| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portland-class cruiser article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Portland-class cruiser has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Portland class cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 23:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)
Starting comments: Wait, I know that guy!
1. Well written: 
Section acceptable
- a. prose/copyright:
Acceptable - b. MoS compliance: Acceptable
2. Accurate and verifiable: As your sourcing is based off of eight physical books, none of which I own, I'm going on good faith that there is no close paraphrasing. I take comfort in that your little group over at MilHist has been reviewing each other's work long enough that if there were shenanigans, they'd have been flushed out by now. Section acceptable
- a. provides references: Acceptable
- b. proper citation use: Acceptable
- c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable
- a. covers main aspects: Acceptable Ideally I'd have liked for there to be a bit more about each of the two ships, however since they both have their own articles, this isn't a big deal at all.
- b. focused/on topic: Acceptable
4. Neutral: Acceptable
5. Stable: Acceptable
6. Image use: Section acceptable
- a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable USS Indianapolis at Mare Island.jpg doesn't have the information in the standard template, but it does have all the required information, so it's good.
- b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
- a. images that should have alt texts have them:
Needs work I don't ever expect there to be alt-text when I do these, it's not something that anyone ever really thinks about, however it is something that's nice to do. If you're going for a GT/FT, you'll need to do it eventually, too. - b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable
Comments after the initial review: I cannot, in good faith, hold this up because of an issue that isn't in the actual criteria. I can however leave you a pestering message on your user talk page when I'm done promoting this. I think that's the route I'll take. Top notch work. This is a GA. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Tons edit
It seems odd to have the displacement given in tonnes, since everything else is in US units. Also does anyone still use long tons? I thought even the UK was metric these days, but nautical tradition can be stubborn. I would like to see displacements given as, for example, "10,800 short tons (9,800 t)". Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Displacement of that period was always in long tons. Tonnes are very close to long tons but possibly tonnes was given as that was in the source used for the data. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)