Talk:USS Rhode Island (BB-17)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Parsecboy, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to the article's passage, however, I do have comments and questions that should first be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the ship, establishes the ship's necessary context, and explains why the ship is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the ship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The image of the Rhode Island is released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
• I would mention at the end of the lede that the ship's bell is preserved on display at the Rhode Island State House.
  • I don't know, that doesn't seem like that significant of a detail for it to be in the lead
    • I think it warrants a mention, as that treaty led to its demise. I'm glad you decided to add it! :)
• I also suggest mentioning that the ship was broken up for scrap under the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty.
  • Added
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Design

• I suggest wiki-linking "military mast" to its definition at Glossary of nautical terms#Military mast
  • A good idea.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Service history

• The image of the Rhode Island in 1907 has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use in this article.
• For those readers unfamiliar with the Fore River Shipyard, it would not hurt to mention that the shipyard was located on the Weymouth Fore River in Massachusetts. Or you could just say Massachusetts. Whichever way you choose to provide geospatial context to the shipyard will enhance this sentence for the reader.
  • Done.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
  • Thanks for your thorough review, as always. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Parsecboy, I thank you for another outstanding naval addition to Wikipedia! It is hereby my pleasure to pass this article to Good Article status! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)