Talk:USS West Bridge/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • For an article of this length, the lead should be two solid paragraphs.
     • Not sure what happened here. I work in an offline text editor and must not have saved the expanded lead section. I'll rewrite it and note here when it's been added. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
       • The lead has now been expanded. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
   • In the "Torpedo attack" section, second paragraph: Is there any more information on the female stowaways that were discovered? Why they were there, etc?
     • Regrettably, no. The only mention of them is in the DANFS entry. No mention even in the erroneous news reports of the sinking. (Omitting such potentially salacious details? For shame!) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
       • That's too bad that there's no further info...it would be interesting to add :) Oh well, it's not a huge detail - but if you ever do come across the info, be sure to add it is!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • You have the Montana DANFS article listed in the Bibliography, but not used for references.
   • The first paragraph of the "Military career" section has a note, but no reference.
     • Both oversights and both corrected. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (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:

Nice article! Just a few minor issues, so I'm putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with them. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Replies above. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead has now been expanded. In addition, I combined the single, short paragraph of the ship's Soviet career with the previous section and retitled it "World War II and later career". If you have any objections about this change, I'll be happy to change back. Thanks again for another review. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks done, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Keep up the good work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)