. Any reason why they're off?
According to the newspapers (see clippings in ) it seems that they were launched (and christened) on March 24 (I'll add those sources soon). As I wrote below, I don't have the book with the inscription, so I can't explain it. Inkbug (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be too much cited to the DANFs entry. While this is perfectly fine for non-GA articles, using only DANFS for a career section of a US ship isn't good enough for GA quality. Try to phase out the DANFS refs and replace them with cites from other print sources (like the ones you have but don't use in the bibliography). While you're at it, add in more info that you come across in those sources.
Hazegray is a meh source at best, suitable only when very few others can be found (probably not the case here). I'd also wonder what makes navypedia.org a reliable source.
Working I'm having a little trouble with this. I've removed some of the DANFS and Hazegray refs and replaced them with other sources, and all but one of navypedia.org ones (the last one is sourcing a categorical statement in the lead - does it need a ref at all?). Inkbug (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Most of the sources I've added are newspapers from the time. Therefore, it is going to be hard to source with them the statements in the lead - do they need sources, or is it enough that later on in the article it is sourced in detail? Inkbug (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The lead is only cited if the contributor feels like it, although I think info appearing only there probably should be moved and cited. Buggie111 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd quick fail this if I was a bit more keen on reviewing US BB articles, but in the spirit of giving, I'll leave it open for two weeks. If the main problem (DANFS and lack of other refs) is addressed by the end of these two weeks, I'll post some more, minor improvements. Best of luck to you. Buggie111 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the consideration. I'll try to fix the things you mentioned, although I don't have access to the print sources (they were in the article before I edited it). Thanks, Inkbug (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to say no. A lot of content is still coming straight from DANFS (although I commend you several thousand times for the addition of so much newspaper material), and needs to be replaced with content from generic "Battleships of the U.S." books. Check WP:OMT and look at all the American FA's, and you should see the DANFS:total ref ratio, as well as potential books. If you are having trouble obtaining the print sources in the article (the ones that were listed before you started writing), I'd suggest Inter Library Loan.
Also, when citing a book, I think it is more common to put the book in a "Bibliography" section and cite text like this <ref>Smith, p. 10</ref> instead of . If you need any help working on this in the future, don't hesitate to ping me. All the best, Buggie111 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Issues appear to be resolved. Although the are many spelling/grammer issues that I can see, I would like to suggest that the following text be looked at: *Consider changing "Her keel was laid down by the Newport News Shipbuilding Company of Virginia, on 30 June 1896." to read "The Newport News Shipbuilding Company of Virginia laid down her keel, on 30 June 1896." This is for reduction of passive voice. *Add a comma after "Between 1901 and 1904" and "and from 1904 to 1907" *Add a comma after "In 1907" *Change till to until after "From 1917" *Add a comma after "In 1902" *Add a comma after "In November"; also of what year? *Add a comma after "On 20 August" *Add a comma after "On 11 September" *Add a comma after "On 4 June 1912" *Change till to until after "From July" *Add a comma after "From July till September" *Add a comma after "During the war" *Add a comma after "On 18 March 1919" *Replace "as a result" with "because" after "The Kentucky was decommissioning on 29 May 1920," *Capitalize "her" in the sentence "her name was struck from..."
Issues resolved Although not required, I suggest alt captions be added to the article (though not a requirement of GAN
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold until improvements are made as suggested above, or good reason given not to make the above suggestions. If a reply, or improvements are not made by 23 May 2013, I will close this GAN.
Thanks for the review. The issues you noted with the prose should be fixed. As far as alt text, it seems to me that all of the images have alt text already. Did I miss an image, or is the alt text not good? Inkbug (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Almost all the issues have been resolved, that I listed. There is still one on the list that was overlooked. As for alt descriptions, I did not see an alt specifically tagged for the image in the "Great White Fleet" section, or for the image used in the infobox at the top of the page.
I also saw that since I began the GAN that additional improvements to the article have been made. Good.
Having rechecked the article, everything appears to be in order for the current version, as checked against GA criteria. I shall make the proper changes to the talk page and article shortly. Congratulations to Inkbug for their efforts in improving this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
Working Inkbug (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Done I hope the section has what you wanted. Inkbug (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):