Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iowa-class battleship

Iowa class battleship

Self-nomination. This article has evolved quite a bit since it was first created, and I believe that it now has what it takes to become featured; to that end I have decided to place it here and see what the community thinks. This is a self-nom TomStar81 02:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• NOTE: The University of Texas at El Paso recently started their fall semester, and while I love Wikipedia I also love school, and in all fairness to Wikipedia school was here first. To that end, a little community help in fixing upcoming issues would be apreciated. TomStar81 02:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg is tagged as a possible copyvio, and is not directly related to the article. It should be removed. --Carnildo 23:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • <Sigh> Outnumbered 2-1. OK, I will remove the image. TomStar81 00:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Image:Mark48 torpedo testing is gone. TomStar81 00:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object - good stuff, but (i) the infobox should be (html2)wikified; (ii) the lists in the lead section (where built, where now) should be turned into text or moved to their own sections; (iii) the first section (General characteristics) is another bullet-point list - shouldn't this be in the infobox? (iv) the article may flow better if history was the first section, then details of armament, etc, finishing with where they are now and reactivation potential. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

1. the infobox should be (html2)wikified
   I have no idea what that means, but I decided to gamble on a hunch to see if I was right
2. the lists in the lead section (where built, where now) should be turned into text or moved to their own sections
   They have now been consolidated into a paragraph in the intro.
3. the first section (General characteristics) is another bullet-point list - shouldn't this be in the infobox?
   It is now ;)
4. the article may flow better if history was the first section, then details of armament, etc, finishing with where they are now and reactivation potential
   Its been rearanged according to your suggestions. Does this work, or should I try again? TomStar81 21:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Support - Thanks for the quick response, and apologies for the jargon - I meant using something like html2wiki to turn the HTML into wiki code. I think you have addressed all of those objections very well. The infobox is now a bit of a monster, but I think the detail is better there than littering the article. I've hacked the article about a bit - the lead section had become a bit top-heavy, and I also meant to mention the units, which should be wikified when first mentioned, as I have done, I hope. Please feel free to change back things you don't like (I hope i have not undone too many of your recent edits). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support. All the 1-2-sentence paragraphs need to go and the infobox is hogging too much of the article. Consider scaling down the picture and definetly remove the armament information. It's not only well-covered in the "Armament"-section, but actually also briedly summarized (by me) in that very section. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

1. All the 1-2-sentence paragraphs need to go
   I think I got them all now.
2. the infobox is hogging too much of the article
   Per your suggestion, the infobox no longer contains armament details. TomStar81 20:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)