Talk:On Watch: A Memoir

On Watch: A Memoir was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 2, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 10, 2017.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Admiral Elmo Zumwalt's 1976 book On Watch: A Memoir was called a "terrifying tale" of the Nixon administration?

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Military history: Culture / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Ready?[edit]

I just saw this at GAN. I don't have the time or inclination to review this at the moment; but the article has 474 words of prose, excluding the quote; and this is far shorter than any successful GA I have seen. I am very doubtful that this actually meets the comprehensiveness criterion. I would suggest that the nomination be withdrawn, and the page expanded. Vanamonde (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:On Watch: A Memoir/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 22:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The lead is far too short and does not summarize the complete article. In the second paragraph under Content, a sentence begins "Zumwalt charged". Are the following quotes from the book? Why not replace the colon with the word that? Why are the elements on the list separated by semicolons instead of commas? In the Reaction section, the one-line paragraph for the Kirkus review can be combined with the next one, and the word "however" is not needed.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels, "Reaction" and "Dedication" are not the correct section headers.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
ok here

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
ok here

C. It contains no original research:
ok here

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
ok here
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The body of the article never mentions who the publisher is. Is one sentence really all the "Background" there is for this book? Did it ever get a second printing? Was the edition soft or hardcover? How long is it? The lead mentions a second book by Zumwalt - was this the first or second one? What was the other one about? The book was published over 43 years ago - did it have any lasting impact? Do people still care about it?

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is the death of the man the book was dedicated to relevant to the book? He died the same year, but was it before or after publication? Did he know it was dedicated to him?
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no neutrality issues
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no edit warring or recent major changes
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
rationale provided

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no caption or WP:ALTTEXT
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
What's here is nice, but this article still needs serious work. Significant information is obviously missing.

Argento Surfer (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rickover and "armaments"[edit]

Did Rickover advocate for nuclear armaments during his career? Did the author mean "propulsion" or something like it? Data Auger (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]