Talk:Yamato-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Well-written

Some comments,

1. With an installed horsepower of 147,948 (110,324kW), -> 147,948 what? What's the horsepower measured in? Metric horsepower?
2. I've seen this conversation before, and I guess there's a reason you guys don't convert the weight of the ship. Is there no unit that the ship's weight can be measured in Imperial measurements? I'm sure that ships were weighed prior to when Great Britain adopted the metric system.
3. Personally, I believe that all conversions should use the conversion templates (there are even parameters to take into consideration weight ranges now!); it also means that all measurements will comply with MoS (the unit should be spelled out, unless it's in parenthesis).
4. In the weapon section, I spelled out numbers which corresponded to the amount of each gun on the ship. That way it wouldn't be confusing. I hope that that's alright.
5. Regardless, the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct.

Everything else

1. Passed
2. File:Musashi1944.png; From what I've experienced with Alaska class Cruiser during it's FAC, that image needs a source. Not required for GA, as far as I know, but just a consideration.

JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...the conversion templates in "Armament" go from in. -> cm. while in "Armour" they go from mm. -> in. Shouldn't this be standardized? And shouldn't it go from mm. -> in. in "Armament"? (To keep with other ship articles (Bofors 40 mm gun, etc.) and because the gums were measured in mm to start, hence the odd-sounding '18.1" gun') —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)