Talk:Lexington-class aircraft carrier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 11:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• No disambiguation links (no action required)
• Checklinks report appears fine (no action required) - there is one link reported as "indeterminate", but I checked it manually and it is OK.
• There are several duplicate links in the article which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: Bureau of Construction and Repair (2x), Elevator (piped from "aircraft elevator"), Turbo generator, Knot (unit), Superfiring, Magazine (artillery), Conning tower, Wake Island, and the Battle of the Eastern Solomons.
  • Cleaned all of these up.
• Image licensing and captions appear to be in order (no action required)
• In "G3 battlecruiser", should the G3 be italicised or not? I mean to ask if G3 is the name of the class it should probably be italicised, if it is some sort of informal designation of the project I suppose it should remain as is. I'm not bent on either solution, and I see that was no issue at Talk:G3 battlecruiser/GA1, rather thought to ask for future reference.
  • It doesn't need to be italicized because it's not a proper name, just a design designation.
• Bureau of Construction and Repair is provided with an abbreviation "(C&R)", but only at the second instance. I suggest moving the abbreviation to the first instance. Furthermore, do you consider use of the abbreviation instead of the remaining occurrences of "Bureau of Construction and Repair" would be detrimental to understanding of the prose?
  • I decided not to abbreviate it after all consider how rarely it's used.
• If "40,000 KVA" is meant to stand for 40,000,000 Volt-amperes, the unit should be written as kVA.
  • Good catch, fixed.

Sorry about the delay. I'll complete the review over the weekend.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Resuming...

• Something appears to be amiss in "...by license-built Oerlikon 20 mm autocannon beginning in 1942. The Oerlikon fired a 40-millimeter (1.6 in), .272-pound (0.123 kg) high-explosive shell..." Were the Oerlikons 20mm guns or 40mm guns?
  • They're 20mm guns.
• Just to verify: The M2 Brownings whose effective range was only 1,600 yards were replaced because they had too short effective range by Oerlikons whose effective range was 600 yards shorter. Granted the 20mm projectiles carry a greater punch, but the cited short effective range given as a cause for the replacement leads to the question: Are all the effective range figures correct?

This wraps it up. Interesting article, I enjoyed reading it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• • The solid .50-caliber shell was relatively ineffective even though it out ranged the explosive 20mm shell. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

All clear then. Passing nom.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)