Hiiiiiiiiiii.
It's got a lot of good information, but it glosses over things where the author didn't have great information (iirc, the Yamato actually had pretty fantastic accuracy with optics, so with the right light and not at night she could probably make it more interesting than the numbers indicate, and until post-war refits, the Richelieus couldn't shoot accurately at all). It's great for a quick datamine or summary uses but I wouldn't treat it as the word of god. Okun's work that the armor numbers are based on is fantastic and definitely worth a slog, but I'm not 100% sure how well it scales up since the Iowa and SoDak's numbers rely on decapping effects.
Shortest summary is that there's a bunch of good numbers but there's a lot of places where numbers indicate gulfs in capabilities that won't necessarily be there in all circumstances and/or represent an optimally fought ship with the benefit of hindsight, where a ship fought perfectly without that benefit might fare considerably worse. Some of it is the constraints of discussing a bunch of ships where some don't have that documentation available, some didn't survive to see the trim the rest are being compared to (VV pays for this in her AA numbers), and some left their home port less than half a month after first seeing the water (Richelieu doesn't pay badly for this).
I'll possibly clean this up when I'm not playing vidya games an hour or two before I go pass out (read tomorrow).
EDIT: haha not if I had to stay late at work gettin' mad at IDE bugs. It's gonna be the weekend most likely, and that's if I manage to turn up half-remembered stuff in decent time, otherwise it might not be too much more. The short of the thing is pay attention to the information he has and doesn't have, and what conditions the glossed over bits would be really relevant.