Wikipedia:Peer review/Montana-class battleship/archive1

Montana-class battleship

I've listed this article for peer review because has been nine years since the last one, and in the past year in particular, I've added a ton of new information and corrected some misconceptions about the class. In particular, I heavily expanded the armor section and also expanded the design history section. Many (perhaps most?) of these edits were done when logged off. In any case, I referred heavily to well regarded book sources such as Sumrall, Friedman, Garzke & Dulin, and INRO publications in order to reduce the amount of citations to internet sources, many of which are tertiary. Hopefully all the additions are up to FA standards.

Thanks, Steve7c8 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, Steve, thanks for your efforts so far. I'm afraid I only had a quick look, but I have a few comments/suggestions:AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• From what I can see, it would need a few more citations to meet FA referencing standards. I would suggest adding them to the following:

• "though the Kriegsmarine H-42 through H-44 design concepts would have exceeded both the Montana and Yamato classes in size."
• "The large caliber guns were designed to fire two different 16-inch (406 mm) shells: an armor-piercing round for anti-ship and anti-structure work, and a high-explosive round designed for use against unarmored targets and shore bombardment."
• "(Rather than having the carrier defend itself by gunnery this would be assigned to other surrounding ships within a carrier battle group.)"
• as does this whole paragraph: "While the Montana class would not be designed principally for escorting the fast carrier task forces..."
• "This shift in policy meant that the Montana class would have been the only World War II–era US battleships to be adequately armored against guns of the same power as their own."
• "The aircraft would have been floatplanes launched from catapults on the ship's fantail.[8] They would have landed on the water and taxied to the stern of the ship to be lifted by a crane back to the catapult."
• "Five ships of the Montana class were authorized on 19 July 1940, but they were suspended indefinitely until being canceled on 21 July 1943. The ships were to be built at the New York Navy Yard, Philadelphia Navy Yard, and Norfolk Navy Yard."

• The referencing style also appears to be a bit inconsistent. For instance compare Note # 1 with # 2. Also compare Note # 1 with # 56, for instance. Also books like Newhart and Yarnall should be listed in the References section like Garzke and Keegan
• watch out for endash and page range consistency. For instance, "Garzke and Dulin, p. 163-164" should be "Garzke and Dulin, pp. 163–164"
• I would suggest removing the links to the individual ships of the class (e.g. in the infobox and Note # 20), as the links are self pointing redirects Note # 20
• watch out for duplicate links. The duplicate link checker tool identifies quite a few, for instance in the lead: Iowa-class battleship, aircraft carrier, Essex-class aircraft carrier. (There are others throughout the article)

Thank you for the input, I'll see what I can do to address this. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Brad101

Please read thoroughly the FAR on the Iowa-class from 2010 where I totally flipped my lid over citations and reliable sources. It's a long read but I'm quite sure that the same issues are going to apply to this article as well. I notice an abundance of original research in describing hull numbers. Low quality sources etc. Brad (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)