Talk:Japanese destroyers of World War II

== Problems I had. =/ ==

This is not B-class because...

• ...the references.
  • (a) there are not enough...
  • (b) and there are too many from one source.
    • Try Google Books (under "limited and full preview") and Global Security for extra references.
• The lead is too short per WP:LEAD. Just summarize your article, and as long as the info appears down below, in-line citations are not needed for it.

Fix these, and the article meets the B-class requirements. ..my apoligies for the "list" reasoning, as that was totally wrong. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Random thought: to make it cleaner, cite Whitney as <ref>Whitney, (page#)</ref>. Then put the full book citation in a separate section. (See Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Works for a little more) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, the only problem that I had with the article was that the Lead was too short. If the article is thorough enough aside from the lead, it shouldn't be a problem. Oh, on second thought, the article could use some images, so it would fail B-5. I thought that the references were thorough enough personally. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a photo in the article and passes B5. Were you actually reading the article? --Brad (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's odd, the pictures show up in my browser at school, but not my browser at home. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And the wpships POV is that it makes a C but barely. Milhist does not use C-class yet. Your lead section is weak and each paragraph should have at least one reference cited. I'm liberal about assessments but this article is not B-class just yet. You've a lot of one or two line paragraphs that should be combined or expanded. With the amount of small paragraphs I can't see how the article meets the #2 requirement at this stage. I did change our importance rating from High to Top but that has no bearing on article quality. --Brad (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all round for the v constructive comments. It does show up, however, that there are differing peceptions at play. I'll attempt to address all reservations, but I'm surprised at "there are too many {citations} from one source" - if the source is good enough and comprehensive (and Whitney seems so), then is there a problem? I do think that more pics are needed, partic of the earlier types - if anyone has a source .... Relieved about the list comment! Folks at 137 (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by that is that every source is not entirely comprehensive - while one will go into more detail about service history (e.g. [{DANFS]], though danfs does not apply for this article), another will place extra emphasis on the technical and design aspects (e.g. all of Norman Friedman's books). ...and again, my apologies for the "list" comment... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress so far

Most of the above points have, I hope, been addressed. The intro has been expanded. (I'll leave a reviewer to remove it, if appropriate.) "Citation needed" tags have been replaced by citations and their presentation has been rationalised as suggested. Suitable, good quality pics are hard to come by, but I will lower my standard, if necessary. I'm less convinced by the argument to merge small paras. The wiki guides to layout and writing better articles discourage short and single sentence paras, but don't rule them out. The purpose in the "Classes" section is to separate each description into two or three parts - summary, description and usage/ fate - although some are capable of expansion. What I would prefer not to do is to create single para sections of solid blocks of text - this is advised against in the guidelines. I await the boadsides! Folks at 137 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try WP:MHR#PEER? This will get you plenty of comments to get this really good! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that. First, ust a few more tweaks that have been suggested. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I found it pretty comprehensive. If somebody's got a copy of Kaigun or Parillo, or EZ access to it, will you check the cites using them? I've read that somewhere, & I think that's where it is, but I couldn't say for certain, & I don't have either. If not, have a peek at Willmott's Barrier & the Javelin (my fallback...). And, to repeat a cmt at WPShips, is there a convention on capitalization of name translations? I'm split between not capitalizing, 'cause they're not proper nouns in Eng, & capitalizing, 'cause they're translations of names. Thoughts? Also, do change it to reflect whatever decision is arrived at (if any... ;D). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

There's a peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Japanese World War II destroyers. Please contribute. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)