Talk:Armament of the Iowa class battleship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armament of the Iowa class battleship article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Armament of the Iowa class battleship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result March 18, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved March 30, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

A summary of this article appears in Iowa class battleship, USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64).

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has passed an A-Class review. Related task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

I went through and started throwing some {{fact|date=March 2007}} tags on unattributed claims, but began to realize that you were just omitting all references until the end of the paragraph. Since it's all coming from the same source, it seems silly to cite everything, but per WP:CITE I think you should go through a throw cites on them anyway since you did a good job with the ref-links. (I think it looks stupid too) However, there were some claims made later regarding effectiveness and strategy rather than just technical specifications that may or may not be in the cited source that you should check as well. I also caught a good number of mis-spelled words. And if you're going to talk about an American battleship, you better use American spelling (armor!). Madcoverboy 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My spelling sucks; of that, i make no secret :) Your fact tags have been removed as I have come across them, most had their source at the paragraph's end, as you statd. A few need still need to be checked, that should be done soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)