Talk:Lexington-class battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There are several redlinks in the article, most related to various armaments. If these guns stand a good chance of having an article created about them in the future, they're fine to leave, but if they don't, then please de-link them.

   • I left three redlinked articles (five links total), as they have good chances of being made sometime, especially the 16"/50 caliber gun article, as it already has an article for the Mark 7 version of that gun. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The 1922-1946 version of Conways is listed in the references, but not in the bibliography.

   • Removed the offending ref. I used to have smething about the Alaska-class cruisers in there, but someone removed that sentence...but not the next two. :/ Thanks for pointing that out! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Please add the title of the work to the last two references, in order to standardize them with the rest of the refs.

   •  Done —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

   • This is optional, but it is easy to add a link to a cite book template through the use of the "|url=" parameter. This would make the Google books link easier to see and more intuitive to use, IMO, but it is up to you.

   • I prefer it to be outside of the template becuase I'm not linking it to a specific page (or, it shouldn't be linking to a specific page...). I've done it this way in USS Nevada (BB-36) (which you reviewed ;D) and Alaska-class cruiser. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall a nice article. A few minor issues with MOS and references, so I am placing the review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work so far. However, the book ref formatting is still all over the board. I wanted you to change the last two refs to "author, title, page" because that's originally how all of the other refs were. However, you changed the last two to "author, title, page" while changing most of the rest to "author (year), page". I just want them all to be the same. I don't care if it's "author, title, page" or "author (year), page". Also, please format the last book in the bibliography section to match the others. Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Guess who forgot to finish what he started? Sorry :/

And the last "book" is not a book - it's an academic paper. Is that right, or should I use some template...? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if it was something like that :) Everything looks good now. I formatted the last reference with the "cite paper" template, so it should be OK. The article looks great, so I'm going to pass it to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)