Talk:Teddy Sheean/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Lead, P1, S1 (minor quibble): I've usually seen nicknames styled with quotes—like Edward "Teddy" Sheean—rather than parenthetically. Given that the article is at Teddy Sheean, it seems like the Teddy part shouldn't be 'hidden' in parentheses
    • Lead, P1, S4: This sentence is confusing. I'm guessing that Armidale herself was assigned escort duties, and not just Sheean. Also, since Sheean is the subject of the main clause of the sentence, he becomes the antecedent for the she in the final clause (which clearly seems to be referring to the ship).
    • Lead, P2, S3: Do you know who made the decision? The current …it was decided… is weasel-ish. Also seem like this sentence is missing a should before voyage
      • Castlemaine's commanding officer—as the senior officer—ordered this. Reworded. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sinking of Armidale, P1, S3 & S4: The Manual of Style recommends using a slash character ("/") to separate the dates describing a single night. The en-dash used in these two sentences could easily be taken for a two-day span rather than a single night.
    • Sinking of Armidale, P2: Assuming all the dates and times are correct, it's confusing to me to have the events described out of chronological order here. In S4, Armidale and Castlemaine are described leaving, 21 hours before Kuru, whose sailing is described in S1
      • Whoops! Sorry, that was a typo on my part. Kuru left on 28 November, no 29th. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sinking of Armidale, P2, S4 and others: The conversions of distances at sea in kilometers should probably be to nautical miles (or to both statute and nautical as an alternative)
    • Sinking of Armidale, P2, S5: It might be better to say that the bombs missed rather than were "unsuccessfully dropped" I mean, did the bombs go up instead of down ;) ?
      • Tweaked. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now the new wording—unsuccessfully missed with several bombs—implies that the bombs were hits. (LOL) I've taken the liberty of removing the unsuccessfully — Bellhalla (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sinking of Armidale, P3, S2: The way this sentence is structured it could be interpreted as "Neither ship did [action 1] and [action 2]", but I suspect that the ships did make it to Betano. Perhaps if a both was inserted before arrived at Betano… it would be more clear.
    • Sinking of Armidale, P3, S3: Are the ships cruisers or corvettes?
    • Sinking of Armidale, P3, S5: With the previous sentence discussing Kuru's activities, the passive "Kuru was sighted" seems a bit jarring. Did the ships not see each other simultaneously or nearly so?
      • Have tweaked this slightly. The source used for this states that Armidale and Castlemaine sighted Kuru. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sinking of Armidale, P4, S2: I'm assuming that "a formation were spotted" is a proper Australian English construct, right?
    • Sinking of Armidale, P5, S4: Aren't strafing and machine-gunning the same thing?
      • Basicly, yes. I was attempting to add further clarification. Cut out latter clause. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sinking of Armidale, P6, S1: Does any source indicate what kind of bomber it was that Sheean shot down? Also, is there any indication of whether the Japanese planes were land- or carrier-based? Or where they came from?
      • Sadly, most of this is not provided. However, I do know that one of the four fighters was actually a float plane. Will clarify this. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, on review there is little scope to add in the information that one of the fighters was a float plane due to the quote without introducing repetition, so I will leave it as is for now. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Legacy, P2, S1 (question): For American ships, a vessel is launched and then commissioned into the Navy. Is that subtle distinction different for Australian vessels?
      • I'm not the most knowledgable person on ships and launchings/commissionings, but I believe it is the same as with the US. Have fixed this. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days — Bellhalla (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prose issues keep this from passing on first read. I have to admit that I'm perhaps being a little more of a stickler on criterion 1a, but because this is essentially a simultaneous GA and A-Class review, I think it's reasonable.

Thank you very much for the review. Well, a strick reviewer is a good reviewer, in my opinion, as it helps to advance an article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI: when constructing a possessive for a ship, you can use {{'}} (that's a single quote mark)—as in ''Kuru''{{'}}s for Kuru's—rather than having to mess with <nowiki> tags. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. I used the nowiki tags as I have seen these previously implemented on in simular cases on other articles. Will remember for future reference. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, so I am passing. Will update the ACR after the GA 'paperwork' is done. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teddy_Sheean/GA1&oldid=290499688"