Talk:USS Vermont (BB-20)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is only the second time I have reviewed a naval ship out of all my reviews, so please forgive any newbie mistakes! I should have this complete soon. JAGUAR  17:21, 11 June 2015 (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, 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:

Initial comments

• "named for the 14th state" - named after?
  • Sounds fine to me.
• The lead summarises the article perfectly, so this meets the GA criteria
• "As built, she was fitted with heavy military masts" - I would recommend wiki-linking this for reference. In contrast, lattice masts is linked in the same sentence
  • Linked - I had forgotten to do this one.
• "She had a crew of 827 officers and men, though this increased to 881 and later to 896" - was this increased in World War I?
  • Conway's isn't clear, but I'd guess the standard crew actually decreased during WWI, since the 7-inch guns were removed, and space was needed for trainees. Just a hunch though.
• "in Quincy, Massachusetts (MA)" - are the initials here needed? (Again, "Provincetown, (MA)")
  • I guess not.
• Just curious, why is this article in d-m-y dates? Nothing wrong with it of course!
  • The US military switched to DMY in the 20th century, so we normally follow that in related articles.
• The caption for the last image is messed up ("Vermont c. 1919&nsdash;20")
  • Fixed, good catch. Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

References

• No dead links

On hold

A short review, but this is a well written article and is very worthy of becoming GA. Those were the only prose issues I could find, so once they're clarified then this will have no problem passing! JAGUAR  22:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them so fast! This looks good to go now JAGUAR  16:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)