Talk:Yorktown-class gunboat/GA1

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

Below is my review of the article:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1. Lead: 'Each ships' - is that right? I am really confused. Perhaps it should be 'each ship'.
 * You are correct. I originally had written "each of the ships" and failed to change ship when I reworded. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Lead: Not happy with 'Yorktown-class ships participated in the Boxer Rebellion, the Spanish–American War, the Philippine-American War, and World War I. One of the ships, Bennington, was taken out of service after a boiler explosion in July 1905; the other pair, Yorktown and Concord, were decommisioned and later scrapped.' It suggests all ships took part in World War I, but is not the case, because Bennington was taken out of service after a boiler explosion in July 1905. Rewording slightly might help.
 * OK, I can see how that could easily be interpreted that way. I reworked the last paragraph of the lead. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. Propulsion: 'The cylinders of each engine were 22, 31, and 51 inches' - in what? I guess 'diameter'. I find it important to mention.
 * Good point. I've added it. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. Concord: Something is not right here - 'In 1898, Concord—back on the Asiatic Station since January—joined Admiral George Dewey's fleet for the 1 May 1898 Battle of Manila Bay, a decisive American victory over the Spanish Fleet in the Spanish–American War.'
 * 5. Bennington: 'Bennington was launched in June 1890. After her June 1891 commissioning at New York, Bennington was attached the the Squadron of Evolution and for its cruise to South America. The gunboat made two Mediterranean tours between 1892 and 1894, when she assigned to the duties in the Pacific.' seems to be sloppily written. Please tighten the prose.
 * Sigh. You know I really do try to actually, you know, make sense when writing, even though it might not be apparent from this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: soon to be decided
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: soon to be decided
 * Pass/Fail: soon to be decided




 * Thanks - DSachan (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and apologies for my sloppier-than-usual prose. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bellhalla. I agree that you are an excellent writer. Please don't take my comment about it being 'sloppy' to your heart or something. I said that only for few sentences, not for the whole prose. Anyway, I found one more thing that secondary battery was slightly different in Bennington from that in her sister ships. It is mentioned in infobox but not in the prose. Since the article is about the whole class, the reader can easily fool himself/herself into believing by reading from the Armament section that the secondary battery in each ship consisted of two 6-pounder, two 3-pounder, and two 1-pounder guns., whereas this is not the case. Don't you think this distinction should be mentioned in the main text as well? - DSachan (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I took no offense at what you said and understood your comment was about those sentences. I was just exasperated because no how many times you read over something, there's always something you don't see.
 * Good point about the Bennington secondary armament. I had discovered the difference for Bennington after I had written the prose. I've added it now. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. I have promoted the article. - DSachan (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)