Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Indiana class battleship
I am nominating this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA-class and need some input on where and how to improve the article. Two more things: I know need a decent second source for the events of the battle of Santiago de Cuba (any suggestions are welcome) and Battleship Illinois (replica) should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article, but I have no idea where or how much text I should write about it. Thanks for any feedback or comments Yoenit (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Nick-D
[edit]This article is in very good shape - great work. My only suggestions for further improvements are:
- 'Policy Board' probably doesn't need to be capitalised
Done
- It's probably better to say that the House of Representatives 'appropriated' or 'approved' money for the ships rather than 'gave' it to the Navy Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Done, I turned it into 'approved funding'
- Thanks for your comments Yoenit (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The_ed17
[edit]- Illinois can probably just stay in the "See also" section; it's not like it had any effect on the design etc., and I have the feeling that any mention would sound like trivia.
- The text needs a copyedit, most glaringly for "it's" vs. "its." When trying to decide which one to use, ask yourself if "it is" would fit instead. If the answer is yes, go with "it's." If the answer is no, go with "its."
- Its vs it's is one of those nasty little words which are a pain for non native speakers and it seems I am no exception, doing it consistently wrong. I have fixed all offending cases in the article and checked for then/than and where/were errors at the same time, but I can't really claim the text is now properly copy edited. Will ask somebody from the list of copy editors to have a look at it later. Yoenit (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Request has been made at the GoCP page a few days ago. Hope it will be picked up with their May backlog elimination drive Yoenit (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Its vs it's is one of those nasty little words which are a pain for non native speakers and it seems I am no exception, doing it consistently wrong. I have fixed all offending cases in the article and checked for then/than and where/were errors at the same time, but I can't really claim the text is now properly copy edited. Will ask somebody from the list of copy editors to have a look at it later. Yoenit (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Images: there are a lot of them. Consider removing at least a few, and at the least fix the image sandwiches. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the number of images and their positioning looked great on my 24" monitor, though I see that there could be problems for other monitor sizes. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is it just me, or are the infobox image and the image in the "USS Indiana" section one and the same? If so, you could probably lose the one in the ship's section. -- saberwyn 10:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the number of images and their positioning looked great on my 24" monitor, though I see that there could be problems for other monitor sizes. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Working on it right now, dumped two pictures, replaced two more and repositioned most of them. I am not sure about the first two pictures though. Ideally I would want to keep them both (the drawing schematic and the ship in drydock), but it is indeed a bit crowded. Any suggestions which to keep or what could be a better position for one? Yoenit (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Done Decided to remove the drydock picture, since it doesn't really add anything Yoenit (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Working on it right now, dumped two pictures, replaced two more and repositioned most of them. I am not sure about the first two pictures though. Ideally I would want to keep them both (the drawing schematic and the ship in drydock), but it is indeed a bit crowded. Any suggestions which to keep or what could be a better position for one? Yoenit (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
update
[edit]Article has just passed GA nomination and received a copyedit. I am currently looking to improve it to A/FA-class and any comments are more than welcome.Yoenit (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)