Talk:Flight deck cruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Flight deck cruiser has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flight deck cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    prose: (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

1. designed by the United States Navy during the period between. Suggest - A comma after Navy

I've tweaked it in a slightly different matter, adding "proposed" (since none were built) before "type of warship" and putting the comma there. Doe that work?

2. Several designs were proposed for an ship carrying both aircraft. Suggest - changing an to a

Yes check.svg Done.

3. a secondary dual purpose armament of eight 5-inch (130 mm) guns also being carried. Suggest - a secondary dual purpose armament of eight 5-inch (130 mm) guns where also carried.

Reworded the whole sentence entirely to be a bit more clear on the roles (i.e. what "dual purpose" means) and comparing to conventional light cruisers of the time. Better?

4. rendered the flight-deck cruiser concept moot. Might just be me, but could you re-word moot.

I've rewritten that sentence entirely, and also added a bit at the end about the proposed Iowa-class conversions that added a flight deck.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me know if anything else is needed. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Passed Thurgate (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)