Talk:United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The "House Mission" needs some context. What is it? What did it accomplish? You don't want to overburden this article with excessive details, but you also don't want to have to make the reader go read something else in order to know what it was and why it was important to mention here.

   • I have eliminated this reference as it was unnecessary extraneous information. Jrt989 (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Why or to whom a three-ship squadron was unacceptable?

   • Have clarified. Jrt989 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Although it's cited, it needs to be made clear whose phrase "Battle of Armageddon" is: Scheer, or the author Jones? Right now it reads as if it could be either.

   • Have removed this phrase from the text. Jrt989 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Similarly, who said the quoted phrase beginning like sheep being herded …? The author of The New York Times article or someone else?

   • Have clarified. (It was Beatty.) Jrt989 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • There are numerous sentences or phrases where citations are needed to attribute opinions, or for verifiability of facts cited. All are indicated by {{fact}} tags.

   • Have added citations where indicated. Jrt989 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   • There's one weasel word noted in the article by {{who}}

   • Fixed weasel word instance. Jrt989 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 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:

   The prose of the article at time is very flowery, with the descriptions sometimes veering into subtle (or even not-so-subtle) POV. A sentence like the one beginning:

   Reflecting an enthusiasm for a novel means to end the submarine menace, and the great manufacturing capacity of American industry…

   is rife with POV. If this is the opinion of the author to which this is cited, then it needs to be more clear that it's his/her opinion, like this:

   Author John Doe asserts that the "great manufacturing capacity" of the United States provided what he termed a "novel means" to containing German submarines…

   There were some other places where quick edits removed some of the POV issies, like:

   • "the urgent adoption"
   • "their beleaguered U.S. Navy counterparts"
   • "With Beatty's warm acceptance".

   I'd recommend a copy-edit from an uninvolved editor to help remove some of the POV language

   • Have attempted to remove POV language wherever found. Jrt989 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • As a relatively new article it's really hard to judge this, but as of this review there's no indication of edit-warring or anything like that.

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):

   • There are three images with copyright-related issues:
     • File:USS New York-9.jpg is of a painting by Bernard F. Gribble who died in 1962 and most likely under copyright protection until 2032 (or later). Image has been nominated for deletion at Commons

   • Have replaced this image with one that is PD. Jrt989 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   • • File:U-boat UB 64.jpg. There's no indication at the linked website that the copyright for this photo is expired. Image has been nominated for deletion at Commons

   • Have replaced this image with another found on Commons that is PD. Jrt989 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   • • File:Beatty Rodman KingGeorgeV KingEdwardVIII Sims.jpg. The U.S. Naval Institute is not an entity of the US federal government. If this is actually a U.S. Navy photo, it is in the public domain, but there's no way to verify either. Image has been nominated for deletion at Commons

   • I have updated this photo's license info to properly indicate that it is PD-US. Jrt989 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   • I also have questions about one other image, File:Battleship Division Nine WWI.jpg. With an image from the Imperial War Museum, I would expect that the license information would be related to PD status in the UK. It would be best removed from the article unless/until the license issue is resolved:

   • I have updated this photo's license info to indicate that it is PD-UK. Jrt989 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I think the article covers the subject adequately and is interesting, but I feel that the POV issues are too great justify a hold at this time. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)