Talk:USS Indiana (BB-1)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 18:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing this article and will add my comments below. I am also doing minor copy editing of the article instead of listing such issues. Feel free to revert any errors I introduce.

Design and construction

• "their moderate coal endurance" - does this mean they carried only a moderate amount of coal?
  • Not sure how familiar you are with nautical terms, but endurance is in this case how far a ship can steam before it has to restock fuel (in this case coal). However, looking at it now the word "coal" is redundant and "moderate endurance" would be better.
• " that Conway describes them as "attempting too much on a very limited displacement." - Conway needs an explanation as to why the reader should care what Conway thinks.
  • Hmm, I decided to give the full name of the book series Conway's all the worlds fighting ships, so it is clear I refer to an encyclopedia. Will that do?
• "9,700 ihp (7,200 kW) was delivered by two vertical inverted triple expansion reciprocating steam engines powered by four double ended Scotch boilers" - this needs to be reworded so that the sentence doesn't start with a number.
  •  Done

Spanish-American War

• "The cruisers New Orleans and Newark and battleship Massachusetts had left the day before to coal in Guantanamo Bay" - this means to get coal or refuel?
  • Both, these ships used coal as fuel.

These are nitpicky issues. The article is very well written. Xtzou (Talk) 19:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick review! And also for the much needed copyedit (commas are not my strong point, as you have probably noticed). I disagreed with a few of your edits though, so I reverted them back:
  • had a low freeboard [...] suffered from several other design flaws. Other is incorrect here as you refer to the low freeboard as a design flaw, while it is was a deliberate decision (although a very bad one in retrospect).
  • I changed that troublesome sentence in the lead to: "taking part in the blockade of Santiago and the following Battle of Santiago de Cuba" As the blockade directly led to the battle, "as following" should be fine here. Open to alternatives though
  • I put the battleship portal back into see also, as stated in WP:SEEALSO. I had no idea the commonscat should be in external links though, thanks for pointing that out. Yoenit (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Well done. Xtzou (Talk) 18:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)