Its been almost two years since this article went through any sort of review process; this was an oversight on my part since of the Iowa class articles this one is the only one that has been rewritten by someone other than me ( FTC Gerry ( talk · contribs)). The article is aesthetically iffy, but is still well sourced and should pass through an impending FAR with relative ease; to better the chances though I am opening a peer review prior to the FAR so that I can split the anticipated workload some.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 ( talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The first thing that comes to mind is the redlinked "Katie" nukes in the lead section... could a short article or a redirect to an appropriate target be created?
Also, I think it would be beneficial to alternate the placement of images, and may also be an idea to either remove the image size hardcoding (i.e. the |foopx| section of the image string) or standardise the image sizing. At the moment, there appears to be several image sizes in use as well as the un-hardcoded thumbnail size, and this, combined with the all-right placement, is putting some serious chunks of artificial white space into the article.
Feel free to address each point directly, instead of addressing them all below this point. I also reserve the right to add more observations at any time. -- saberwyn 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(Moved from talk page) AshLin ( talk) 04:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I just went back through the FAC (remarkably short!). A point raised then but seemingly never addressed is the question of small arms. I can see why the equipment carried by the U.S.M.C. detachment wouldn't count, but surely there would have been a store of rifles, small arms and the like? It's not important, but if you do have some information on it, the article would certainly be complete. -- Harlsbottom ( talk | library | book reviews) 17:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Notes to self:
Wow. This is a really great article. I only found a few things that could be changed, none of them major:
Hope that helped, and good luck with the FAR. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Its been almost two years since this article went through any sort of review process; this was an oversight on my part since of the Iowa class articles this one is the only one that has been rewritten by someone other than me ( FTC Gerry ( talk · contribs)). The article is aesthetically iffy, but is still well sourced and should pass through an impending FAR with relative ease; to better the chances though I am opening a peer review prior to the FAR so that I can split the anticipated workload some.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 ( talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The first thing that comes to mind is the redlinked "Katie" nukes in the lead section... could a short article or a redirect to an appropriate target be created?
Also, I think it would be beneficial to alternate the placement of images, and may also be an idea to either remove the image size hardcoding (i.e. the |foopx| section of the image string) or standardise the image sizing. At the moment, there appears to be several image sizes in use as well as the un-hardcoded thumbnail size, and this, combined with the all-right placement, is putting some serious chunks of artificial white space into the article.
Feel free to address each point directly, instead of addressing them all below this point. I also reserve the right to add more observations at any time. -- saberwyn 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(Moved from talk page) AshLin ( talk) 04:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I just went back through the FAC (remarkably short!). A point raised then but seemingly never addressed is the question of small arms. I can see why the equipment carried by the U.S.M.C. detachment wouldn't count, but surely there would have been a store of rifles, small arms and the like? It's not important, but if you do have some information on it, the article would certainly be complete. -- Harlsbottom ( talk | library | book reviews) 17:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Notes to self:
Wow. This is a really great article. I only found a few things that could be changed, none of them major:
Hope that helped, and good luck with the FAR. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)