Talk:O'Brien-class destroyer

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

^{Date: 22:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)}

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the O'Brien-class destroyer 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

O'Brien-class destroyer 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.

O'Brien-class destroyer is the main article in the O'Brien class destroyers series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 31, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
June 17, 2009	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

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

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:O'Brien class destroyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Below is my review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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:

I tried hard, but really couldn't find any issues. It is frustrating when you cannot find a single mistake without being too nitpicky. The article is already GA-class just like the ship articles of the class. Cheers for brilliant Bellhalla. - DSachan (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article does not meet the good article criteria anymore because there is uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. While this is a well-written article, the information needs to be cited to retain its GA designation. Is anyone willing to review the sources and cite this text? Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

O'Brien-class destroyer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This article contains many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. While the information might be verified by the subsequent citations, that source will need to be checked to ensure it verifies all the information in the preceeding paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of uncited paragraphs were caused by the breaking up of the existing paragraphs rather than the addition of new information. Going off the revision from the GA promotion I have re-added the citations used for these sections. The other uncited statement, in background, was also uncited at the time of promotion. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the other citation from Friedman (available here). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still considering navweaps a RS these days? I was thinking that we didn't. There are a few citations to that source. Hog Farm _Talk 23:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed navweaps and the information it cited. It was technical detail on the guns which seemed to be far too much considering we have a separate article for the gun. Agree that the source itself is nowadays subpar. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]