Jump to content

Talk:USS Portland (CA-33)/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: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still a couple things left:


Almost. This is still a problem (copied from above):

  • Change this up some. Armor on the bulkheads was between 2 inches (51 mm) and 5.75 inches (146 mm), while armor on the deck was 2.5 inches (64 mm), armor on the barbettes was 1.5 inches (38 mm), armor on the gunhouses was 2.5 inches (64 mm), and armor on the conning tower was 1.25 inches (32 mm). See any FA-class warship article for some ideas for better language. And how is deck armor in the infobox 2+2 inches, but only 2.5 inches in the main body? Actually there are some other differences between the two in the armor section that need to be fixed as well.
   Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
       Not enough and make sure that the data in the two sections matches.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You were using she way too often in the design section. I rotate "she", "the ship", and "name" to avoid monotony and I fixed most of that section for you. Read through the article and see if you're doing the same thing elsewhere.
  • BTW, if you want to take any of your cruiser articles to FAC, I'd advise you to get a hold of Friedman as he's got info on refits, dates, radars, etc., that you'd need there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded this graph to improve the flow, and checked the infobox and graph to make sure the numbers matched. —Ed!(talk) 03:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget to save the changes? The last three edits in the history are mine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it again. I don't see any flow problems with this graph now. —Ed!(talk) 17:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]