Talk:USS Georgia (BB-15)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 11:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Parsecboy, I've completed yet another thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article. This article definitely exceeds the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to this article's passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should be addressed. Thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, 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):

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:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the battleship, establishes the battleship's necessary context, and explains why the battleship is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the battleship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The USS Georgia (BB-15) image is released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use in this template.
• The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Design

• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Service history

• The image of the USS Georgia just after launch has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here in this article.
• The image of the USS Georgia underway, 1909, has also been released into the public domain and can be used in this article.
• I would reiterate in the first paragraph that the Bath Iron Works are in Maine.
  • Good idea.
• Boston Navy Yard can be de-linked as it is already wiki-linked above in this section.
  • Good catch
• "The ship was back off Mexico during the summer" should be rephrased as "The ship was back off to Mexico during the summer" or "The ship returned to Mexico during the summer"
  • See how it reads now.
• The image "Georgia‍ '​s crew coaling the ship, c. 1919, as seen from the foremast" has been released to the public domain and is therefore suitable for usage here.
• At the beginning of the sixth paragraph, it should be made clear that the end of the conflict refers to the end of World War I, since it isn't mentioned by name specifically above.
  • Added a mention of the war by name in the 5th paragraph.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
  • Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Parsecboy, thank you for your thoughtful and timely responses to my comments and suggestions. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. Thank you for all your great work on these battleship articles! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)