Talk:USS West Virginia (BB-48)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is in good shape. I have some comments/queries:

• the full load displacement conversions don't match between the body and infobox, rounding issue
  • Fixed
• turn lk-on for link kW in the body and infobox?
  • Good idea
• the secondary battery gun numbers don't match between the body and infobox (16 vs. 12)
  • Fixed
• suggest "she had a 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tube mounted in her hull below the waterline on each broadside."
  • Works for me
• the conning tower armor doesn't match between body and infobox
  • Fixed
• "cancelled by the"→"cancelled due to the"
  • Done
• suggest "West Virginia then became"
  • Done
• when she got catapults, what aircraft did she operate?
  • Good question - I'd assume O3Us and then SOCs and later OS2Us, but the sources don't say. Friedman, unlike his French counterparts, doesn't seem to care about floatplanes.
• is there a link for the 1.1 in guns? Nothing jumped out at me in the list.
  • Added
• West Virginia was to have
  • Good catch
• "and at least one hit the belt"
  • Fixed
• any clue what the 7 December casualties were?
  • Found a figure
• the Oerlikon numbers don't match between the body and infobox
  • I meant to fix that when I rewrote that section...
• was Hancock part of BatDiv 4? This sentence isn't quite right.
  • No, see if how I reworded it is clearer
• should (BatDiv) be (BatDiv 4), given we don't discuss any other BatDivs?
  • Yeah, good point
• link shore bombardment and drop the later link to NGS
  • Done
• for grounded link ship grounding
  • I have a tendency to forget that link
• is the 1st Mobile Fleet part of "The 1st Mobile Fleet, now labeled the Northern Force" relevant? If it was called the Northern Force at this point, just call it that? If not, should the 1st Mobile Fleet be linked/redlinked? The article goes on to use 1st Mobile Fleet, which probably isn't right given it had been renamed.
  • No, it's not all that relevant - I had copied over that from the fast battleship articles I wrote that had encountered the 1st Mobile Fleet in the Battle of the Philippine Sea and forgot to trim it here
• can ranks be added to the names of the Japanese leaders?
  • Done
• is there a link for the fast carrier task?
  • Yup
• "this proved to be the last ever battle between battleships"
  • Done
• just for clarity "further Japanese attacks took place" air attacks?
  • Good idea
• suggest "before returning to the gulfLingayen Gulf" as there are a few gulfs being discussed at this point
  • Done
• suggest "that hit near the forward"→"that struck near the forward" to avoid repetition of hit
  • Done
• suggest "On 1 and 2 June, she conducted a series of bombardments that destroyed a Japanese blockhouse that had been holding up the American advance. On 16 June, ..."
  • Works for me
• suggest "1st Marines"→"1st Marine Regiment" as we have no idea what size the 1st Marines was otherwise, regiment, brigade or division.
  • I read With the Old Breed too recently and have had his way of referring to the units in my head ;)
• suggest stating that the invasion of Kyushu was the invasion of the Home Islands, as unless a reader is familiar with the Japanese home islands, they might assume this was yet another island in the island-hopping campaign
  • Good point
• there is an error in the date of the Charleston Daily Mail citation
  • Fixed
• is there a publisher for the Appalachian Magazine?
  • Hmm, I checked their about page and it turns out it's just a blog - I hadn't paid that much attention to it when I rewrote the article.
• File:Pearl Harbor Japanese recon photo of battleship row 80G30551.jpg has a tag that says it is the work of a US employee, which it clearly isn't. The Japanese tag covers the US.
  • Fixed, good catch.

That's it from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)