Talk:Bayern-class battleship/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
My only comment is that I'd like to see conversions into non-metric measurements to cater to our American readers. Other than that it's up to your usual standards. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the article, Sturmvogel. I've added conversions to the metric figures (I always forget those, for some reason). Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to see conversions in the infobox for the armor as well and I'm not sure that a reader really needs to know the detailed layout of the belt armor there. You cover it perfectly well in the armor section. Since an infobox is just supposed to be a quick reference I think that level of detail is a bit superfluous. My preference would be to show the range of armor thickness. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- That does make sense with regards to the belt figures for the infobox. I've trimmed it down and added the conversions. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Conversions are needed for the armor thicknesses in the 2nd paragraph of the armor sections and for the fuel tonnages. And it would be nice if you were to wikilink the definitions of armor belt, etc. in the infobox like you did for the Helgoland class BB article. That was a great idea and I've added them to my master ship infobox for my own use, although I've been inconsistent using them myself. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't convert the repeated instances of a measurement (I was advised to do that during one of my early FACs, but I don't recall which one). I did link to belt armor, gun turret, and conning tower in the infobox as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- My personal standard is once in the infobox and once in the main body. That way you're covered if a particular number hasn't been converted earlier. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I was doing; some of the numbers in the second paragraph were already converted in the first paragraph of the armor section. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- My personal standard is once in the infobox and once in the main body. That way you're covered if a particular number hasn't been converted earlier. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't convert the repeated instances of a measurement (I was advised to do that during one of my early FACs, but I don't recall which one). I did link to belt armor, gun turret, and conning tower in the infobox as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Conversions are needed for the armor thicknesses in the 2nd paragraph of the armor sections and for the fuel tonnages. And it would be nice if you were to wikilink the definitions of armor belt, etc. in the infobox like you did for the Helgoland class BB article. That was a great idea and I've added them to my master ship infobox for my own use, although I've been inconsistent using them myself. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- That does make sense with regards to the belt figures for the infobox. I've trimmed it down and added the conversions. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- The conversion (rounded) shows both 32 cm and 34 cm as 13 in, so I have added the more exact conversion of 32 cm = 12.60 in and 34 cm = 13.39 in. But I think the original German specs would have ben metric ie 32 cm or 34 cm so the article should say 32 cm (12.6 in) guns or 34 cm (13.4 in) guns. Hugo999 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)