# Talk:Illinois-class battleship

Okay, I'll bite: what is "The Peace of the Wisconsin" listed under Wisconsin's operational history?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.11 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Illinois-class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
In the "General characteristics and machinery" section, I changed a couple instances of "she" to "they" for consistency.  Let me know if you disagree.  The prose is good though, no issues.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Well-referenced;  the first of the design section relies on a single source, but I looked around on Google Books and it doesn't seem like there's too much detailed information published on these so it makes sense.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article was thorough.  After reading it, my only question was why only three ships of this class were built.  The infobox mentions that the Maine class succeeded this class, but if you want to improve this article beyond GA status you could add some info on why this class was superseded by the Maine class.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The two images are fine for GA, if you want to keep working on the article you could add more to illustrate some of the technical features from the design section, like the armament or the engines.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Great work on this, I'm happy to close the review as pass and promote to GA.  --Cerebellum (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it really correct to refer to these ships as "BB-xx" when they were all decommissioned before the "BB" hull classification symbol came into use in 1920? 216.255.171.122 (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This is how sources routinely refer to them, so we follow suit. Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that the Alabama was the first one laid down and the first commissioned ship of this class, shouldn't they be described as Alabama-class battleships? My source (Padfield, Battleship) calls them "Alabamas".Merrybrit (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Most sources follow US naming conventions, which name the class after the first vessel authorized. There's a similar discrepancy with the Colorado class, where a different ship was completed first (which causes some European sources to refer to them as the "Maryland class"). Parsecboy (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)