Talk:USS Oneota (1864)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Oneota (1864)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	All clear
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Criterion met
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Criterion met
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Criterion met
	2c. it contains no original research.	Criterion met
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Criterion met
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Criterion met
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Criterion met
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars. Article history indicates a stable development of the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Everything alright fine in images department
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

• Transition from the temporal clause in The ship's construction was delayed by multiple changes ordered while she was being built that reflected battle experience with earlier monitors. appears to be awkward to me. Would it be perhaps better to have "The ship's construction was delayed by multiple changes ordered while she was being built—reflecting battle experience with earlier monitors." instead?
  • OK
• "Their" in Completion of the ship was further delayed by the low depth of the Ohio River which prevented their movement from Cincinnati in December 1864 to finish their fitting out. puzzles me. Should it read "her" instead?
  • Yes.
• I assume the "sisters" in Oneota was placed in ordinary there after completion, together with two of her sisters. refers to Tippecanoe and Catawba - based on subsequent text. Perhaps this would be a fine place to name the ships.
  • Reworded.

Interesting article. Only a few prose issues outstanding.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy to pass the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)