The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 13:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Happy to review this article. kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the lead section is too short. I recommend including some details about the service history and locations of the ship and some details about the ship and its function.
- You need to say what 'IRIS' means. you don't mention it in the article.
- of Iran in terms of tonnage can be changed to ...by tonnage
Design
edit- would have a beam of... why do you say 'would have' why not just 'has'.
- The image captioned 'vertical view of Kharg' is actually an 'aerial view'.
- Her original navigation radar was manufactured by Decca Radar, a Decca 1229 model working on I-band needs copyediting. Saying Decca twice like this sounds a bit clunky.
- Wikilink to Helicopter deck.
- Her crew totals 248 officers and men. I don't know too much about ships, but surely the number of crew is subject to change? Is this considered the maximum capacity?
- You later mention a helipad, but you previously mentioned a helo deck. This might need reordering. Also, it would be more accurate to describe it as a helo deck rather than a helipad, right?
Operational capabilities
edit- International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) needs a 'the' in front of it.
- You don't explain what AORH means.
- classifies Kharg as AORH, i.e. fleet replenishment oiler with replenishment at sea (RAS) capability and hangar. I don't understand what is being said here. The end of the sentence especially is grammatically problematic.
- You need to introduce Cordesman.
@Pahlevun: hi there. I've realised you're inactive now. Please let me know when you are back so I can continue this review. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Willbb234, they haven't edited since November so it may be time to close the review. (t · c) buidhe 13:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: thanks for the reminder. I'll close now. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.