Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Iowa-class battleship/Archive 1

Iowa class battleship

I just completed a broad overhaul of the article to bring it back up to the current FA-standards. I am rather proud of the progress I made in the roughly three monthes I have been working on it, but now I need new eyes to check the page for anything out of place. I am also open to any new ideas for the page, if anyone has them. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Excellent work, as usual! A few things to consider, though:

The article seems somewhat lacking in non-technical information; is there anything useful to be said about crew complements and such?
Overall, the article is quite long; I would suggest that breaking out Armament of the Iowa class battleship as a separate article and considerably condensing the material in this one might not be a bad idea. (The new article could probably make FA rather quickly, for what it's worth. ;-)
The section headings need to be in sentence case, per the MoS.
Some of the external links seem questionable; are all of them really providing a useful additional resource? I would be hesitant to apply the label to the personal sites listed.
The notation for units is inconsistent in some places; we have, for example, one section with "5"", "5 inch", "5 in", and "5in" all used. It'd be nice to stick to one or two styles and avoid the others.

Kirill Lokshin 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about conformity for the number and the measurement; I will see about correcting the unit notations so they all look the same. The external links area was a sort of repository for the websites I used to rebuild the page; some of those links were removed, others I forgot about. Its been cleaned up now to better reflect the page topic, although I may toy with the external links some to determine what should stay and what can be moved to other pages. Section headers have been adressed. Also, I do not quite follow your train of thought on the crew complement suggestion, could you elborate a little, please?

On the issue of breaking out the armament section: I could create a new article for the information if you want. Alternatively, I could use the accumulated information gathered during my time researching the systems and spin that off into each system's designated wikipedia article, leaving notes on the related articles about the US ships the systems have been installed in (ie: The system has been installed on US destroyers, cruisers, the Iowa class battleships, etc) and leaving a "main article" link from the related section on the Iowa class page. In this manner, we could update the other weapons system pages here while simulatously reducing the length of the Iowa-class page. Thats just a thought mind you, but as a guess I would say the weaponry task force would proabaly be overjoyed with the infomation acuasition :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it I decided to move the section to the new page you suggested. It seemed like less work in the long run. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. It may be useful to condense the material in the main article even further, as it's still quite long. That's entirely up to you, though. Kirill Lokshin 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]