Talk:USS Milwaukee (CL-5)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 13:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! This had been an article I hoped to improve, but you beat me to it. Better step up my game. —Ed!^(talk) 13:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to the rest of the class, but I needed this one for my Soviet cruisers of WW2 topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should note some of her scientific equipment, since it is mentioned repeatedly in the service history.
"The gun turrets were only protected against blast... " -- This needs to be clarified, in this context I don't understand the sentence.
You alternate a few times between using the "USS" prefix on other ships mentioned. It should be standardized.
"Milwaukee, commanded by Captain Forrest B. Royal, was beinging overhauled in the Brooklyn Navy Yard on 7 December." -- Two problems: I cant tell if you meant to say "being overhauled" or "beginning overhaul" and also you'll need to specify the significance of 7 December as the day the U.S. joined the war.
"Milwaukee found the freighter abandoned," -- I believe you need to note the 25 crew that were later rescued were from lifeboats or in the sea of the ship was abandoned.
"prepatory to her temporary transfer to the Soviet Union in lieu of Italian ships allotted after the Italian surrender that could not be delivered." -- Is there any ship she was supposed to be replacing? Or what is the reason for the Italian ships not being delivered?
"She escorted a convoy to Belfast, Northern Ireland on 8 March before escorting Convoy JW-58 to Murmansk beginning on 29 March." -- I think Murmansk has been improperly italicized here.
Dab link tool shows one disambiguation to fix: Westinghouse.
External links tool shows one dead link that needs to be replaced.
Dup link tool shows no problems. Article is illustrated by two images with appropriate lisencing. There are no apparent problems with neutrality or stability.

Will await your replies. —Ed!^(talk) 18:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done, let me know if anything requires further clarification. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Passing the GA. —Ed!^(talk) 21:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]