Talk:USS Alabama (BB-60)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is on good shape. I have a few comments: More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC) That's all I have, placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * in the lead, should it be "escalation clause"? My understanding is that escalator refers to moving stairs?
 * It's pretty frequently referred to as the "escalator clause" (frequently in quotes) - see for instance here, here, and here.
 * in the lead, suggest Congressional refusal to authorise larger battleships"
 * Good idea
 * in the lead, suggest a new sentence "Overcrowding was exacerbated by wartime modifications that considerably strengthened their anti-aircraft batteries and significantly increased their crews."
 * Works for me
 * month to month ranges use an unspaced endash eg June – September should be June–September
 * Good catch
 * if it is necessary to use LT, it should be introduced first
 * Do you mean with a link? Ships during the treaty system (and since, as far as I know) routinely used long tons, as that was what the treaties specified
 * suggest "2,500. officers and enlisted "
 * Done
 * state in the body that the 20 mm mounts were single mounts
 * Done
 * rounding difference between body and infobox for the turret armour
 * Fixed
 * quad is a bit colloquial, suggest using quadruple throughout
 * Yeah, I was hoping to avoid the repetition of "quadruple mount"
 * link ship commissioning
 * Done
 * I take it Alabama was not the flagship of TF 61?
 * Curiously, that was the cruiser USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37) - you'd think he'd have wanted one of the battleships, since they had been built specifically as flagships and a 35,000-ton battleship probably weathers the North Atlantic better than a 10,000-ton cruiser.
 * when it says "The fleet then returned to Majuro" do you mean task group? There is another instance of this.
 * No, all of TF 38/58
 * ranks for the Japanese admirals?
 * Added
 * "before South Dakota and the rest of TF 34" should this be Alabama?
 * Indeed
 * link Kyushu
 * Done
 * link USS Indiana and Massachusetts
 * Done
 * link Kamaishi, Iwate
 * Done
 * "the longest tow of a vessel"
 * Whoops
 * do we know the source of File:ONI identification image South Dakota class battleship.jpg?
 * Added a link
 * do we know the source of the information on File:Leyte map annotated.jpg?
 * Don't feel like bothering to poke the uploader, so I'll replace it with the essentially identical official US Army drawing from Dougie Mac's report on the campaign
 * Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)