Talk:USS Aylwin (DD-47)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended another comment which, whilst not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues preventing promotion[edit]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

Do you have any idea what caused the explosion aboard Alwyn?
- Unfortunately, no. The DANFS article iself doesn't even mention the explosion at all. Everything in the article is gleaned from contemporary news accounts. By the time a definitive cause had been established, the newspapers, I'm sure, had moved on to some other story, and it was either not repored, or not reported such that an archive search today would find it. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of "special experimental work" was performed with Reginald Fessenden? Presumably something radio related, but are there any more details?
- I haven't been able to find anything on it. It's a summary that comes from the DANFS article. There may be something out there I haven't found yet, though. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Other comments[edit]

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

I think I mentioned this before somewhere, but Lord Charles Beresford should properly be written as [[Lord Charles Beresford|Lord Beresford]] following his elevation to Baron Beresford in January 1916.
- Changed. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and apologies for the belated replies. I've been away from home a great deal this month and have been in "gnome" mode away from sources. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I knew you'd come back to it sooner or later. Although you haven't provided the information I asked for, I am satisfied that you have exhausted your sources in the attempt, and therefore the article passes GA. Congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]