Talk:USS Canonicus (1863)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Review
- The toolbox checks out.
- "The ship was intermittently in commission from 1872 to 1877 before she was permanently decommissioned that latter year.": The ship was intermittently in commission from 1872 until she was permanently decommissioned in 1877. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- "The base of the funnel (ship)": ?
- "to protected the crew": to protect the crew
- "The contract for Canonicus, the first Navy ship to be named Canonicus, a chief of the Narragansett Indians": ... the first Navy ship to be named for the chief of the Narragansett Indians
- "and fired 144 rounds over both day's action": and fired 144 rounds
- "She was hit at least 38 times in return, but was only lightly damaged and three crewmen were wounded.": She was hit at least 38 times in return but was only lightly damaged, and three crewmen were wounded.
- "was ordered to join the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron. and arrived at Charleston on 19 January": delete the period
- "Canonicus's": Canonicus
- Otherwise:
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
All done, but can you explain this one for me? "She was hit at least 38 times in return, but was only lightly damaged and three crewmen were wounded.": She was hit at least 38 times in return but was only lightly damaged, and three crewmen were wounded. Almost invariably the "but" should be proceeded by a comma, why not this time?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comma usage with "but" is quite similar to usage with "and", and if that were an "and", it would be fine to put a comma in front of it, or not. Most style guides recommend separating independent clauses (such as "three crewmen were wounded") with a comma in general, but particularly when there's another comma nearby, and particularly in longer sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Passed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)