Talk:Colorado-class battleship/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * 2) "The elevation of the main battery was increased to 30 degrees due in part to rumors that Imperial German capital ships' guns could elevate to 30° and a picture of the British Queen Elizabeth that appeared to indicate the same ability" - What does this mean? Explain the part about the picture more clearly for the reader; I honestly don't understand that part at all.
 * 3) I believe a photo was taken of QE with her guns at maximum elevation, then the U.S. then triangulated to find the angle. How should I word this? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) "Maryland fired her big guns in anger for the first time in World War II..." - That doesn't sound very professional. Recommend it be reworded.
 * 5) Fixed. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) The Commons point in the "Notes" section should be put into a template.
 * 7) Fixed. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass The citing meets the bare minimum GA standard, though I would personally cite more of the dates and numbers.
 * Every paragraph is cited at the end; all of the information within the paragraph preceding a citations is fully covered... 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * PassNo problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold As always, your article only has a few minor nitpicks to fix before promotion! — Ed! (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the compliment and the review :-) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy enough. The article meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! — Ed! (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)