Talk:Big Inch/GA1

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Hchc2009 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply


I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • No DABs, two dead links.
  • Images properly licensed.
  • Convert the thickness of the pipe used.
  • Missed a couple in that same paragraph. 5/8 and 1/2, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Drop the |adj=on sections from the templates as they're not compound adjectives trenches 4-foot (1.2 m) deep and 3-foot (0.91 m) wide and the same here: between 90-acre (36 ha) and 131-acre (53 ha) big
  • This is a repeated problem as the |adj=on isn't generally needed; only for compound adjectives like 15-inch, etc. Look very carefully at every hyphen next to a measurement to see if they're required. Most won't be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • old oil pumps were retired for reuse in a future crisis Don't you mean "retained" here?
  • Along the west parts of the pipelines Shouldn't that be "western"?
  • Is there a grand total of the steel consumed in the construction of the pipelines?
  • I've found a figure for the Big Inch (and added in it), but I can't find one for the Little Inch. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • And what was the impact on the shipping of oil by rail and ship when they were completed?
  • I haven't been able to find a statistic for this; it's a bit of a strange gap in the histories. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Might be in more general histories of oil production/usage during the war, but likely very hard to search for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply