 | USS Wyandotte (1864) 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. Review: May 28, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
| 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 Wyandotte (1864)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 13:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll be your reviewer for this one. I'm not expecting there to be many points as you're the master on these sorts of articles, but I'll do what I can. :) Miyagawa (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
My only queries will be minor subject expansions, which you probably won't have in the sources (otherwise I figure you'd have already added it) but I figure I better ask. Certainly all the prose is good, everything is suitably cited to reliable sources. The image has an appropriate licence. No duplicate links, no external link problems.
I presume that the vessel was originally called Tippecanoe after the 1811 battle, but is there anything to say that, or why the renamings took place?
- She was actually named after the river, not the battle. There were two or three Secretaries of the Navy in 1869, each with different naming policies, and the last guy generally, but not always reversed, the policies of his predecessors. I figured that it was too complicated to explain concisely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
You mention the changes to the turret due to the jamming that occurred at the First Battle of Charlston Harbour - is it possible to mention which ship this happened to, or was it a general problem that was occuring to a series of vessels?
- It happened to a couple of the Passaic-class monitors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the lot, once those couple of points have been addressed, you can add this to your impressive GA list. :) Miyagawa (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Great, that's fair enough - particularly with the naming convention as it would have taken the article a bit off topic. Happy to pass this as GA now. Miyagawa (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)