Talk:USS Minnesota (BB-22)

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Minnesota (BB-22)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

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) 17:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

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

Parsecboy, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it exceeds the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that should first be addressed. It has been a privilege to review this article and I look forward to your feedback. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

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 USS Minnesota (BB-22) image is released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
• In the last sentence of the final "Lede" paragraph, I would include that broken up for scrap at the Philadelphia Naval Ship Yard, following its sale. I would wiki-link Philadelphia Naval Shipyard to this both in the lede and in the info box.
• 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

• The image of the line-drawing of the Connecticut class has been released to the Public Domain in the U.S. and is therefore suitable for use in this article.
• I suggest wiki-linking "displaced" to Displacement (ship).
• 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 Minnesota in June 1907 has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for inclusion here.
• The image of the Minnesota at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, c. 1919 has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for inclusion here.
• I suggest mentioning that the ship was specifically sent back to the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard for repairs following the explosion during World War I. If this is done, then you can de-link Philadelphia Navy Yard in the final sentence.
• 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.

• • All of your suggestions seem good to me, thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
    • Parsecboy, thank you tremendously for your timely response to my review of your article. Everything here looks in order, and it is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status. Thank you for all your hard work on this article, as always! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [reply ]