Talk:USS Tucker (DD-57)

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Bellhalla in topic GA Review
Good articleUSS Tucker (DD-57) 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.
Good topic starUSS Tucker (DD-57) is part of the Tucker class destroyers series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 16, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 11, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Tucker (DD-57)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Below is my review:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • Lead: 'Tucker sailed off the east coast and in the Caribbean' - Not quite elegant
    • Design and construction: 'the great, great, granddaughter' - I am not sure if comma is the right way to go here. I think hyphens should be used.
    • Post-war: 'Departing from Brest for the last time on 16 December 1918, she headed for Boston, and a period of repairs in the navy yard.' - either incomplete or confusing.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • Tucker was acquired by the coast guard on 25 March (according to text) and on 26 March (according to infobox) - something is not right here.
  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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Thanks - DSachan (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think I've addressed all points. Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply