Talk:USS Taylor (DD-94)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Need power, propulsion, range, identification (Hull classification symbol) entries in infobox
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The beginning of the lede is awkward. My standard language is X was an y-class destroyer built during decade/war for the Z navy, named for A. That allows you to segue straight into a summary of her service.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Typo: On of 111 ships of her class
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, still there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, was looking at the wrong one. AustralianRupert fixed it. — Ed! (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Link commissioned on first use, sisters, launched, laid down, moored.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The link that you have for moored is for the object moored to, not the verb which needs a definition. Use moor instead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Shipyard and Navy yard is rather redundant Mare Island Navy Yard shipyards
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just blueprints? specifications and detail designs
 * They specified equipment as well as configuration for the ships, and as I understand, the equipment was the problem in this group of destroyers. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, then use "detailed" design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell me how powerful her engines were.
 * Added. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Coal or oil-fired?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is awkward: The class also suffered problems with turning and weight. If they maneuvered poorly and were overweight, which I imagine were the problems, tell the reader what the problems were.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your use of DANFS is confusing. If you're using text then you need to quote it with cites. If you're using it as a source, watch for close paraphrasing, then drop the template that says you're using text. A different way and possibly better way to reference it can be seen in USS Ajax (1864) as I suspect that you're not using a paper copy with page #.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? By 1 April 1931, her unit designation changed again. She remained DD-94 for her active career, AFAIK. If she changed assignments, as appears to have happened, then say so.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What type of ships were Talbott and Manley?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bow and forecastle are always forward.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If the ship spent spent much of the remainder of World War II in her duties as a training hulk what did she do the rest of the time?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. That's everything. Thanks for your review. — Ed! (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Remaining Infobox issues:
 * Convert displacement to metric tons
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Add the power line that looks something like this: |ship power=24200 shp 4 × Yarrow boilers This abbreviates everything as per Template:Infobox ship begin/doc and links the terms
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't use 'x', but rather the '×' symbol from the Wiki markup menu.
 * Fixed all of the instances I found. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to specify km/h when converting from knots. The convert template automatically converts the speed into mph and km/h if you don't specify the output.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Link nautical miles and knots using "|lk=in" in the template as I did in the example above.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Use the actual range performance as given the text instead of the design range figure.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For ease of reading, put each weapon on a single line. What are tt? Spell it out and link.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Other issues:
 * In the Design and construction section you say that all of the Liberty Type DDs were retired by 1930. But Taylor was one of them and she remained in service until the late '30s. What's going on here?
 * This refers to her original, 1922 decommissioning. Whether her engine equipment was replaced when she returned to service in 1930, I couldn't find a source to explicitly say, but it sounds like she was brought into service just until they could get some more advanced destroyers running. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "the" destroyer Manley, etc.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Be sure to note the comments that I've made to your responses to my original comments. Not all issues were resolved satisfactorily.
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're going to write up other destroyers of this class, as I think you're doing, please incorporate the changes that I've suggested here into the other articles. It will save us both a lot of grief.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. Let me know if there's anything else. — Ed! (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)