Talk:USS Henry R. Mallory

Good article nominee

Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 10, 2008

.

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

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

GA Review

This review is
Talk:USS Henry R. Mallory (ID-1280)/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, and I should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here
for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
There is not really supposed to be new information in the lede. Is there anyway you could move this reference down to the appropriate section? Also, the last sentence in the lede ("sank with the loss of over 272 men—over half of the men on board.") sounds odd...I think it's the two "overs" so close together. Is is possible to reword this somehow?

That was added in the
DYK?
process. I have no problem removing the cite since it is cited below. Not sure how the first over got, well, overlooked, since the death toll is reported as 272 (not about or over 272)

In the second paragraph of "US Army service" there are a lot of sentences that include "had to...". I count two "had to be"'s and two "had to have"'s. This gets a little repetitive. Any way to reword? Maybe say "all of the ships were hastily refitted" and "designated to carry troops had all of their", etc. Possible?

Good suggestions. I also reworded another sentence in the paragraph, too.

In the third paragraph of "US Army service", why is this a "comfortable" speed?

Well, its not the top speed of the ship or anything. But I took it out since it's not really all that important.

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
suitable captions
):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Very well-written article! I am putting the article on hold for seven days to deal with or respond to the couple of points I made above. If you have questions, please respond here (I have this page watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another thoughtful review. I've interspersed specific replies above. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, so I'm passing the article now. Thank you for the prompt response! Dana boomer (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]