Talk:Asheville-class gunboat (1917)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 04:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There are many concerns with the article. Firstly, I strongly believe that with the present information provided the article can hardly be a GA. you need to add more context regarding the construction, launching and commissioning dates, description, service history. Also there are too many sections. I would suggest merging "1.3.1.1" and "1.3.1.2". Also "1.3.2.1" and "1.3.2.2". The modifications section may be merged with the first one. I would like to more context on the service history especially. Also expand the lead, just two sentences is very small. Take care of units, they must be mentioned in full on first mention, and abbreviated from the next. What do you mean showing the flag? And projecting naval power? Project eh naval power to whom and why? bluejackets? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I have addressed the style concerns, I will do my best to fix the context later, but I have to leave right now, I should be able to keep working on it tonight. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Are you done? Else ping me once you are.

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I believe the article is ready. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox; (Note:Infobox is out of GA criteria, just some suggestions)
  • The Asheville-class gunboat was made up of two gunboats -> The Asheville-class gunboat was a group of two gunboats

 Done

• • One, the Tulsa was named after the city of Tulsa in Oklahoma, and was the first ship of this name -. The first ship was named as Tulsa after the city of Tulsa in Oklahoma

 Done

• • It was based on the model; "It"? The class or the Asheville

 Done

• • Some context on the ship's engagements in different wars is needed

 Done

• • All units in the infobox need to abbreviated

 Done

• • If the range is unknown, remove it; also the armor

 Done

• • Interchange the images in the infobox and the prose, as the class was named after Asheville, it is better put its image in the infobox

 Done

• Section 1;
  • There is inconsistency in usage of conversion template. Mention the units in full on the first use of the respective units and abbreviate them from the second use. For example, 241 ft 2 in (73.51 m), must be in full, and from next use these must be abbreviated

 Done

• • Link deep

 Done

• • (37 mm (1.46 in) guns and four .30 Lewis MGs; one of the braces is never closed

 Done

• • A comma (,) after "In 1922"

 Done

• • Link depth charge, antisubmarine capacity

 Done

• Section 1.2.1;
  • (A ship intentionally being seen sailing around to establish a presence and to diplomatically or politically influence countries); put the entire thing into a footnote

 Done

• • late 1920s, bluejackets and marines from -> late 1920s—bluejackets and marines from; the latter is a description of the previous one, so em dash

 Done

• • On the 1st of April 1929 -> On 1 April 1929

 Done

• • In June of 1929 -> In June 1929; also a comma (,) after that

 Done

• • In May of 1941 -> In May 1941; also a comma (,) after that

 Done

• • Asiatic Fleet and South China Sea are over linked

 Done

• • Link Philippines

 Done

• Section 1.2.2;
  • She was also attacked on 20 January 1943, when six Japanese bombers attacked her -> She was attacked on 20 January 1943 by six Japanese bombers

 Done

• • conversions for 3-inch and 20 mm

 Done

• • 6th of March 1946 -> 6 March 1946

 Done

• • 17th of April -> 17 April

 Done

• • In October of 1946 -> In October 1946

 Done

• • On the 1st of March 1942 -> On 1 March 1942

 Done

• • the Tulsa; drop "the"; also throughout the article drop "the" before the ship names;

 Done

• • POW; mention in full

 Done

• As the article is completely based on links, it is better make an archive of links use web archives

 Done

• 9.9% confidence, violation unlikely

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I have made all the edits you have suggested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)