Jump to content

Talk:USS New York (BB-34)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:

  • No disambiguation links (no action required)
  • External links are all fine (no action required)
  • There are several duplicate links in the article. Redundant ones should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: 5"/51 caliber gun, Empire of Japan, United States Pacific Fleet, USS West Virginia (BB-48) and USS Texas (BB-35).

Prose:

  • I would suggest changing ... 16 5 in (130 mm)/51 cal guns... to "sixteen 5 inch (130 mm)/51 cal guns" or "16 five-inch (130 mm)/51 cal guns" to improve readability (avoid consecutive numerals).
  • Ditto for 10 3 in (76 mm) guns and She had expended a total of 60 14-inch (360 mm) rounds - these and the one above are no dealbreakers - merely suggestions.
  • There's an inconsistency in the prose that should be checked and mended: "Design and construction" section specifies that ... turrets had an elevation of 15 degrees, but this was increased to 30 degrees during an overhaul in 1939. The statement is contradicted in "Inter-War period" subsection which says She saw another modernization in 1940–41 where her main battery elevation was increased from 15 to 30 degrees.
  • How about changing ... but the Japanese aircraft crashed 50 yards (46 m) from the ship and the ship received only superficial damage... somehow to avoid "from the ship and the ship" - that particular construction seems awkward.
  • I found she along with 70 ships were used in bomb tests odd-sounding, would "she was used in bomb tests along with 70 other ships"?

Referencing and other criteria are met. There are very few issues left to tidy before passing this nom. Nice work.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've fixed all of these suggestions. Let me know if there is anything else. —Ed!(talk) 01:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that appears to be all.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]