Talk:USS Virginia (BB-13)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to this soon JAGUAR  13:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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:

Initial comments

• The lead summarises the article well, so no problems here
• "Virginia then proceeded to Norfolk, where she coaled before continuing on to Tompkinsville, Staten Island" - I don't think it's linked to the correct Norfolk (I laughed when I read it)
  • Whoops! Guess I should have checked the link ;)
• "During this period, she had two brief stints as a flagship" - being a flagship (even briefly) seems notable, I think this should be mentioned in the lead?
  • Added a line
• "where she joined the 3rd Division, Battleship Force, Atlantic Fleet" - might read better as where she joined the 3rd Division, Battleship Force of the Atlantic Fleet?
  • Seems fine to me.
• "In September, Virginia returned to the Norfolk Navy Yard" - September of which year? It confused me as it's the opening of a new paragraph
  • Added the year - sometimes it can get a bit lost. Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• No dead links

On hold

Very minor points, I wasn't even sure whether or not to put this on hold! It should take minutes to address them, so once they're clarified this can become another GA. JAGUAR  16:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! Looks good to go. JAGUAR  11:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)