Talk:SS Dakotan/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be doing the GA review for this article, and I should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There has been an anon IP edit since you last edited that changed a couple of things. Since this is not my area of expertise, I'm not sure if this is a good change or vandalism, so you may want to check this.
   • In the lead, is there a reason for "(or Зырянин in Cyrillic)." being bolded?
     • Reply for first two items: The anon changed the spelling in Cyrillic, which I would assume is more correct than my google transliteration, but removed the format code for proper bold. I've fixed the formatting, but left the spelling, for now. I've also posted a question at WP:RUSSIA (here) for guidance on the correct spelling. (If it's like anything like Arabic-to-English where there are myriad ways of spelling it, I'll just leave it out, since it's not technically cited under a Cyrillic spelling.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
   • In the World War I section, you have two one-sentence paragraphs. Can these be combined with the other paragraphs?
     • Done.
   • Is there no knowledge of what the final fate of the Dakotan was?
     • Nothing that definitely says it was scrapped, though it most likely was c. 1970.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Your reference formatting has me a little confused. It looks like some of the websites have their full text in-line, while others have short form inline and the full text in the bibliography. Same with journals. Is there a reason for this?
     • Generally if it's a printed work (journal article, book, etc., but NOT news articles) I cite using the form "Author, Work (if necessary to disambiguate), page number." and list the full details in the "Bibliography" section. For news articles, and web sites I use the appropriate {{cite}} family template with full details in the citation. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, though I generally access the website from the Naval Historical Center (NHC), is primarily from the printed edition, so I treat it as a book. Other works from the NHC, like that in note 39 of SS Dakotan, have not appeared in printed form, so I treat them like I would any other website. (I noticed there were two websites that didn't follow this pattern (one of which was not cited) but have fixed them for consistency. I also added another book that was cited but accidentally omitted from the "Bibliography" section.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (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:

Another well-written and well-referenced article! I'm putting the article on hold to allow time to deal with/reply to the minor issues above. If you have any questions, let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for another considered review. (Other replies above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick responses, and the explanations on the Cyrillic spelling and the references. Everything looks good with the changes, so I'm passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Juts as an FYI, I received word of the correct spelling, with a link to a Russian-language page about the ship. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)