Talk:USS New Jersey (BB-16)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Parsecboy, I've completed yet another thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article. This article certainly meets the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on another well-written article! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the battleship, establishes the battleship's necessary context, and explains why the battleship is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the battleship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The USS New Jersey (BB-16) image is released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use in this template.
• William B. Kennedy is listed in the template as the battleship's sponsor, but he is not mentioned in the prose. He should at least garner a sentence in the prose.
  • It was actually his wife - I have no idea who she was, so I've just removed it from the infobox.
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Design

• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Service history

• The image of the New Jersey as completed is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• It wouldn't hurt to wiki-link keel in the first paragraph.
  • Good idea.
• The image of the New Jersey in Boston on 3 May 1919 is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy and is therefore released into the public domain and can be used here.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
  • Thanks as always for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Parsecboy, thank you for addressing my above comments and suggestions in a timely and thorough manner. It is hereby a pleasure for me to pass this article to Good Article status. Once again, congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)