Talk:USS Henry R. Mallory/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, and I should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There is not really supposed to be new information in the lede. Is there anyway you could move this reference down to the appropriate section? Also, the last sentence in the lede ("sank with the loss of over 272 men—over half of the men on board.") sounds odd...I think it's the two "overs" so close together. Is is possible to reword this somehow?

   • That was added in the DYK? process. I have no problem removing the cite since it is cited below. Not sure how the first over got, well, overlooked, since the death toll is reported as 272 (not about or over 272)

   • In the second paragraph of "US Army service" there are a lot of sentences that include "had to...". I count two "had to be"'s and two "had to have"'s. This gets a little repetitive. Any way to reword? Maybe say "all of the ships were hastily refitted" and "designated to carry troops had all of their", etc. Possible?

   • Good suggestions. I also reworded another sentence in the paragraph, too.

   • In the third paragraph of "US Army service", why is this a "comfortable" speed?

   • Well, its not the top speed of the ship or anything. But I took it out since it's not really all that important.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Very well-written article! I am putting the article on hold for seven days to deal with or respond to the couple of points I made above. If you have questions, please respond here (I have this page watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for another thoughtful review. I've interspersed specific replies above. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, so I'm passing the article now. Thank you for the prompt response! Dana boomer (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)