Talk:Concordia-class fleet carrier: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The rest of the article seems okay, even if I don't like Americanisms, but that's just me. - Wedge009 | The rest of the article seems okay, even if I don't like Americanisms, but that's just me. - Wedge009 | ||
The history might want to be rewritten a bit more though. I'm not sure how we should do these sometimes...do we include every single detail in a article like this or do we spread it out between individual ship articles? While I like the idea of having tons of info in one place, we have to organize it in a way that is useful to both us and anyone else wanting to buff up on WC history. | |||
- Dund |
Revision as of 15:34, 30 January 2010
New article on the Concordia line. If anyone has more to add to its history or whatever else you can contribute, please feel free to do so. I will be updating this article as time goes on. Thank you.
-Aeronautico
You need to rework the last line. It's speculation and just doesn't fit well with the article. I only glanced over the rest but think you may also need to fix some more of it up as well.
- Dund
I agree. While the Midway class may have been developed as an economical replacement for the ageing fleet carriers, I doubt they would decomission the entire fleet of Concordias immediately.
The rest of the article seems okay, even if I don't like Americanisms, but that's just me. - Wedge009
The history might want to be rewritten a bit more though. I'm not sure how we should do these sometimes...do we include every single detail in a article like this or do we spread it out between individual ship articles? While I like the idea of having tons of info in one place, we have to organize it in a way that is useful to both us and anyone else wanting to buff up on WC history.
- Dund