Talk:Nimitz-class aircraft carrier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm uncomfortable with this article's completeness. I want to see a lot more about the development and design of this class than is present and I note with dismay that Friedman's book on US Aircraft Carriers isn't referenced. I'd like more details about the ASW gear added to the later ships. What does this include? Lots of different types of refits are mentioned, but no explanation of what each involves is provided. I suggest that these be changed to generic refits, as I expect that a full definition would be quite lengthy and of limited interest. I'm fairly certain that the S-3 Viking has been retired, but double-check. The stuff on the Ford-class at the end isn't relevant and should be deleted and/or moved to that class's article. And the lead needs to be rewritten to comply with WP:LEAD.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes, adding a section about refits and expanding the "design and construction" section. I have added a section on refits under RCOH, with a link to the main article. I have rewritten the "future" section, but I still think that some information is needed abot the Ford class, although I have related it more to the Nimitz class. The reason the book is not cited is simply because I don't have access to it, but perhaps someone else can use it if more referencing/information is required. Can you be more specific about additional improvements? Jhbuk (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than it was, but still not up to snuff, IMO. For one, the reactors heat the steam for the turbines which power the propeller shafts, but you have nothing on the turbines other than what in the infobox. I strongly recommend that you get Friedman's through Inter-library loan, which should be free and is available through your public library in North America. I'm willing to ask for another experienced ship editor to see if I'm being too hard on you, but look at the design and development sections in some of GA or better class articles for some inspiration.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the UK (which is why I've been guessing some of the spellings), so it's probably harder to find it here (and the library near me isn't particularly good). I have, however, added some information on the PWRs from the German featured article, as I basic grasp of German. In the "propulsion" section there, I put in almost all I found. One slight problem is referencing; I've put one in but I can't access it. The whole German article has very few references. Jhbuk (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Comment: how about a PR instead of GAR? Right now I think that would be best for the article. In addition to the absence of printed sources, the article is a little oddly written in places, and your external links need help. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed for completeness, PR started instead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]