| Revision as of 12:36, 26 July 2009 editTony1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors275,901 edits →Kaiser class battleship← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:42, 26 July 2009 edit undoParsecboy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,871 edits →Kaiser class battleship: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| *"yards"—do we provide metric equivalents for this situation? | *"yards"—do we provide metric equivalents for this situation? | ||
| *"caliber" is US spelling; I'd have thought this had enough reference to the UK to be otherwise, but maybe I'm wrong. ] ] 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | *"caliber" is US spelling; I'd have thought this had enough reference to the UK to be otherwise, but maybe I'm wrong. ] ] 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks for checking this stuff, Tony. I'm not quite sure what you mean by your second bullet; do you mean the large bold title "Kaiser class battleship" at the top of the page. I am unfamiliar with any way of italicizing the actual title. I fixed the "160 -> one hundred and sixty", the bracket/hyphen issue you pointed out, and the missing conversion you mentioned. As for US/UK spelling, the way I see it, "national ties to a topic" only applies to British ships. Another issue is, I wrote my first FA, {{SMS|Von der Tann}}, and I did try to stick with British English, since that was how it was originally written. I found this to be extremely difficult and time-consuming; I'm an American, and the time spent trawling the article for words I spelled out of habit in AE that needed to be switched to BE could have been more usefully spent elsewhere. I have since stopped doing this. Thanks again for your review. ] (]) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:42, 26 July 2009
Kaiser class battleship
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Another one of my German battleship FACs, this article was significantly rewritten over the past couple of months. It passed GA in May and WP:MILHIST A-class review a few days ago. I think the article is at or close to FA standards; any comments that help me get all the way there are appreciated. I've added alt text to the images, though I'm still a little unsure of how that's supposed to be done, so if it needs work, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
'Tis good, as far as Cr. 1a goes.
- WP:LINK advises against the linking of common geographical locations (like Germany). Any reason to here? It's a very big article. I see that "German Imperial Navy" is linked a second later ...
- "Kaiser" is italicised at the opening, but not in the title. Is this correct?
- Minus sign for -8. It's in the edit tools under the edit window ("Insert" tab), before the multiplication sign.
- I think MOSNUM says to spell out 160 here: "160 99.9 lb shells".
- Avoid multihyphen bracket monster by inverting the order: "the ships had a 4 cm (1.6 in)-thick torpedo bulkhead" -> "the ships had a torpedo bulkhead 4 cm (1.6 in) thick".
- "yards"—do we provide metric equivalents for this situation?
- "caliber" is US spelling; I'd have thought this had enough reference to the UK to be otherwise, but maybe I'm wrong. Tony (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking this stuff, Tony. I'm not quite sure what you mean by your second bullet; do you mean the large bold title "Kaiser class battleship" at the top of the page. I am unfamiliar with any way of italicizing the actual title. I fixed the "160 -> one hundred and sixty", the bracket/hyphen issue you pointed out, and the missing conversion you mentioned. As for US/UK spelling, the way I see it, "national ties to a topic" only applies to British ships. Another issue is, I wrote my first FA, SMS Von der Tann, and I did try to stick with British English, since that was how it was originally written. I found this to be extremely difficult and time-consuming; I'm an American, and the time spent trawling the article for words I spelled out of habit in AE that needed to be switched to BE could have been more usefully spent elsewhere. I have since stopped doing this. Thanks again for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)