Talk:Nimitz-class aircraft carrier/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ryan4314 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

   Pass or Fail:

   Firstly I like to commend the author on such a mammoth undertaking, trying to push a well-known subject up the ladder is very hard. However from reading the past assessments and reviews of this article, it is clear that I have also chosen a mammoth undertaking in deciding to assess this article. The article still meets the criteria it passed in it's last review. In regards to criteria 6: I agree with what you said in the peer review about repeat images of the same ships[1] and I took the similar approach when I pushed another ship article through to FA. However, I also have to concede the article is still a bit light on images, especially in the service history areas (more on this below). Criteria 3: It is obvious that a lot of work has gone into the article since it's last assessment and that points from the review have been addressed[2]. Upon reading, I too have some points to raise, however 3a states: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." I could only find omissions of what I would call specific details and not main aspects. Congratulations, I am happy to award this article GA status.

   For your future reference, here are the minor issues which I think could be improved upon:

   1. The exceeding of the capability of the list control systems. This could do with expanding, this is presumably not meant to happen, should the sink tip over? Has it been rectified? How?--Ryan4314 (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
   2. Why a 9 degree angled flight deck, why not 10 or 12? Also per MOS, aren't numbers under ten displayed with in words?--Ryan4314 (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
   3. Non-slip material: I presume this is for the jets and not the crew?--Ryan4314 (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
   4. The RCOH section was good, consider adding which ship is currently in RCOH, or due to be in next, or latest ship done. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
   5. Symbolic and diplomatic roles: The latter of these functions can take place either as a single visit to a country, in which senior naval officers are allowed to observe the operating of the carrier and to interact with its senior officers. This would be an ideal opportunity to add a photo here, some USN brass shaking hands with a tin-pot general etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
   6. The presence of an "Incidents" section puzzled me slightly: It implies that these are incidents/faults of the class/design, yet the George Washington fire isn't expanded upon.--Ryan4314 (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
   7. Although ship boffins know the answer to this question: Why will it cost US$750 million to $900 million to decommission Nimitz? Surely they'll make money right, sell those reactors, melt down all that metal etc etc I think I've answered that – I found a congress report that gives a bit more detail. Apparently, almost all of that money goes on safe nuclear decommissioning; a similar conventional carrier would apparently only cost about $50 million to decommission! Fourth ventricle (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
   8. No where in the article is the word Vietnam mentioned: The first carrier was laid down just as the war started, Vietnam had a huge affect on the design of these carriers--Ryan4314 (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

   Ryan4314 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)