Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy

List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy
I have done a lot of work on this article, and I wanted to know: what needs to be done for it to be A- or FL-class material? Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66

 * You might want to expand on the flush-decker explanation; I don't find flat-deck anything close to a reasonable translation. I'd explain that they lacked the forecastle used by most contemporary ships and this single deck from stem to stern was called a flush deck in naval terminology. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, do that tomorrow. Did you notice anything else wrong? mynameinc (t|c|p) 03:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) If anybody notices anything else wrong, please tell me here, the article talk, or my talk page. Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 17:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

McComb

 * I perceive your approach is to compress multiple linkable source articles into a single article as a framework for your table. I am not a regular Wikipedian and only by accident discovered this page; also, I lack time for much more than review -- but in the interest of historical accuracy, I'm all in favor of seeing this done well.  Accordingly, I took the liberty of making some edits of my own last week but misemphases remain.  I'd be pleased to offer comment in the spirit of continuing education in lieu of making further edits of my own; is that what you're looking for?  If yes, would it useful to point you toward resources other than what's available on the web?  If no, would you tolerate reworking of some sections?  I ask the question as the author of many of the articles you've cited in your REFERENCES and I'd be willing to work with you if we could find an efficient way.  McComb (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kumioko

 * I think its a very good list with plenty of references and good explanations. I would totally support it for a Featured list.  I only have a couple comments and they are relatively minor.


 * You need to put alt text in the images. Alt text has been around for a while but is being enforced now so you will need that.
 * You have a DAB link for Bulwark that needs to be fixed.
 * I checked all the references and look good to go except for 34, 36, 45, 54 and 59 need accessdates.
 * I ran the article through the Autoed tool and it didn't find anything meaningful.
 * I ran the article through AWB and it didn't find anything either. --Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)