Talk:USS Canonicus (1863)

Upgraded page

Verified text with DANFS, then added additional data from sedond DANFS site, added intro paragraph describing role of the ship, then Wikified text, leaving shipinfobox alone. Updated ref, added See Also, cats, some links, etc.

Someone may want to cut off the top half of the infobox illustration, as there is a lot of sky in that picture.Wikited (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Canonicus (1863)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Review

• The toolbox checks out.
• "The ship was intermittently in commission from 1872 to 1877 before she was permanently decommissioned that latter year.": The ship was intermittently in commission from 1872 until she was permanently decommissioned in 1877. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The base of the funnel (ship)": ?
• "to protected the crew": to protect the crew
• "The contract for Canonicus, the first Navy ship to be named Canonicus, a chief of the Narragansett Indians": ... the first Navy ship to be named for the chief of the Narragansett Indians
• "and fired 144 rounds over both day's action": and fired 144 rounds
• "She was hit at least 38 times in return, but was only lightly damaged and three crewmen were wounded.": She was hit at least 38 times in return but was only lightly damaged, and three crewmen were wounded.
• "was ordered to join the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron. and arrived at Charleston on 19 January": delete the period
• "Canonicus's": Canonicus
• Otherwise:

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): 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:

   - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

All done, but can you explain this one for me? "She was hit at least 38 times in return, but was only lightly damaged and three crewmen were wounded.": She was hit at least 38 times in return but was only lightly damaged, and three crewmen were wounded. Almost invariably the "but" should be proceeded by a comma, why not this time?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Comma usage with "but" is quite similar to usage with "and", and if that were an "and", it would be fine to put a comma in front of it, or not. Most style guides recommend separating independent clauses (such as "three crewmen were wounded") with a comma in general, but particularly when there's another comma nearby, and particularly in longer sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Passed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)