Talk:USS Louisiana (BB-19)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian   (talk)  16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


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

, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it most definitely meets all the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to this article's passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on this article! -- West Virginian   (talk)  16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the ship, establishes the ship's necessary context, and explains why the ship is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for the ship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * The Louisiana image is released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
 * I suggest mentioning in the final sentence of the lede that it was at the Philadelphia Navy Yard where she was decommissioned. This may even be notable enough to include in the decommissioned component of the info box.
 * The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Design
 * The image of the line-drawing of the Connecticut class has been released to the Public Domain in the U.S. and is therefore suitable for use in this article.
 * I suggest wiki-linking "displaced" to Displacement (ship).
 * In the sentence, "She had a crew of 827 officers and men, though this increased to 881 and later to 896," should this be changed to officers and enlisted men to be more accurate?
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Service history
 * The image of the Louisiana was released into the Public Domain and is therefore free for use here.
 * Wiki-link Hampton Roads in the third paragraph.
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
 * Should all be taken care of - thanks for reviewing another article! Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy, thank you for addressing my concerns and suggestions. Upon my re-review, I find that everything here looks to be in order and it is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations on yet another job well done! -- West Virginian   (talk)  20:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)