Talk:South Dakota-class battleship (1939)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The "Development" section should be partitioned into subsections, preferably one for the hull and one for propulsion- just to get rid of the large block of text there.

      Done —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

   2. Some of the more obscure nautical terms should be linked. I recommend going through the article and linking to any terms that the average person doesn't immediately recognize.
   3. The external link needs a title, though with only one link, be sure that it is very useful, otherwise it isn't really necessary.

      Done —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

   4. The "See Also" Section: Isn't there a wikimedia commons template that we can use to link to a page there? It would eliminate another short header.

      Done —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass no problems there.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass no problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass no problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass no problems there.

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

   Not Yet

   1. The images should be rearranged so they are evenly distributed on both sides. Currently they all seem bunched together on the right.
7. Overall:

   On Hold while a few minor issues are resolved. -—Ed!^(talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Regarding images, I am not really sure if it is possible to move any left; to do so would mess with a lot of section headers. I thought about moving the #Secondary battery picture down a paragraph (to avoid being under a 4th-level heading) and to the left, but that would sandwich text between that and the AA gun picture, which I would consider worse. The problems with the ship pictures under #Service is that every picture corresponds with the ship on the right (sort of like starting out an article with a right-aligned image, I guess). What do you think? —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the images should be fine where they are. The other issues look resolved to my satisfaction, so the article now meets the GA criteria according to my interpretation of them. Well done! -—Ed!^(talk) 16:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)