Talk:Maine-class battleship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No DABs, external links good.
 * Images appropriately licensed.
 * Infobox:
 * What kind of engine? Link it as well. Move boilers to power line and link.
 * Done
 * Better, but I've changed it to clarify that they're steam engines
 * Thanks
 * Watch the rounding in your conversions, both in the infobox and in the main body.
 * Think I've gotten them all
 * Not so much; the armor para and torpedo diameter in the armament para.
 * Done now
 * trivial difference in length between infobox and main body.
 * Fixed
 * It's a little confusing when you talk about the increase in speed and only then mention the two contending designs.
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean - it makes sense to me, but then I wrote it. See if what I've added makes it any better.
 * Yeah, it was just confusing in that there was no mention of designs submitted by builders for them earlier.
 * She had a crew of 40 officers and 521 enlisted men, which increased to 779–813 officers and men. When and which ship?
 * Conway's doesn't say
 * Fair enough, but "she" is still a problem.
 * Oops, didn't even see that.
 * Which one had the Niclausse boilers?
 * Good catch - I think that got lost in rewriting that sentence one too many times.
 * Capitalize Whitehead and add |adj=on to the template for the warhead weight.
 * Done
 * The belt was 8 in (203 mm) elsewhere, reduced to 4 in (100 mm) on the bottom edge. Perhaps an "and" instead of the comma?
 * Another effect of too many rewrites, I suspect.
 * Link to and capitalize West Coast.
 * Done
 * I'm surprised that there isn't anything useful in Reilly & Scheina on these ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Truth be told I haven't looked at it - there no doubt is more information to include, but I figured the article should be sufficient for GA as is - would surely be necessary for A/FA, though, and I might someday have the time and inclination to get them there. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I figured it was something like that; I'm not going to hold my breath given your new time suck, but your assessment isn't wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)