Talk:USS Hawaii (CB-3)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I'm assuming the missile range referred to in the article was supposed to be in nautical miles and not nanometers, right? (I changed it already. Snicker, snicker.)
 * >:-| — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In … due to the armor weight devoted to counter shell fire.: Not sure what is being said here. Is "counter shell fire" a type of attack or should this be "counter shellfire"? If the latter, maybe a different word than counter. Maybe "protect against shellfire"?
 * 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:

Other issues that won't affect whether the article passes but may be useful for future assessments: — Bellhalla (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do all four of the references after the 2nd sentence of the Design section cover both sentence1 and 2? Is there any way to either put some after the first sentence, or possibly combine into a single reference (but keeping the "A 5" note separate)?
 * The prose could, however, use a copy-edit, however, because, however, some words are used a lot, however…
 * Snicker at this too, you sarcastic meanie. ;D — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any reason to link to the Hazegray rehosted DANFS, as opposed to the "official" version at history.navy.mil?
 * I wrote the main part of this when history.navy.mil was slower than molasses, so I linked to Hazegray. Will migrate it over. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the books in the Bibliography section are missing a place of publication.
 * Thanks to your worldcat.org trick, I will add them. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm off to bed, but I should be able to address these tomorrow or Saturday. Thanks for the review! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I will address these tomorrow at some point. I think that I want to rewrite the Design section, but we'll see. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  06:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As an FYI, the only outstanding issue, as far as GA requirements go, is the prose issue about "counter shell fire". When that's addressed, it's good to go for GA, but if you start rewriting it now, I'll feel compelled to reassess it... — Bellhalla (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies; that issue has been addressed. I'll rewrite it before the A-class review, I think...don't want to waste more of your time! :/ — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No waste of time at all. :) There's just no need to reinvent the wheel if fixing a flat will get you on your way. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)