Jump to content

Talk:Maine-class battleship/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • No DABs, external links good.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • Infobox:
    • What kind of engine? Link it as well. Move boilers to power line and link.
      • Done
        • Better, but I've changed it to clarify that they're steam engines
          • Thanks
    • Watch the rounding in your conversions, both in the infobox and in the main body.
      • Think I've gotten them all
        • Not so much; the armor para and torpedo diameter in the armament para.
          • Done now
    • trivial difference in length between infobox and main body.
      • Fixed
  • It's a little confusing when you talk about the increase in speed and only then mention the two contending designs.
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean - it makes sense to me, but then I wrote it. See if what I've added makes it any better.
      • Yeah, it was just confusing in that there was no mention of designs submitted by builders for them earlier.
  • She had a crew of 40 officers and 521 enlisted men, which increased to 779–813 officers and men. When and which ship?
    • Conway's doesn't say
      • Fair enough, but "she" is still a problem.
        • Oops, didn't even see that.
  • Which one had the Niclausse boilers?
    • Good catch - I think that got lost in rewriting that sentence one too many times.
  • Capitalize Whitehead and add |adj=on to the template for the warhead weight.
    • Done
  • The belt was 8 in (203 mm) elsewhere, reduced to 4 in (100 mm) on the bottom edge. Perhaps an "and" instead of the comma?
    • Another effect of too many rewrites, I suspect.
  • Link to and capitalize West Coast.
    • Done
  • I'm surprised that there isn't anything useful in Reilly & Scheina on these ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Truth be told I haven't looked at it - there no doubt is more information to include, but I figured the article should be sufficient for GA as is - would surely be necessary for A/FA, though, and I might someday have the time and inclination to get them there. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I figured it was something like that; I'm not going to hold my breath given your new time suck, but your assessment isn't wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]