Talk:USS Washington (BB-47)/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

There appears to be several things that the initial reviewer missed. Please address this issues within the next 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Review

• In the sinking section, there are two measurements that should be using the convert template. I fixed one, but one still needs to be addressed ("On the first day of testing, the ship was hit by two 400-pound (180 kg) torpedoes and three 1-t near-miss bombs with minor damage and a list of 3°"). What is "t" anyways? And what the heck does "list of 3°" mean? Not everyone is battleship/boat savy (aka me). Done
• "With fiscal year 1917 appropriations, bids on the four Colorados were opened on 18 October 1916; though Maryland‍ '​s keel was laid on 24 April 1917, the other three battleships, including Washington, were not laid down until 1919-20" Should be separated into two sentences. Done
• On 8 February 1922, two days after the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armaments, all construction work ceased on the 75.9%-completed superdreadnought. - Word for word the exact same sentence found in the lead. Should be changed. Done
• Link TNT. Done
• "Two days later, the ship was hit by 14 14-in shells dropped from 4,000 feet (1,200 m)" - In keeping the article uniform, this should be "Two days later, the ship was hit by fourteen 14-in shells dropped from 4,000 feet (1,200 m)". Done
• Same goes with the next sentence. Done
• What's triple bottoms? (Is there are another article that describes this? If not, just give a quick description) Done
• "Class history, construction, and cancelation" section header should/could really just be "History". Done
• "Ultimately, her incomplete hulk was towed..." - In my eyes, ultimately isn't the most neutral word to use. The sentence would be just fine if you removed it and help keep a NPOV. Done

Comment - the DANFS link is dead and needs to be updated. I can't find the new article, but I'd wager that this article suffers from the same close paraphrasing issues as the other two articles currently under GA review, especially since the old version had the standard {{DANFS}} template, and the text was not significantly changed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Couldn't find it. I guess the Danfs page got deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)