Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Montana class battleship/Archive 1

Montana class battleship
This rewrite is roughly six months in the making, its still not done entirely, but at this point the major overhaul is as complete as I think I am going to get without getting a second opinion (or third, or fourth, or...well you get the idea :-). I'm offering a spelling star to the first person whose brave enough to take on the article, otherwise I'm all ears as to what I can do further improve the article. The goal, as always, is FA-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW: I am struggling with school, and as a result won't be responding during the work week, however I will read this and I will work to address the concerns brought up (if any) whenever the opportunity to do so appears. Trust me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on these new improvements would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Updates
 * I have added a subsection to create an independent fate section. Does this work, or should I try to get rid of both sections?
 * The 1944 in the secondary battery section was a typo, it has been corrected.
 * I addressed both hidden notes.

Notes to Myself (TomStar81)

 * Need to address the two hidden notes left in the article namespace. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Need to switch out the deprecated infobox currently in the article for the new one. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Very nice, overall (as usual!); but a few minor points that ought to be cleaned up: Keep up the great work! Kirill 03:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "References" section doesn't actually list all the sources used in the footnotes. If it's intended to only be general references, the section titles/structure should be adjusted to indicate this; but I'd just make it comprehensive.
 * The entire article needs a thorough copyedit for MoS compliance, particularly as regards spaces/unspaced/dashed units; you have all sorts of variations here ("20 mm", "40mm", etc.) at the moment.
 * The single "Design" subsection looks a bit peculiar; is there any way to eliminate it or to split it into multiple sections, so as to avoid the single nested sub-heading?
 * The "Secondary battery" section refers to "the cancellation of the Montana-class battleships in 1944", but the article earlier states that the ships were canceled in 1943; is this just a typo, or are there actually two different dates (for different phases of cancellation?) involved?


 * The updates look good to me. Kirill 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cam
Excellent article. Just a few comments

That's all I can catch off the top of my head. All the best with taking the article forward! Cam (Chat) 01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm of the mindset that the "design" section needs to be eliminated (primarily for continuity), and the content shifted into the various other sections (armor, armament, propulsion, etc). Although a lot of this would normally go under "construction".  This page is unique because the Montana-Class ships were never actually built.
 * Your "notes" and "citations" are interspersed. I'd suggest separating these into two separate sections.  Carom once told me how to do it, but I never did quite figure out how to properly do so.  Separating the two, however, allows for slightly more continuity.
 * I'd go into slightly more detail concerning the cancellation of the class. I know you mention it quite a bit in the opening, but I'd create a separate section going into more specifics on it.

From SG
Hey, Tom! Sorry for the delay. I only had time for a quick glance, but I found a number of things that would indicate a rough go at FAC. There's actually quite a lot of MoS cleanup needed; I suggest you ask to run through (after you've cleaned up the citations), as he's prompt and thorough. Are terms like Montana-class and Essex-class hyphenated or not? The article is inconsistent. See my one edit for the issues I found only in the lead. There are missing conversions on many units also, and inconsistent date formatting in your citations, missing publishers, WP:MOSNUM issues, mix ups in hyphens, MOS:CAPS issues, WP:DASH issues (no unspaced emdashes), punctuation problems on WP:MOS and I found a long sentence in the lead which may indicate you should get someone fresh to run through the prose. I wouldn't recommend coming to FAC until someone else has gone through the prose, all citations are complete and consistent, and Epbr123 has run through on MoS issues. I wish I had time to just dig in and do some of this for you, but alas, my time is more constained these days. Good luck, and hope to see you at FAC soon! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I believe that Tom's plan for this article is GA and A-Class before going to FAC, but I'm sure the heads-up is appreciated. I can answer about the hyphenation on Montana-class and Essex-class, see Sclass for details of those links. If you think the usage needs to be changed between adjectival and noun forms, it is an easy change, it just requires a copyedit for tone and grammar. -MBK004 00:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)