# Talk:USS Gyatt

Probably not important, however, it could be noted that the word "gyatt" has picked up an unfortunate reputation as slang for the buttocks. 72.241.167.200 (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That wouldn't really be relevant to the article as it's about the ship, rather than the slang term. We cover "gyatt" as a term on List of Generation Z slang. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
This maybe a problem so hopefully we prevent trollers from runing it snd turning it to memes 92.233.69.158 (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
At the very least it should be mentioned as to not get the ship name and the slang confused. Sqooz (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I mean, it's pretty obvious from the look of the article (and even the title) that it's evidently about the ship, rather than the slang. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Idk how it works but we could add one of those thingies on the top of the page thats like "if you're looking for the slang gyatt" we could add that 172.101.136.35 (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Apparently Gyatt (the slang term) exists now, and is the primary topic. Thus, per WP:NOHAT it is unlikely people will find their way here and a hatnote ("If you are looking for the slang..." thing) is not needed. Commander Keane (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
@72.241.167.200 There is no need to mention this, it has nothing to do with the ship. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Simply add an italic text to the top, saying something like "Not to be confused with the Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha phrase of the same name. HunterWightAsMell (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:NOARTICLE. As there is no existing article on the slang term, we should not add that hatnote.  Cannolis (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
As of the 24th of february this article does exist, perhaps this idea should be revisited. 2A0C:5BC0:40:1008:AAB1:3BFF:FE7B:FF85 (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
You are free to do as such, however I struggle to see such an article passing AfC. There is already a blurb about it in the article List of Gen Z slang. GGOTCC (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The Swedish Halland-class destroyers were purpose designed as guided missile destroyers, with Halland being laid down in 1952 and launched in 1955. Initial missile firings were done with an experimental design, rb 315, starting in 1955 [1]https://robotmuseum.se/robotar/rb-315-316/ before rb 08 entered service in the 1960s. Halland thus started building, commissioned, and fired her first missile before Gyatt was recommissioned as a DDG. WiPuff (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The original DoAFS source was likely referring to the ship being the first to be designated as a guided missile destroyer. As far as I know, the Halland-class was never referred to as a DDG. GGOTCC (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
+ the fact that the Halland-class only tested the missiles a year after Gyatt. The test firings appear to have been on land. GGOTCC (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Radar Test Ship section: "Now designated as a radar test ship, her hull number was reverted to DD-719." I'm uncertain on whether this is a typo or if there was some funny stuff going on with the designations in 1962, for DD-719 is USS Epperson. Can someone please clarify (or fix)? Skymavn (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That was a typo, thanks for catching that!
GGOTCC (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Gyatt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Spartathenian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)


### Review
One of my first two reviews. Please bear with me. I will read the article tomorrow. Spartathenian (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I completely understand! This is my first GA proposal, and I only reviewed my first 4 GA articles in the past few months. This will be a learning expereince for the both of us. GGOTCC (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi, GGOTCC, I'm sure we'll work it out between us. Hope to have something for you soon. All the best for now. Spartathenian (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi, GGOTCC. When I first read the article, I saw that some copyediting would help, but there was nothing major so I decided to be WP:BOLD and deal with them myself. I hope what I've done is okay, bearing in mind that I'm English and the article is American.
I think the article has been written very well on the whole, and I can't see anything that would fail Manual of Style guidelines. The lead section is fine and presents a good summary of all that follows. With this sort of subject, "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" can easily present difficulties, but I think anyone with a half-decent knowledge of modern marine warfare would be able to follow this easily enough, and also learn a lot from it, as I have done. It passes CR1—well written.
As per WP:GAN/I#R3, I've spot-checked a sample of the citations and they all support the text with no copyright breaches. The sample is citation numbers 1, 3, 8, and 16. I originally included #9 but I had an internet blip, and couldn't get into the archive properly, so I used #8 as an alternative. Nos 1, 8, and 16 are online sources, so I could check those directly, while #3 is a book that is certainly both relevant and a reputable source. I'm happy with all aspects of CR2—verification.
Coverage of the subject is as broad as can be expected and presents a lot of useful information without going out of scope. The tone is neutral and I don't see anything that could be called original research or breach of copyright. The article is definitely stable and all the images, which are great, are public domain. All told, then, it easily meets each of criteria 3, 4, 5, and 6. 
There's no doubt that this is a good article and I will do the necessary to upgrade its rating and add it to the list at WP:GA
There are just a couple of things for you to consider, but nothing to affect the rating:

One small verification point is that citations 1 and 10 are identical (Blackman), so you might want to combine them with "ref name", but it's not important.
I already knew that DD is shorthand for a destroyer, and DDG means it carries guided missiles, but it occurred to me that some readers might be confused. It could be worth writing an additional footnote that briefly explains the shorthand, also mentioning BB and SS as other examples.
And that's it. My first review completed, and I'm glad it was such an interesting and well-written article. Well done, and all the best. Spartathenian (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much Spartathenian, I am honored to have such a glowing review! Your edits are extraordinary helpful, and I'll add your recomendations immediately.
When you mentioned having trouble accessing source 9, was it an issue with the link itself?
With love,
GGOTCC (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Not the link, because I've accessed the archive many times before. We had some problems with internet connection yesterday, and it kept buffering when I tried to access the archive, so I decided to switch to the previous source, which it accessed immediately.
I'm glad my edits were useful. It's a very interesting article. Shame they couldn't keep the ship as a museum piece because it definitely had a place in naval history. Love and best wishes, Spartathenian (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it should be "home in on" 71.193.203.83 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are correct, I also think "into" was used incorrectly. I have changed "honed into" to "home in on" JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)