Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
review
Contest Awards Members
Instructions
Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an an article:

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five.
  2. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field, see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  3. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
  4. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  6. Consider reviewing another article, either at peer or A-class review to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory).

If an article is nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be demoted:

  1. Move (do not copy) the existing review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1).
  2. Update the link for the last review in the {{Article history}} on the article's talk page.
  3. Update the transclusion in the relevant assessment archive page, found by using the "What Links Here" feature.
  4. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new nomination page).
  5. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the nomination statement (e.g. "Prior nomination here.").

There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.

Commenting

The new Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

After A-Class

Feel free to ask reviewers to help prepare your article as a featured article candidate. We're hoping that more FAC prep will help draw some of the regular FAC reviewers to our A-class review page.

edit

Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Marlborough (1912)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

HMS Marlborough (1912) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A bit of a departure for me, this was the second command flagship of the Grand Fleet for much of the war. She had quite an eventful career, being in the thick of the fighting at Jutland, where she was badly damaged by a German torpedo. After the Great War she was involved in the British intervention in the Black Sea during the Russian Civil War and ultimately served as a target for weapons tests. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

List of United States Army campaigns during World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) & Hawkeye7 (talk) & Gecko G (talk)

List of United States Army campaigns during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think it meets all criteria. Just a list of campaigns that the U.S. Army served in, with a introduction to the U.S. army's campaigns in WWII. Found this about a week ago in a wrecked state (little more than a stub). Improved quickly, while Gecko G and Hawkeye7 helped me with formatting and prose. Passed a BL review several days ago. I hope this passes. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the National Convention[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

List of Presidents of the National Convention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Nominating this for Alist. As you can see I tried to take it to "Good" class but was shut down because it's a list, despite it having significant text. These are the wagers of war during the French Revolutionary Wars (1790s) and it's an important list to have. I've stubbed out all the bios, so there is at least something on each man. Hope it meets with approval. As always, glad to add more, if I can find it. auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I don't know a lot about lists, but WP:LEAD suggests the lead should be a summary of what's on the page.
  • " By a vote of the National Convention to execute Maximilien Robespierre, Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, and several other leading members of the revolutionary government. ": No verb.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Dank, I expanded the lead a bit. I also fixed that sentence. auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Images

  • File:Panthéon_autel_Convention_nationale_1.JPG: since France does not have freedom of panorama, we need a licensing tag for the work pictured as well as for the photo itself. Same with File:Armand_Gensonné_IMG_2447.JPG
  • File:AN_française_1792.png: should include a data source in the image description
  • All images tagged with the life+70 years tag also need a tag reflecting the copyright status of the original work in the US
  • File:Jérôme_Pétion_de_Villeneuve.jpg needs a source, as do File:Pierre_Vergniaud.jpg, File:Marc-Guillaume_Alexis_Vadier_(1736-1828),_French_revolutionary_(small).jpg, File:Tallien.gif
  • File:Billaud.jpg: who is the author?
  • File:Sadi_Carnot.jpg: per this, this is not an NIH work

Oppose just because of the number of images to fix - will be happy to strike once that is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments: G'day Ruth, just a couple of suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The source list should probably be sorted alphabetically by the author’s surname
  • Slightly inconsistent presentation: “2nd edition” v. “5th ed.”
  • Is this a webpage: “Smitha, Frank E. Macrohistory: Fear, Overreaction and War (1792–93). 2009–2015 version. Accessed 21 April 2015”? If so, can you please provide the url?
  • Inconsistent presentation (percent or %: “7.5 percent or as much as 11.9%”
  • sans-culottes probably should be linked earlier
  • The duplicate link checker tool reports several examples of possible overlink: First French Republic, Montagnards, National Convention, Committee of Public Safey, Jacobin Club, Louis XVI

withdraw this please Rupert, Nikkimaria pointed out that I don' have consistent image tags, and I don't have time to fix this. Will you, or someone who is authorized, withdraw this from A-class list? Thanks. auntieruth (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. Part of my series of variants of the M3 Half-tracks. Created this article back in January. Sent it to GA last month and passed quickly. I would say this is short on coverage, but since the low amount of refs mentioning it, I'm stuck with what I have for know. Thanks for your responses for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: just a couple of suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "declared as substitute standard" --> do you mean "substandard"?
  • the first paragraph of the Service history section seems a bit abrupt. Perhaps it would be smoother if you discussed how it was generally employed first before providing a specific example?
  • "because of the reconstruction of infantry battalions" --> do you mean their reorganization?
  • in the Citations, should "Hoffman (2013)" be "Hoffman & Staary (2013)"?
  • in the Bibliography you mainly seem to abbreviate the states where the works were published, except for Hoffman. Please make this consistent
  • in the Bibliography Zaloga is probably overlinked
  • "limited standard" --> is it possible to clarify what this means? For instance, did it mean that only certain types of formations would receive the vehicle, or it would only be used in an emergency?
  • regarding the encounter where the vehicle was used against German tanks, is there any information that states that after this the vehicle wasn't used in this regard, or was used differently in some way? The reason I ask is it just seems to hint at this, without explicitly saying it.
  • do you know if the US leased the vehicles to the French during World War II, or after it? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries, thanks for your efforts. I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Wilcke was one of the German fighter aces of World War II to become a wing commander. He had fought on the Western and Eastern Front and was killed in 1944 when the Lustwaffe had lost the air war over Europe. Thanks in advance for your time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support I've only got two comments:

  • The first note needs a citation.
  • There are two "clarification needed" tags in the article
    • I had to revert these. Look for the Note2, it explains the nomenclature of Luftwaffe units. It is never spelled out, it is either a regular number, for squadrons, or a roman numeral, for groups. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Since the rest of my comments seemed like nitpicks, I did them myself.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "He claimed his tenth victory, again a Hurricane, on a 11:15 am mission targeting the London area on 20 September" - does that mean the kill was at 11:15? The mission hit London at 11:15? It took off at 11:15?
    • good point, reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Heh, that was my initial copyedit, an 11:15am mission being one that took off at 11:15, but fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In general, German terms are given first, so why not for Battle Group Wilke?
  • "...claimed 137 victories of which 97 victories were credited to Wilcke." - this can't be right - he was already over 100 by this point, and then it says his tally rose to 135 later.
    • The full sentence reads "During this summer offensive the Geschwaderstab of JG 3 "Udet" claimed 137 victories, of which 97 victories were credited to Wilcke", I underlined the parts you commented on. What I tried to say, in a specific time frame his unit claimed 137 victories and Wilcke accounted for 97 of these. In Sports, Barcelona beat Munich 3:0 and Messi scored two of these goals. Does this make sense? MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I get that, but the article says that by early September, his tally was at 100 victories - this line makes it sound like he got almost another 100 during the Battle of Stalingrad. I think you're saying that in the course of the 1942 summer campaign, he scored 97 kills, but it's oddly placed here - I would probably move it to the end of the first paragraph in the Wing commander of JG 3 section. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I reworded the sentence. I think it is clear now MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Might be worthwhile to explain why the 150 mark came with a ban from flying, even if just in a note.
  • Stabsschwarm needs a translation
  • Might want to check th translation of the Wehrmachtbericht - I don't think the German refers to him as a night fighter. Parsecboy (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments -- leaning to support pending resolution of Nate's points...

  • Pretty happy with prose now but let me know if I stuffed anything up with my copyedit.
  • Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
  • Image licensing looks okay and couldn't see any obvious referencing issues.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think everything's taken care of now -- well done as usual, MB. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

T48 Gun Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

T48 Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. The T48 Gun Motor Carriage was a widely unknown tank destroyer produced by the U.S. on a Anglo-American requirement. It served with the Soviet Union (which accepted 650), United Kingdom (which accepted 30), and the U.S. Army (which accepted 1), with the rest (281) being converted at Chester Tank Depot.

The article underwent a GA Review earlier on this month, while after the GA review it underwent some recent copyediting. It is currently undergoing a DYK, and I hope this passes this review. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The original design had a gun shield taken from the T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" - should "T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" be red linked?
  • "Learning from experience with the M3 Gun Motor Carriage, demountable headlights were mounted to avoid deformation of the hood" - this is a bit unclear: what was this experience, and why was deformation of the hood a bad thing?
  • "but by the time they arrived" - when was this?
  • Over what period was this vehicle produced? Is it possible to provide a breakdown of when deliveries took place?
  • "while some of these brigades took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" - given that it's earlier been said that only two brigades used the type, this is unclear (were they issued to other units?) Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence reading "When the M3 Gun Motor Carriage was rushed into service, hoods were deformed in the Phillipines, which while it was tested after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, was fixed with demountable headlights" is rather over-complex, and not very clear: I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of sentences Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of these units took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" is still unclear: these operations occurred pretty much simultaneously, and you've only identified two units here. Was it one brigade per campaign, or where other units equipped with these vehicles? Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I could not clarify if it was used by one of the brigades in the Berlin offensive and one in the Prague offensive, since this is what Zaloga states on p. 36:

The first of these to see combat was the 16th Separate Tank Destroyer Brigade which went into action during the Dnepr River offensive in August 1943. The 19th Brigade fought during the Baranow bridgehead battles in August 1944, and some of these units served in the Berlin and Prague offensives from April to May 1945.

  • I'm surprised that the usually very precise Zaloga wrote that; it must have slipped through Osprey's rather hit and miss editing. The problem is that it doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I might have clarified it a little bit with an addition of two sentences about another unit it was used in, although it still may not make sense. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that text unfortunately still doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The American requirement was dropped later." Does your source give any indication as to why?
    • Sorry, but it does not state why it was dropped.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was intended solely for Lend-Lease, the T48 was never officially type-classified." Do you think that should have a ";" instead of a comma?
  • "The gun on the pilot model had a traverse of 27.5 degrees" Consider wikilinking "traverse" to Gun laying. People without a military background might not know what a traverse is.
  • "the British had already won the war in the Western Desert and the appearance of the 75 mm gun," I'm sorry, I don't understand where this 75 mm gun has come from.
  • Wikilink "Dnepr River"
    • I addressed all of the issues except the first one.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I had a go at copy editing. It might still need a little work, though. I have a couple of minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Inconsistent: In the lead “Britain retained 31…”; compare this with the body of the article which says “Britain accepted 30”
  • “The U.S. Army also accepted one…” this seems inconsistent with “The US retained 281 vehicles”
    • @AustralianRupert:This is not inconsistent, since the U.S. retained 281, but 280 were converted, while one was accepted into the U.S. Army
      • I've reworded it slightly because it wasn't really clear, IMO, what the intention was. Please check you are happy with my change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there any details about what units employed the British and US examples, and where they were used? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've done a Google search and a Google books search of all of it's possible names and I couldn't find anything that tells about it's service with the U.S. or Britain.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was developed further following its GA review (copyedited once more by GOCE) and I think it meets A-class criteria Tomobe03 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "made no explicit reference to Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.": The text should explain the relevance of these chapters.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment - a brief explanation is added now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Changed to "would have permitted" (which is best if that's correct). Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Are there more images you could add?
  • Could not find any that specific to the topic. Generic images of UN peacekeepers are available, but none of UNCRO specifically.
  • Several external links are dead or have connection issues.
  • Updated a couple of UNGENSEC reports urls, and rescued the rest from wayback machine. All urls reported fine by checklinks now.
  • Please try to use American or British English, not both (ex. centred or criticize)
    I think I got them all now to BE (except one in references, reflecting exact source wording)
  • No DAB's
  • No bad citations
  • May want to seperate ORBAT
  • Give the size of the mission info, I'd rather not - if it is not a dealbreaker here.
Thank you for the comments, cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: good work, this looks pretty good to me, although I am not a subject matter expert so I couldn't really check it for content etc. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • in the order of battle table, I suggest adding the year to the month as it is not clear whether it is March 1995 or March 1996 you are referring to;
  • Added
  • I found the first paragraph of the "Response to Croatian offensives" a bit awkward. I had a go at copy editing, but wasn't really able to come up with anything better, so it might need another set of eyes, sorry;
  • Had another go at ce of the paragraph - could you have a look to see if it is any better now?
  • in the References, some works have place of publisher and some don't. For instance compare O'Shea with Ramet. If possible, please make this consistent.
  • All book sources now have the location parameter.
Thanks for your comments. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review: where did you get the data reflected in the map? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

From Balkan Battlegrounds, Map I: National Battalions in UN Forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Early 1993 - I just added that info to the file description at the Commons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

USS New York (BB-34)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)

USS New York (BB-34) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hello all! I sincerely regret having sort of disappeared suddenly, and for my lame-duck stint as coord. Some unexpected life events happened in late 2013 that essentially eliminated my ability to edit with quantity or consistency. That said I wanted to push up the articles I had improved at the time but hadn't had the chance to put through FAC and ACR, starting with my contribution to the battleships project, here. —Ed!(talk) 22:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, Ed, nice work. I have a few observations/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • a couple of the external links appear to be 404/dead now: [1]
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Several terms appear to be overlinked: 14"/45 caliber gun; Babcock and Wilcox; Hugh Rodman; United States Atlantic Fleet; 5"/51 caliber gun;
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Sources; the Beigel work appears to be out of alphabetical order and is inconsistently formatted when compared to the others;
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Sources is there an OCLC or ISBN for the Joes work?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder if a couple of the images could be cropped to remove the borders. For instance, the two images in the Design and construction section;
  • inconsistent date: in the infobox "Commissioned: 15 April 1914", but in the body "commissioned on 15 May 1914"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "beam of 95 feet 6 inches (29.11 m)" (in the body of the article) v. "Beam: 95.2 ft (29.0 m)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "draft of 28 feet 6 inches (8.69 m)" v. "Draft: 28.5 ft (8.7 m)"
    • Not sure how the rounding algorithm is affecting this or how to correct, but those are the same measurements. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • typo? " 1926-26"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "maximum speed of 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph" v. "Speed: 20 kn (23 mph; 37 km/h)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "1940–1941" should be "1940–41" per WP:DATERANGE
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "carried 21 5 inch 51 cal" --> "carried twenty-one 5 inch 51 cal" to avoid confusion caused by the two numbers appearing close together
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "1925-6" --> probably should be "1925-26" for consistency
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "upper casemate had 6 inches (150 mm) of armor" v. "Upper casemate: 6.5 in (165 mm)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I believe most of my comments have been addressed. I will likely not be around much over the next couple of weeks to a month, so I will add my support now, so as to not hold the article up. Good luck taking it further and thank you for your hard work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I see some use of tonnes, as a US ship everything should be in English units, not metric.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Measurements should only be converted on first use.
    • So, remove all convert templates after the first use of each? —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, but only ones that have been converted once already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are several ways to present ship stats for those that had multiple upgrades. Including the specs after every single upgrade greatly expands the infobox length and can be confusing to readers not generally familiar with ships. I believe that no more than two sets of stats should be presented in the infobox (as built and the most significant upgrade) and prefer to display them in separate infoboxes with the lower one only containing specs that changed since completion as can be seen at Japanese battleship Yamashiro. Everything else can be covered in the main body.
    • So would it be best to move stats into a second infobox? —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I think so, but only the changed stats. There's no requirement to do so if you prefer not to, but regardless you should only have two sets of stats in the infobox(es)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Split out the engine horsepower and boilers into a new |ship power= line in the infobox.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Not entirely. Boilers need to be added to the power line and the ihp figure needs to be converted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What's a naval defense mine, as opposed to a normal mine?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Use single quotation marks around the single letters of the turret names and tell the reader that the names ran from bow to stern.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Two inches of armor on the turret sides seems awfully thin, doublecheck that figure against Friedman.
    • That's the number I've seen. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fairly certain that the German edition of Breyer in your bibliography is just a reprint of the 1970 original, just like the English translation.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • AFAIK dissertations don't get ISBNs, so fix Jones.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Be sure to put all titles in your references in title case.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The ISBN that you give for Macintyre goes to the index for the Naval Institute Proceedings, which is irrelevant. You need to provide the ISSN for the magazine, even though this is before ISSNs were invented.
    • Do you happen to know which magazine? —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Naval Institute Proceedings, but remember that magazines use an ISSN, not an ISBN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For the sake of consistency, add |lastauthoramp=1 to Gardiner and Gray to get the ampersand to display in the bibliography as well.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cannon is both singular and plural so no 's'.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't capitalize radar.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You'll need to link to Wikitionary to tell readers what an overhaul is.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • She was fitted with anti-torpedo bulges, though these made maneuvering harder at low speeds and she rolled badly, and her gunfire accuracy was reduced in rough seas. This is awkward and might need to be split into two sentences.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • conducting training and fleet problems until 1937 Probably best to say that she participated in fleet problems. And link fleet problems.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • After arriving in the United States, the ship was overhauled. The secondary battery was reduced to sixteen 5"/51 caliber guns. Combine these two sentences.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • see an American ship comparable to a dreadnought up close Rephrase this, NY was a dreadnought.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Missing a lot of hyphens for compound adjectives like 5-inch, 51-caliber, etc.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry these are all kind random, but I was scanning it and noting whatever caught my eye. I'll do a more thorough review in a few days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Convert the displacement figures in the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I don't know that the stuff on the earlier New York (or at least the fate of the ship) is all that relevant to this article.
    • Stuck that there because the Navy history makes such a big deal of the number of ship to bear the name. Thought it might be worth a mention to avoid confusion with other ships. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Link caliber to caliber (artillery) (or add a footnote explaining the difference, as most readers will mistake 45-caliber for .45 caliber
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • On the excess conversion issue Sturm mentioned above - the armor paragraph is a good example of where these should be trimmed.
  • The squadrons of the Grand Fleet began escorting convoys to Norway due to German raids with cruisers and destroyers in late 1917, which culminated in an abortive sortie by the High Seas Fleet in April 1918 - the Grand Fleet also put to sea, but too late to catch the Germans - I seem to recall from Massie (Castles of Steel) that the American BBs were involved in the convoy escort duty - I'd add a bit on this (basically as in HMS Emperor of India), since this did mark a significant change in how the fleet was being used.
    • Do you have a ref? I've been having a hard time finding anything on this. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll check Massie tomorrow and see if my memory is correct. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Obsolescent" is probably a better word than "obsolete" in the second para of the interwar section
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What type of ship is Leary?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Check for missing hyphens - for instance, the link to the St. Louis class cruisers should be rendered with the hyphen.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be worthwhile to add a bit of context to the neutrality patrol para - sure, many readers will know this is during WWII, but there are probably a fair number who will not.
  • Probably better to link directly to Invasion_of_Iceland#United_States_occupation_force
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd not link Imperial Japan in the sentence about the attack on Pearl Harbor - especially since the way it's worded seems a little WP:EGGy to me - I expected it to link to the Imperial Japanese Navy article, for instance.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "attacked Safi harbor, supporting landings by the U.S. 47th Infantry Division in the harbor" - "harbor" twice in one sentence seems a little repetitive - I might change it to "landings by the U.S. 47th Infantry Division there." - you might even omit everything after Division, since it should be obvious from context.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "a total of 60 14-inch (360 mm) rounds." - this should be "sixty 14-inch" per the 4th bullet in WP:NUMNOTES
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "breaking down at least once along the way and losing an observation plane in bad weather along the way" - "on the way" twice in one sentence is repetitive.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Any more details available on the effects of the Able and Baker tests? See Japanese battleship Nagato, German cruiser Prinz Eugen, or USS Nevada (BB-36) for the level of detail I'd like to see. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Most of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement).
      • Done. —Ed!(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions looks fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • "...and provided artillery support for...", would "naval gunfire support" be a more appropriate term? (suggestion only)
      • Done. —Ed!(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The language here seems a little redundant: "Armor on New York consisted of belt armor..." (armor consisted of armor), perhaps reword (suggestion only)
      • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I did a copy edit, tweaked a ref template, and made some MOS changes, pls see here [2].
    • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • all ACR toolchecks ok
  • only U.S. ship to have sunk one suggest adding "in World War I"
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • sixteen 5"/51-caliber guns? I thought MOS required "5-inch"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • the reduction to 16 5-inch guns seems to be repeated. Suggest moving the sentence beginning After arriving in the United States... down to the interwar period section and removing the repetition
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • suggest three additional 3-inch (76 mm) AA guns were added, bringing the total to five.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • suggest limiting the infobox to her specs "as built", which seems to be the standard practice
  • suggest adding ship types when you introduce ship names, Arizona, Pennsylvania etc
  • and Queen Elizabeth, New York sailed please have a look at this sentence, it doesn't read well
  • suggest New York saw her first major action during
  • Attached to the Southern Attack Group tasked with attacking "attack/attacking" seems repetitive
  • defended the transports?
  • just watch the convert templates, 14-inch is variously converted to 360 mm and 356 mm, same with 5-inch
  • Further attempts at attacking the landing force with shore batteries were destroyed is clunky, suggest Further shore batteries were destroyed
  • New York remained on station off the coast?
  • some grouped citations are not in numerical order (36,35) for example
  • at least once along the way and losing an observation plane in bad weather along the way "along the way" is repetitive
  • they arrived at Iwo Jima on 16 February
  • She stopped by Leyte on 14 June
    • I had a go at fixing a few of these, although I wasn't able to get everything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)