Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/USS Illinois (BB-65)

USS Illinois (BB-65)

This is a routine maintenance peer review, its been a year since MBK004 and I got this article up to FA standards, and given the unprecedented drama from the combined FACs I am in no eager mood to try for an FAR, so I'm subbing a peer review instead. I doubt that anything major has shifted in the article since last year, however I am open to ideas for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The_ed17

"...carrying guns of up to 18 in (457.2 mm)" and "...intended armament of twelve 16 in (406.4 mm)"
- 18/16 in long, right?
Can we de-link the units of weight (e.g. "in", "mm", "kg"?
"5 in (127 mm)/54 caliber DP mounts" is an ugly and long link...
Clarify: does BB-65 = USS Montana in the beginning?
Ref 18 is dead.
Ref 19 needs an access date.

Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectively:

<sigh> THIS is what happens when "anyone" can edit an encyclopedia. Good catch.
I am not sure if we can delink the units of measurement, the templates may auto link those for ease of reference.
I'll see about shortening it.
Yes it does.
I'll see if I can resurrect it
Should be from around the time of the FA push, but I will plug in todays date when I get around to it.

- TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- (@delink) I know you can somehow, I just don't remember how. :) Look at {{convert}}. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (were originally posted on the talk page)

Page numbers: #5 and 19
Format: #19
Dead link?: #11
RS's?: #11, 14
Access date: #16
Link to the picture? #8
What's with the "Bibliography"? I added that header today, but is it accurate? Should it be "Further reading"?
- And you need some ISBNs, etc, for those books...
—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]