Talk:USS Missouri (BB-11)
USS Missouri (BB-11) 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. Review: July 15, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Missouri (BB-11) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Second or Third?
[edit]The article states, in the opening paragraph, that this ship "was the third ship of the United States Navy to be named in honor of the 24th state." On the page for the USS Missouri (BB-63) it says that THAT ship was the third. Looking at this page: USS Missouri , it looks as if this ship should be the second, and that the other page is right. Does anyone have proof either way? 121.72.241.213 07:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Whose husband?
[edit]"sponsored by Mrs. Edson Fessenden Gallaudet, daughter of United States Senator Francis Marion Cockrell of Missouri, whose husband and commissioned on 1 December 1903, Captain William S. Cowles in command." - it is not making sense. Francis Marion Cockrell is a male, whose daughter christened/launched the USS Missouri (BB-12). Was it her husband Edson or was it her father Sen. Cockrell commissioned the ship? Samuelsenwd (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Missouri (BB-11)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll have this done soon JAGUAR 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Initial comments
[edit]- The lead summarises the article well, I was initially going to suggest re-phrasing the opening sentence but I dropped it after discovering the structure was used in various other battleship GAs
- "the Atlantic Fleet circumnavigated the globe as the so-called Great White Fleet" - why 'so-called'? Was the Great White Fleet the official name? I haven't seen anything otherwise in other articles
- The "Great White Fleet" was just a nickname for the fleet.
- "She served briefly as a troopship in 1919, carrying American soldiers back from France, before being decommissioned in September" - she was decommissioned in September of 1919? If so it would be better as before being decommissioned the following September or September later that year
- How about just "that year"?
- "She had a crew of 561 officers and enlisted men, which increased to 779–813" - did the crew increase during the war?
- Don't know for sure, but I'd assume so - Conway's doesn't say.
- "The conning tower had 10 in (250 mm) thick sides" - in this instance it should be written as "inch"
- Done
- "She steamed out of Norfolk" - wrong Norfolk!
- I did that in another article too!
On hold
[edit]Very minor stuff. Once again this is a well-written article with few issues to bring up. Initially the review was longer as I suggested a re-phrase of the opening sentence, but I realised it didn't matter. Once they're all addressed this will become another GA JAGUAR 22:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks again Jaguar! Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing them, this is good to go JAGUAR 16:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class Missouri articles
- Low-importance Missouri articles
- GA-Class Operation Majestic Titan articles
- Operation Majestic Titan articles
- GA-Class Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) articles
- Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- GA-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages