Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/USS Illinois (BB-65)

USS Illinois (BB-65)
This is a routine maintenance peer review, its been a year since MBK004 and I got this article up to FA standards, and given the unprecedented drama from the combined FACs I am in no eager mood to try for an FAR, so I'm subbing a peer review instead. I doubt that anything major has shifted in the article since last year, however I am open to ideas for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The_ed17
Cheers, — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "...carrying guns of up to 18 in (457.2 mm)" and "...intended armament of twelve 16 in (406.4 mm)"
 * 18/16 in long, right?
 * Can we de-link the units of weight (e.g. "in", "mm", "kg"?
 * "5 in (127 mm)/54 caliber DP mounts" is an ugly and long link...
 * Clarify: does BB-65 = USS Montana in the beginning?
 * Ref 18 is dead.
 * Ref 19 needs an access date.

Respectively: - TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * THIS is what happens when "anyone" can edit an encyclopedia. Good catch.
 * I am not sure if we can delink the units of measurement, the templates may auto link those for ease of reference.
 * I'll see about shortening it.
 * Yes it does.
 * I'll see if I can resurrect it
 * Should be from around the time of the FA push, but I will plug in todays date when I get around to it.
 * (@delink) I know you can somehow, I just don't remember how. :) Look at convert. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * More comments (were originally posted on the talk page)
 * Page numbers: #5 and 19
 * Format: #19
 * Dead link?: #11
 * RS's?: #11, 14
 * Access date: #16
 * Link to the picture? #8
 * What's with the "Bibliography"? I added that header today, but is it accurate? Should it be "Further reading"?
 * And you need some ISBNs, etc, for those books...
 * — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)