Talk:Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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):
    • National flavor/flavour of English: Words like "programme" and "defence" suggest International English, while "tons", "authorized", and "armored" suggest American English. It needs to be one or the other.
    • Fixed except for one (the name of the actual program)
    • Terms for the 1914–1918 and 1939–1945 wars should be consistent: First and Second World War OR World War I and II (some see this as International v. American English, too)
    • Done
    • A link to São Paulo would be extremely high value in the lead, as well as notation that she was a sister ship. (The first mention of a sister ship is given the first sentence of the "Inter-war period" section, and even then it's not entirely clear that it's São Paulo until it's made explicit in the following paragraph.)
    • Done
    • Without a link to "The Revolt of the Whip" in the lead, it might help to add a one sentence explanation. Right now it's a bit jarring, because it goes right into WWI where a reader might be expecting one.
    • Done, I think
      • That looks good. I made one edit to get rid of the parentheses, though.
    • I'm curious about the "floating batter[y]" phrase in the lead. I don't think it's such an unusual phrase that it requires quoting in the manner that it is. Since the phrase is cited in the text, I think it's fine to omit the quotes.
    • Done!
    • Per note on talk page, the meaning of the phrase third-highest South American naval power should be clarified
    • Some of the prose is very colloquial: … the old plans were trashed…. Also, the tone of the sentence beginning Soon after, the prosperity which had marked… seems unencyclopedic (and just a bit melodramatic).
    • Fixed and fixed
    • Unclear antecedent and/or meaning: After this was contrived and completed… follows immediately after the destruction of the original three coast-defense ships on the ways. How does contrived fit into the destruction of the former three ships?
    • Good question. :) Fixed
    • There's a use of Britain, and Great Britain when, I believe, the correct entity sought is the United Kingdom
    • Done
    • In the sentence beginning The ship departed with the remains on…, who is their referring to in their return? It seems to suggest Minas Gerais and North Carolina, but did both return to Brazil? Or to the U.S.?
    • Fixed
    • What month are the sentence beginning However, when another Brazilian merchant ship… and the one following referring to?
    • Given that this is the article about Minas Gerais, the first para of the "Second World War" section seems to be a lot about Brazil and it's importance to the Allies in WWII. Is this much background information needed? If it's deemed that important, can there be more elaboration on why the Pearl Harbor attack caused Brazil to break relations with the Axis powers?
    • What do you think is best? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's a bit much in this article. It could probably be distilled to a sentence: "Although initially neutral during World War II, German depredations on Brazilian merchant ships pushed the country into the war on the side of the Allies."
    • Unless more information about the post-WWII career can be included, it might be better to combine this short section into the previous section and re-title it "Second World War and later career" or some such.
    • Done
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The sentence beginning In 1900, Brazil had fallen behind… should probably have a citation after it
    • If the word geriatric is really thought necessary in the phrase a geriatric torpedo boat, should probably be quoted or more closely attributed to a source. (Or, better yet, just reworded)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • There's no mention of the ship's launch or commissioning in the article text, even though listed in the infobox.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • As a new article, it has been heavily edited; nothing, however, suggest any sort of content dispute or edit war
  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:
    Placed on hold for seven days. Passed.

Other comments (these are items that will enhance the article but go beyond the requirements for a good article):

  • Before pursuing any higher assessments for the article, I'd highly recommend a copy-edit.
  • The article doesn't seem to provide conversions for non-SI units.
  • Unnecessary hyphens between unit and their quantities. Example: a belt of 9-in. It should be a belt of 9 in. (Compare a 9-in. belt)
  • Several quoted phrases include the final punctuation of the sentence within the quotation marks, which goes contrary to the recommendations at MOS:QUOTE. Examples:
    • …dreadnoughts from Brazil "outclassed the entire Argentinian fleet."
    • terms like "Pan Americanism" and "Hemispheric Cooperation".
    • "Black Admiral,"
      • Fixed.
  • Section headers: I'd recommend adding a separate heading for "Early career" to include launch and commissioning information and return of the deceased ambassador's remains, and then make the "The 'Revolt of the Whip'" section solely about. Also, since the majority of the article is about the career, it might make better sense to promote all of the subsequent headings one level.
  • Some of the works cited in the Bibliography do not include the location of publication.

— Bellhalla (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brazilian_battleship_Minas_Geraes/GA1&oldid=1141709104"