Talk:Nimitz-class aircraft carrier/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)  :
 * (a)
 * (b)

:
 * (a)
 * (b)
 * (c)

:
 * (a)
 * (b)

  
 * (a)
 * (b)
 * Pass or Fail:

Firstly I like to commend the author on such a mammoth undertaking, trying to push a well-known subject up the ladder is very hard. However from reading the past assessments and reviews of this article, it is clear that I have also chosen a mammoth undertaking in deciding to assess this article. The article still meets the criteria it passed in it's last review. In regards to criteria 6: I agree with what you said in the peer review about repeat images of the same ships[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Ships%2FPeer_review%2FNimitz_class_aircraft_carrier&action=historysubmit&diff=335991313&oldid=335988090] and I took the similar approach when I pushed another ship article through to FA. However, I also have to concede the article is still a bit light on images, especially in the service history areas (more on this below). Criteria 3: It is obvious that a lot of work has gone into the article since it's last assessment and that points from the review have been addressed[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier&action=historysubmit&diff=342430595&oldid=334936254]. Upon reading, I too have some points to raise, however 3a states: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." I could only find omissions of what I would call specific details and not main aspects. Congratulations, I am happy to award this article GA status.


 * For your future reference, here are the minor issues which I think could be improved upon:


 * The exceeding of the capability of the list control systems. This could do with expanding, this is presumably not meant to happen, should the sink tip over? Has it been rectified? How? -- Ryan 4314  (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why a 9 degree angled flight deck, why not 10 or 12? Also per MOS, aren't numbers under ten displayed with in words? -- Ryan 4314  (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-slip material: I presume this is for the jets and not the crew? -- Ryan 4314  (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The RCOH section was good, consider adding which ship is currently in RCOH, or due to be in next, or latest ship done. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbolic and diplomatic roles: The latter of these functions can take place either as a single visit to a country, in which senior naval officers are allowed to observe the operating of the carrier and to interact with its senior officers. This would be an ideal opportunity to add a photo here, some USN brass shaking hands with a tin-pot general etc. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The presence of an "Incidents" section puzzled me slightly: It implies that these are incidents/faults of the class/design, yet the George Washington fire isn't expanded upon. -- Ryan 4314  (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although ship boffins know the answer to this question: Why will it cost US$750 million to $900 million to decommission Nimitz? Surely they'll make money right, sell those reactors, melt down all that metal etc etc I think I've answered that – I found a congress report that gives a bit more detail. Apparently, almost all of that money goes on safe nuclear decommissioning; a similar conventional carrier would apparently only cost about $50 million to decommission! Fourth ventricle (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No where in the article is the word Vietnam mentioned: The first carrier was laid down just as the war started, Vietnam had a huge affect on the design of these carriers -- Ryan 4314  (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryan 4314  (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)