Talk:Mississippi-class battleship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Some citation needed tags added
 * 2) * Fixed
 * 3) The table in the ships section is redundant with all the details incorporated in teh following text
 * 4) * I agree. But I incorporated since it is consistent with the USS Indiana FA article.  Personally I think that the side bars are redundant to a lot of text in most ship articles.  I'd drop some of the text, but then not consistent with typical WP Ship articles.
 * 5) Bibliography Friedman, Norman has the publisher as Naval Institute Press while Gardiner, Robert Gardiner apart from one extra GARDINER has the publisher as US Naval Institute Press. I think the first example is correct
 * 6) *Fixed
 * 7) Mahan, Alfred Thayer. (1890) The Influence of Sea Power Upon History does not seem to have been used as a reference
 * 8) *Removed
 * 9) Same with Gardiner, Robert Gardiner (1979). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1860-1905
 * 10) *Removed
 * 11) The Machinery section is very cramped with two images can I suggets you delete one
 * 12) * I'm sure that your right. I like them both but I'll figure it out.
 * 13) * If you don't feel strongly, I'd like to leave them in.
 * 14) The Armament section has no mention of the 12 × 3"/50 guns (12×1) in the inf box
 * 15) * Fixed
 * 16) Also the inf box does not mention the torpedoes
 * 17) *Fixed
 * 18) In the Ships section USS Mississippi (BB-23) was transferred to the Greek Navy while USS Idaho (BB-24) was transferred to the Royal Hellenic Navy. Can they both be made the same for consistency and linked. Also is transferred the correct term ? Where they just given away or sold.
 * 19) * Fixed inconsistency
 * 20) * I left transferred in the individual ships' sections, but clarified the sale in the Greek Service section.  The US Navy tranferred these to the Greek Navy, but sold them to third party, who resold them to Greece.  It seems better to explain in the Greek section, but open to other ideas. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) The fate section is very small and could be included in the Greek Service section above doing away with the heading.
 * 22) * I'm awaiting some reference books that I ordered online. I hope to build this a bit in the next day or so.
 * 23) * I added a bit to it. Though it remains rather short, I do like it separate.  Do you feel strongly about this? --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Note 8 needs referencing
 * 25) * Fixed
 * 26) The Secondary batteries needs referencing (I know its a work in progress)
 * 27) * Fixed
 * 28) There was a mixture of American and British spellings as the date format was British day/month/year I changed them all to British spellings if wrong will change them back (only takes a minute)


 * Passed GA --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)