Talk:Flight deck cruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
prose: (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. designed by the United States Navy during the period between. Suggest - A comma after Navy

I've tweaked it in a slightly different matter, adding "proposed" (since none were built) before "type of warship" and putting the comma there. Doe that work?

2. Several designs were proposed for an ship carrying both aircraft. Suggest - changing an to a

Done.

3. a secondary dual purpose armament of eight 5-inch (130 mm) guns also being carried. Suggest - a secondary dual purpose armament of eight 5-inch (130 mm) guns where also carried.

Reworded the whole sentence entirely to be a bit more clear on the roles (i.e. what "dual purpose" means) and comparing to conventional light cruisers of the time. Better?

4. rendered the flight-deck cruiser concept moot. Might just be me, but could you re-word moot.

I've rewritten that sentence entirely, and also added a bit at the end about the proposed Iowa-class conversions that added a flight deck.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Let me know if anything else is needed. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Passed Thurgate (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]