Talk:USS Siboney (ID-2999)/Good article nomination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Pass Very well written, actually. But check for overlinking, dates are usually not linked in an article like this, and the page should link to other articles only once.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Not Yet There are entire sections on the "World War I navy service" section that do not have references. A GA should have at least one reference per paragraph, even if they are the same reference for several paragraphs in a row.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass no problems there.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass no problems there.
It is stable:
Pass
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass plenty of images.
Overall:
On Hold but just get the references and links even out, and this article will be good to go. -Ed! (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the references in the World War I section.
As far as date linking, the style in place when I first edited this article was that of full date linking (per WP:MOSNUM), so I continued in that style. I'm OK with taking out the date links if you feel that would improve the article. As to other links, are there any specific multiple links in particular? I'm usually pretty good about not double linking, but I might have missed one or two... — Bellhalla (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the date linking I was referring mostly to the span of 1918 in the "World War I service" section. Its not really apparent by looking through the section at first that all of those dates are from the same year, but restating the year over and over looks strange, also. As you appear to have more expeience than me in this matter though, do you think it would look better with the dates there still linked?
  - My personal preference is for dates to be linked since I have non-standard date display preferences set in my profile. I'm OK with not linking them, but I view it sort of like the American vs. British English preference: whichever is used first usually prevails. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And in terms of double links, there are only a few. "American Export Lines" "1918" and "1919" are linked to a few times (I keep trying to take the links out but then I can't navigate the code very well it seems). There may be a few others but those are the only ones I see more than once. You may also want to consider contracting some of the links (such as making Hoboken, New Jersey into Hoboken, New Jersey) that threw me off and made it look like there were more double-links at first. -Ed! (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed 1918 and 1919 from some dates in the text because they were apparent from the context.
  - As for American Export Lines, even though it's linked in the lead, I considered the link in the text a "high value" link in that it is next referenced almost two-thirds of the way through the article. If you think it's not necessary, I'm OK with that. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As to the dates and/or multiple links: My personal view is to treat the Infobox separately from the body of the text, with the idea that some readers may not bother with the text at all and just look at the infobox. And, typically in ship infoboxes, full dates (including years) are listed, even if it should be apparent what the year is from context. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahh, that won't be necessary. I'd say that the article looks very good as it is, and is well deserving of the promotion. Good work! -Ed! (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.