Talk:USS Ozark (1863)
 | USS Ozark (1863) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 19, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1873, the ironclad river monitor Ozark transported Federal troops and New Orleans police attempting to apprehend the perpetrators of the Colfax Massacre? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Ozark (1863)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 08:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
After a couple of punctuational adjustments, I feel the article complies with MOS guidelines on prose and layout. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
The article frequently cites several applied reputable sources. Nothing appears to be original research. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
- (b) 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)
- (c) it contains no original research
The article satisfactorily covers all basic aspects of encyclopedic information on the topic. Nothing included seems trivial or otherwise unneeded. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
The article shows no bias towards or against the subject. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The immediately-seen revision history goes back to 2006, and no evidence of an edit war is shown. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The article uses a single image which is public domain, and is relevant to the article because it portrays the topic. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
After some minor tweaking outlined in the "Prose" check, I feel that this article qualifies for inclusion with the "War and military" GAs. Congratulations! Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)