Talk:Alaska-class cruiser/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Either always use convert templates or never use them.
 * In the "Large cruisers or battlecruisers" section, you say "In addition, despite being much larger than the Baltimore class (the newest heavy cruiser class, which debuted just two years before), the secondary battery of the "large cruisers" were only slightly larger." I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with this sentence.  Could you reword?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The "Anti-aircraft battery" section needs a ref.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * The first illustration in the article outside of the infobox (Line drawings of Alaska, showing her in 1945.), is probably unnecessary. It is almost identical to the image in the infobox and it causes text to be sandwiched between the image and the infobox.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The first illustration in the article outside of the infobox (Line drawings of Alaska, showing her in 1945.), is probably unnecessary. It is almost identical to the image in the infobox and it causes text to be sandwiched between the image and the infobox.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

A few issues regarding prose/MOS, references and images, so I am putting this article on hold. I made a few copy editing changes to the article, please look over them to make sure I didn't accidentally change the meaning of anything. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article. Sorry it took me so long to get around to taking a second look :( Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)