Talk:USS Leary (DD-158)

USS Leary (DD-158) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 15, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Leary (DD-158) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / World War II

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Shipwrecks

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Leary (DD-158)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

MOS issues:

There are a couple of duplicate links which need be removed per WP:OVERLINK: World War II and Gearing-class destroyer.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two links to disambiguation pages: Fuel economy and Draught (nautical), the latter redirecting to Draft (also a DAB page). Please target those to appropriate articles.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing:

What makes the Andrew Hague Convoy Database a WP:RS?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure of that myself, that section was added by someone else. I do know it's been allowed in other GAs, and that there is a template devoted to citing sources on that site. I can go looking around for the discussion of its notability. —Ed!^(talk) 12:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, the template seems to give some sort of credibility to the source - at least I suspect someone gave some thought to it. I saw Sturmvogel used the same source in several successful GANs, so I asked him for advice, but given the previous use in GAs (four reviews at least passed using that source) and the template, I'm leaning towards accepting it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Got a response from Sturm - it would appear that the source is quite fine for a GA, but would not suffice in a FAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

In ... took part in a large-scale battle exercises ... is it one exercise or more - either the indefinite article or the plural suffix must go.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 01:58 in On 24 December 1943, the task group was caught in a storm in the North Atlantic when at 01:58, Leary made a ping on a U-Boat off her starboard bow. is not clear, at least to me - is it am or pm?
- Generally in U.S. military articles you'll find editors prefer the 24:00 hour scheme, hence the 0 before 1:58. Added the am for clarity. —Ed!^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. I think there are no further issues relevant to the GAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 01:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]