Talk:Mahan-class destroyer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check

No disambiguation links found (no action required)
Copyvio Detector reports no copyvio issues (no action required)
The following duplicate links should be removed per WP:OVERLINK: "Admirality Islands", "Jayapura", "Depth charge", and "Saipan"
- Removed duplicate links -- Pendright (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several dead link refs which should be repaired all of them appear to be pointing to DANFS at navy.mil. Since some links to DANFS are in order, I suspect there's a typo in some URLs or something like that. The report on the broken links may be found here (Dunlap, Drayton, Cummings, Reid, Flusser, Lamson)
- I've gone through and fixed the dead links - should all be working fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images have appropriate licences, sourcing and captions (no action required)

Referencing

Referencing appears to be in order (except in terms of dead ref links noted above, no further action required)

Prose and MOS

In expressions such as 9 torpedo tubes, numbers should be spelled out per WP:ORDINAL
- Replaced 9 with nine torpedo tubes -- Pendright (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't "A third quadruple set of torpedo tubes was added..." be changed to "The third quadruple set of torpedo tubes was added..."? (I'm not a native speaker of English, so think of this as a suggestion)
- Correct - changed indefinite article to definite article. -- Pendright (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the table in the "Ships in class" section is referenced just fine (no action required), I'd suggest adding another column to the table named "Source" and moving references to that column (only reference). That would reduce clutter since each field in every row is referenced to the same document. I'd also suggest prevent wrapping of dates and hull numbers in the table by adding nowrap=yes parameter to one field in each column (one with the longest text, of course).
- I plan to implement your suggestions. -- Pendright (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Source column added - one reference per line -- Pendright (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the same table, there is no need to link shipyards repeatedly, per WP:OVERLINK, e.g. Bath Iron Works should be linked at the first instance only (ditto for other shipyards and terms like kamikaze)
- Duplicate shipyard links removed.-- Pendright (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Duplicate Kamakaze link removed. -- Pendright (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SURNAME Admiral Daniel E. Barbey should be referred simply as Barbey (no rank or first name) after the first instance of the reference. The same applies to other such references (Earhart, Roosevelt).
- Barbey fixed -- Pendright (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Earhart fixed -- Pendright (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Roosevelt fixed -- Pendright (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel E. Barbey is first referred to as Admiral, then as Rear Admiral. Which rank did he hold?
- Rear Admiral -- Pendright (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is ABLE written in all-caps? Looking at the Operation Crossroads, I found no reason to do so.
- In this form, it links to Operation Crossroads. Changed ABLE to Able and unlinked. Instead, linked Operation Crossroads.
If the first name of Commodore Magruder is known, it would be better to add it to reference to "Commodore Magruder" in "Dunlap" subsection.
- Added his first name and initial
Link Theodore Roscoe in the prose
- Linked Theodore Roscoe -- Pendright (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. The article is very informative and requires just a bit of mending to meet GACR. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator posted on my talkpage:

I've contacted you here because it seems the likely place to do so. If I’m wrong, please let me know. I believe I’ve fixed the deficiencies you pointed out on the talk page and have noted them, except for the dead links. (I plan to follow-up on your “Ships in class” suggestions, once the dead links issue is resolved.) I checked five of the ship link references to the appropriate DANFS at navy.mil. While in agreement, they remain dead. The sixth ship, Reid, has no link from her Wikipedia article to DANFS like the others. How I came up with the URL information escapes me. The references were cut and paste, none were by template. At the moment, I’m just spinning my wheels. So, is it possible you could favor me with some advice or help?

The urls were either incorrect in the first place or moved. They can be found here: Reid , Lamson, Flusser, Cummings, Drayton and Dunlap. For further reference, just go to this page, select initial letter, then the name of the ship or the name preceding (alphabetically) the one you're looking for to open a complete listing of the ships starting with the one selected. For example for Drayton, select D, then "Dragonet through Dyson" then Drayton.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ships in class" table still contains duplicate links. E.g. there's no need to have two links to "Bath Iron Works" in the same table. Just keep the first instance of each such link in the table.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deficiencies noted above, seemingly, have all been corrected. If not, please let me know. -- Pendright (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they are, so passing GA. Congratulations!--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]