Talk:USS Tucker (DD-374)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 05:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I will take this one, comments to follow over the weekend. Zawed (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments as follows:

Lead
 * The lead is too long given the overall length of the article. The sentence beginning "Her class..." should be removed as it relates more to the class article. The last paragraph could be shortened as well. Not necessary to mention where the hull was torn or that it jack-knifed.


 * United States Navy is linked twice.
 * Unlinked


 * Inconsistent: West Coast vs west coast.
 * Now upper case

Design
 * Part of the second paragraph of this section seems to be a comparative assessment against Porter class destroyers? (eg, "A third set..."; This required...") I don't think this is appropriate for articles on individual ships of the class; it would be fine in the Mahan class article. Any differences between Tucker and other Mahan-class ships should be discussed.
 * In ship articles rated G/A and above, I have found it the custom, or norm, to refer to (or compare) a previous class or lasses. Here are a few of the many available examples: USS Mahan (DD 364), see the section on Characteristics: HMS Lion (1910), see the section on General Characteristics: USS Winslow (DD-53), see the section on Design and Construction.


 * "Like the other destroyers in her class...": you haven't identified the class. It is mentioned later on but wouldn't on first mention be appropriate?
 * Changed to Mahan-class


 * "She was fitted with the first...": was she the first of her class to be built? It doesn't seem to be stated. If she wasn't then this sentence is not accurate.
 * Corrected inaccuracy


 * What are superimposed weapons?
 * In this case, it is a term used to describe the ship’s main battery of 5”/38 guns.


 * "The ship's design incorporated...": I think this would read better if integrated in the first paragraph where it discusses the boilers.

Armament
 * I would combine this relatively short section with the previous one (Design) rather than having it separate.


 * I don't think the reference to Flusser is helpful given the subject of this article is the Tucker. There is also a big difference between "early 1942" (when the refit began) and "January 1943" (when the Flusser, the first to be refitted, got her new guns).

Service history
 * Samuel Tucker, Continental Navy, United States Navy, San Diego not wikilinked.
 * Both already linked in the 1st and 2nd para. of lead.


 * For sake of certainty, could it state that she was commissioned in the United States Navy?


 * The first paragraph is quite long. I suggest breaking it at the sentence starting "In February 1939..."


 * "...to show the flag in that area of the world.": not a particularly encyclopedic turn of phrase, I suggest "...for a goodwill tour" as per the wording in the lead.


 * "After overhaul, Tucker..."; suggest rewording to "After completing her overhaul, Tucker..."

Fate
 * I would suggest referring to "a mine" rather than "at least one", it seems that it is uncertain if there was more than one. You can then delete the (s) in the following sentence.


 * "...exploded and all but tore her..."; non-encyclopedic turn of phrase, I suggest rewording to "exploded, nearly tearing her..."


 * "...taking the lives of..."; non-encyclopedic turn of phrase, I suggest replace with "killing"


 * "...rest of ship's..."; reword to "rest of the ship's"


 * "...the USS Tucker was through. The shattered destroyer slowly..."; non-encyclopedic turn of phrase, I suggest rewording to "...the USS Tucker was through. The shattered destroyer slowly..."


 * Any info on the wreck? Was parts of it salvaged, is it a diving attraction these days?
 * I am not aware of anything beyond what is stated in the article.

References
 * For note 9, the external link doesn't work for me?
 * It works for me.

Note to reviewer:
 * I believe I have responded to all the suggestions made and questions asked. If not, I stand ready to continue trying.
 * Thank you again for reviewing the article. Pendright (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Other stuff
 * Image tags checked and appear OK.
 * Duplicate link: Auckland.
 * No DAB links.
 * One external link doesn't work (as mentioned above in references).
 * Article appears stable, no edit wars.

I fixed a couple of issues in the infobox myself. Hope that the feedback above helps, I will check back in a few days to see how you are getting on. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pendright, just pinging you in case you aren't aware of this review. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Placing on hold for Pendright to attend to issues raised. I notice Pendright hasn't edited for nearly a month, I will close if there is no progress in the next few days. Zawed (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm following up on your valuable suggestion above: a quick Google search reveals that the wreck is indeed a diving attraction, and there's so much that it really should be noted in the article. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph but I see now that the citations aren't in the same format. I can't fix that right now, but I understand more work needs to be done here anyway. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The citations are in no recognisable style. I would recommend regularising them into the usual Wikipedia-Harvard style of shortened footnotes and longer citations throughout. I'd be happy to do the job, but I'm not keen to get into an argument about CITEVAR forcing us to keep a mish-mash of unsuitable styles. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks RexxS--I haven't looked at the rest of the article. As far as I'm concerned, I appreciate your offer of cleanup, and I don't know if we'd see an argument here. Pendright? Anyway, Rexx, happy diving. May your wreck be pristine. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I've done the job. If folks are unhappy, feel free to revert. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Zawed, it looks like Pendright did a boatload of edits right after your last post and believes that everything was addressed as of September 8, and Drmies and RexxS have also made improvements. How does the article stack up against the GA criteria now? What else, if anything, needs doing? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This all looks good, thanks every one for chipping in. Passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)