Talk:1950 USS Missouri grounding/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be doing the GA review of this article, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Background section, is it necessary to repeat the name of Truman's daughter in the first and third paragraphs? It seems redundant to me, and in the third paragraph could be easily removed.
     • Fixed -MBK₀₀₄ 05:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
   • In the Salvage section, it says "An attempt made by Missouri's sailors on the day of the grounding met with failure, as did an initial attempt to pull Missouri back into deep water with sixteen tugboats, but they were also unsuccessful in this endeavor." The third clause of this sentence is redundant, as the "met with failure, as did" shows that the second attempt was unsuccessful.
     • Removed -MBK₀₀₄ 05:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
   • In the Grounding section it says the ship travelled "approximately 2,500 ft" onto the shoal, while in the Salvage section it says "nearly 2,400 feet". Which is it?
     • Fixed via using the number supported by a direct citation in the grounding section. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
   • In the Missouri Freed section it says "wiping out a portion of her side railing". Which ship's side railing?

   • Windlass. I clarified it.

   • In the Missouri Freed section it says "while Missouri's own navigator." While the navigator what?

   • Fixed.

   • In Note #5, it says "Had the engines not been shot down". Should this be "shut down"?
     • Fixed -MBK₀₀₄ 05:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
   • In Note #6, it says "go aground her local was perfect;". Should this be "locale" or "location" instead of "local"?
     • Corrected -MBK₀₀₄ 05:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • In the Bibliography, why is the Newell reference split into three different sections? I assume they refer to different chapters, but references aren't usually split up this way. Just curious mainly, it's not actually against MOS as far as I can tell.

   • Its just as you surmised, they are split for chapters. I elected to do this because I am of the opinion that it will make future article checkups easier if the chapters are individually credited so I know where to look for the info.

   • Works for me. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   • What makes current ref #30 (Doehring) reliable? It appears to be a self-published hobby site.

   • This particular site has the DANFS history of the battleships and other freely licensed material available for use. It may look suspicious, but the written stuff is all accurate. If its a problem I can remove the site from the site.

   • I'm not going to make a big deal out of it for GA status, if it just uses freely licensed material from other, reliable places. However, if you plan to take the article to FA, you'll probably want to replace this reference.

   • Is there a reason that the full information for the Bonner ref is listed both in the in-line references and the Bibliography?

   • Probably wasn't paying attention, it fixed.

   • Unless I'm missing it some place else, current ref #10 (Brown, official biography) needs more information. Is this a book? A pamphlet? A website?

   • Don't know. It was cited in the book I used just as I cited it here, but I could not find anything in the back clarifying the post.

   • If you got it out of another book, I would say to add that book's information to the reference. So say "Brown, etc...taken from book xyz". Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   • The cite is being used as back-up for something that already has two other cites. Three is a bit overkill, so it has been removed. If it gets added back in later we will be sure to make sure we get the correct information to properly cite the information. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is very close to GA status. Just a few minor issues with prose and references exist, and these should be easily rectified. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made some fixes, and I've asked Tom to handle the rest. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is really close. Just one more prose issue and one thing with referencing. I've struck all the finished issues so the remaining ones will be easier to see. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that all of the issues have now been dealt with, either by myself or by Tom as an IP on his wikibreak. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Allright, everything looks good! I'm now promoting this article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)