Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Florida-class battleship

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Florida class battleship

[edit]
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)
Toolbox

I wrote this back in August, and haven't had the time to take this higher than GA until now. I look forward to any and all comments towards improving the article, so this can eventually go to and pass FAC. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to look the article over. Parsecboy (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments

  • Design section, "adopted for the preceding Delaware's". I think it should be "Delawares", without the possesive apostraphe.
  • General characteristics section, "This was an increase of approximately 1,500 tons (1,400 tonnes) larger than". Redundancy, "increase", "larger".
  • Armament section, "or Common types, though the Common type". Should "common" be capitalized.
  • USS Florida section, "However, under the London Naval Treaty of 1930". I don't think the "however" is needed.
  • Same section, last paragraph, there is a repetition of the fact that she was broken up for scrap.
  • USS Utah, "Utah was also retained under the Washington Naval Treaty, and was heavily rebuilt during the mid-1920s.[4] In 1924–1925, the ship sailed on a good-will cruise to South America. Following her return to the United States, she was taken into dry dock for significant reconstruction." Did the ship get rebuilt twice, or is this more repetition?

Overall, this looks like a nice article, but there seems to be quite a bit of repetition. I've given some examples above; there may be more that I have missed. I look forward to supporting this article soon. Dana boomer (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dana. I've fixed everything you pointed out, except the "Common" point. It seems to be a proper noun, at least according to navweaps. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. All of my comments have been satisfied, so I've added my support. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good, but it'd be nice if you could get a specific name and date for the Secretary of State carried by Florida. Are you moving to the American ships now? – Joe N 18:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support A preliminary read through the article did not show anything wanting, but I would like another crack at the article before offering full support. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Suuport Ok, after another read through I find everything in order, but I am concerned about the size of the article when compared to the North Carolina and Iowa- class articles. I think more could probably be said about the class, but insofar as the requirements are concerned the article does meet the standards set forth for A-class. I do caution though that you may encounter some size concerns at FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Nothing has been added regarding wetness of the casemate guns as commented in the GAR.
Description of the armor layout seems a bit cursory.
A side/plan view from Jane's or Brassey's would be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Florida-class_battleship&oldid=1138360714"