Talk:USS Maryland (BB-46)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

review

All in all a very interesting article. I made quite a few edits, mostly fixing little things.[1] If I changed the meaning of the article in any way, please feel free to revert. (Captions that aren't complete sentences aren't supposed to have a ending period.)

What does "detonated low-order" and "TF 54" mean?

I changed the article to make this make sense

How does extreme beam differ from Beam (nautical)?

How does mean draft differ from Draft (hull)?

I didn't know about those links, I added them

There seems to be too much detail in places:

e.g. "She was launched on 20 March 1920, and sponsored by Mrs. E. Brook Lee, wife of the Comptroller of the State of Maryland and daughter-in-law of U.S. Senator from Maryland Blair Lee;"

I took this out

Suggest you remove this image as it's quality isn't very good and there are plenty of better ones in the article already. It would help to have that one removed.

Took it out

Vreeken is used quite a bit as a source. I'll accept on good faith that you have phrased everything in your own words. I know there are only so many ways to say certain things.

Do you think all those red links will have articles? e.g. stood out?

I took out the red links. Vazeer Akbar (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Will put on hold to await your response.

MathewTownsend (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

Good work. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)