Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Montana class battleship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Montana class battleship[edit]

Previous Peer Review is here

Its been about a year since this article made FA, and now its time for its annual peer review. This is a routine maintenance peer review, I do not expect the article content to have shifted drastically since the FAC last year, but I am open to any suggestions for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Hi, Tom, just a couple of points:

  • There are a couple of sentences at the end of paragraphs, and a paragrah or two themselves, that a without a cite and could probably do with one.
  • As there are so many actual notes contained in the "Notes" section among the citations, it might be worth separating them into two different sections; one "Notes" and the other "Footnotes" or some such.
  • If possible, it would be best if a few more of the images were aligned to the left, as the majority currently sit to the right.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ed![edit]

Same, just a few things to point out.

  • The "Armament" section is the main place without citations. Some paragraphs could use more thorough citations while others (such as the first paragraph in the section) aren't cited at all.
  • The books in the "References" and "Further Reading" sections should be put into {{cite book}} templates.
  • I see a few links that appear multiple times in the article (Iowa-class, Battle of Midway, etc.) I would suggest skimming through the article's links again and making sure each link only appears once.

-Ed!(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cam[edit]

Just a few things here and there

  • Yamato and Musashi need to be wikilinked in the third paragraph of "history"
  • Could the Panama canal restrictions be worked into the article a bit earlier (or at least mentioned in more explicit detail in the "design" section)?

Can't find anything else worth mentioning. Still a superb Featured Article. Well done! Cam (Chat) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)