Talk:Marietta-class monitor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lede fails to state who built the monitors, and what their purpose was

   Added.

   The same goes for the Design and development section. The reader gets no context as to why the ships were built or what their purpose would have been, or why the Ozark is important or even what it was.

   Added.

   Were the monitors developed in response to the Confederate ironclads?

   When ordered there weren't any on the Mississippi, so, not specifically.

   What extra work entailed extra costs?

   Not specified.

   Any idea why they were ordered and then immediately laid up? I presume it's to do with the end of the war and perhaps these changes by the US Navy?

   Most likely the end of the war, but never specified.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   What changes were made by the US Navy that delayed construction?

   Unknown.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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, 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:

Seems a little rushed, this one. Needs more information and context to be added before it can be made a Good Article. Skinny87 (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)