Talk:USS Ohio (BB-12)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 23:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review over the weekend. Miyagawa (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article is fully referenced.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All sources used are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No obvious original research, taking good faith on the content of the offline sources.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Unsurprisingly, since you're one of the masters are this type of article, it covers all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	No problems.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No neutrality issues.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No stability problems.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Both images are in the public domain.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All captions are fine.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

• Lead
  • Is it worth specifying that she was a dreadnought battleship, or is that inherent from her armament? (That query goes for the description too)
    • A good idea - it would be obvious to someone familiar with the subject area, but it would be best to link since most readers will not be familiar.
• Description
  • Is there a reason why you've linked two types of gun, but not the other?
    • Just an omission - good catch.
• Service history
  • Per WP:OVERLINK you might want to check the links to some of those cities.
    • Fixed.
• Other than that very minor niggle and the two queries, I think that's it. Always a pleasure to read your articles. Miyagawa (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thorough review! Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Great, happy for this one to receive its GA symbol! Miyagawa (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)