Talk:USS Manhattan (1863)

USS Manhattan (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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 17, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Upgraded page

Added first paragraph describing ship's reason for being. Wikified entire page. Minor eds, added 'see also', cats, minor fixes. Did not disturb ship infobox.Wikited (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Manhattan (1863)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this one, I have only noted a few things; otherwise this is looking to be in great shape.

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
1) The link for "hurricane deck" goes to a dab page.
2) Although mentioned in the lead, the West Gulf Blockading Squadron is not mentioned in main body of article. I suggest amending the 1st paragraph of the Civil War service; perhaps: "The ship, again towed by Bienville, reached Mobile Bay on 20 July, where it joined the West Gulf Blockading Squadron." Farragut would have to be clarified as the squadron commander in the following section.
3) I know this is probably being real pedantic but the post-war service doesn't explicitly say the ship is in reserve (as per the lead). Perhaps modify the relevant section to read something like "...when she sailed to Norfolk, Virginia, to join the reserve fleet." Or something similar

Comments RE 1b addressed, updated checklist. Zawed (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Don't expect my feedback will take much work to address! Zawed (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only just noticed this just now. The DAB for hurricane deck provides the definition as the first bullet. Good catch on the WGBS, added. The link for in ordinary says that it means in reserve in the last line. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good, passing now. Zawed (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]