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

Reviewer: West Virginian ( talk · contribs) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Parsecboy, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Parsecboy, I've completed yet another thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article. This article certainly meets the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on another well-written article! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the battleship, establishes the battleship's necessary context, and explains why the battleship is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the battleship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The USS New Jersey (BB-16) image is released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use in this template.
• William B. Kennedy is listed in the template as the battleship's sponsor, but he is not mentioned in the prose. He should at least garner a sentence in the prose.
  • It was actually his wife - I have no idea who she was, so I've just removed it from the infobox.
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Design

• This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Service history

• The image of the New Jersey as completed is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• It wouldn't hurt to wiki-link keel in the first paragraph.
  • Good idea.
• The image of the New Jersey in Boston on 3 May 1919 is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy and is therefore released into the public domain and can be used here.
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
  • Thanks as always for your review. Parsecboy ( talk) 20:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Parsecboy, thank you for addressing my above comments and suggestions in a timely and thorough manner. It is hereby a pleasure for me to pass this article to Good Article status. Once again, congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply