Talk:USS Lexington (CV-2)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LanceBarber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Layout review

Recommend the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs have their own section "Overview"... add two subsection break names for pre-WWII history,for 1929-30 and the earthquake... the Battle of the Coral Sea Section have further subsections to separate the different days' actions, Task Force 11 details, the military outcome, and the significance of the "draw" of battle for the Allies... also add a short paragraph at the end telling about the survivors being rescued by the USS Fletcher(needs verafication) and more info on the USS Phelps actions(paragraph ended a little abruptly). [Side note, my uncle was a survivor and not until the 1990s did he finally talk of the Battle. The CV-2 Association has transferred all its history, recovered material before sinking, and memorabilia to the USS Lexington Museum at Corpus Christi.]LanceBarber (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by overview for the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, but I try to avoid 1 paragraph sections. Arguably I could fold Fire control and electronics into armament as it's at least tangently related, but it works OK as is. I really don't see any need to break up the pre-WWII section as it's only six paragraphs long. I've added a header for 8 May. I don't have a whole lot more on the rescue efforts, particularly on the cruisers that participated, if any. Fletcher was the overall commander, not a ship name. How else would I end the section other than with her sinking? AFAIK, Phelps had already rescued everybody that she rescued.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sturm: he's talking about splitting off the second and third paragraphs of the lead as he did here (which I reversed, btw, per WP:LEAD).

Lance: the lead section is the overview of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The 3 paragraphs is too long for the "overview". Sometimes ad editors we forget the general wiki users is looking for a quick intro, or, looking for a particular issue or subject. As I write wiki articles, I think of the general user and add more subsections, so it is easier for one to peruse a long article for salient topics. If you'll don't mind I can take a "cut" of my thoughts on subsections and anyone can delete what I did. thanks, Lance. LanceBarber (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lance, the 3 paragraphs are about the proper length to cover a very long article. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with recent FA-class articles to learn what the standards are. In general, lede length is roughly proportional to article length.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay dokie. Feel free to continue the review. Cheers. LanceBarber (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? You're not going to finish the review?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Since it appears Lance has abandoned the review, I'll take it over and complete it in the next few days if he doesn't return in that time. Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Review

Turns out my class today was cancelled, so I've got time today for this.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I made a few tweaks, mostly spelling - have a look and see if everything is fine.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   FWIW, I've taken to using "colwidth=20em" in the reflist template instead of a set number of columns, this allows it to fit itself to different monitor sizes. You don't have to use it, just a thought.

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

   There are several refs to Lundstrom that don't give the year (ref #s 51, 52, and 53)

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):

   history.navy.mil has a better version of File:Uss lexington cv2 coral.jpg, but the server appears to be down at the moment. Once it comes back up, consider uploading the higher resolution image. Everything else checks out.

   There are several nice images on Commons you could add to the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just the citation issue needs to be fixed before I'll pass the article for GA. Nice works as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for taking over the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good - passing now. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)