Talk:USS Yancey/GA1

GA Review

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

Below is my review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Something is not right here: 'The cargo ship sailed with three other transports and a pair of screening destroyers Saipan and then to Espiritu Santo'. Or maybe it is right but confusing.

   • There was a missing to: now reads …sailed with three other transports and a pair of screening destroyers to Saipan… — Bellhalla (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

In general, the article is very well written. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)