Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-9)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Grabbing this one for a review shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion

 * Description
 * Just for the lay person - does the layout of her guns make her a Dreadnought type or not?
 * Good catch, fixed.
 * Pacific and Asiatic Fleets
 * The two factions in Panana - can anything more be said about this? i.e. who were the factions and is there any other articles you could link to from that so that the reader could get more information?
 * As it turns out, the treaty was to end the Thousand Days' War - the text in DANFS wasn't particularly clear.
 * General
 * Just suddenly realised as I was reading through that British date formats have been used throughout - is this also the same format used by the US Navy? Otherwise as the article is about an American subject, it should really be formatted in the American style.
 * Articles on the modern US military (basically 20th century onwards) use DMY - there's a line here about it. Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is everything. Miyagawa (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - happy to promote now. I didn't know about the DMY bit, but I do now! Miyagawa (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)