Talk:Colorado-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:
   1. "The elevation of the main battery was increased to 30 degrees due in part to rumors that Imperial German capital ships' guns could elevate to 30° and a picture of the British Queen Elizabeth that appeared to indicate the same ability" - What does this mean? Explain the part about the picture more clearly for the reader; I honestly don't understand that part at all.
      1. I believe a photo was taken of QE with her guns at maximum elevation, then the U.S. then triangulated to find the angle. How should I word this? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
   2. "Maryland fired her big guns in anger for the first time in World War II..." - That doesn't sound very professional. Recommend it be reworded.
      1. Fixed. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
   3. The Commons point in the "Notes" section should be put into a {{commons}} template.
      1. Fixed. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass The citing meets the bare minimum GA standard, though I would personally cite more of the dates and numbers.

   Every paragraph is cited at the end; all of the information within the paragraph preceding a citations is fully covered... 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   PassNo problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold As always, your article only has a few minor nitpicks to fix before promotion! —Ed!^(talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks very much for the compliment and the review :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   Easy enough. The article meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 13:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)