Wikipedia:Peer review/HMS Cardiff (D108)/archive1

HMS Cardiff (D108)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just done a huge rewrite of it. I have aspirations to get it up to an FA class in the future and am particularly concerned over the format and layout of the article, MOS etc

Thanks, Ryan4314 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Haus

This article certainly meets the criteria for B-class and is quite close to GA-class. The only problem I really see is that the prose fails to flow here and there. I made a few edits that might suggest ways to improve the article's flow.

A couple of structural suggestions. The "See also" section contains one item. Prior to pursuing GA status, I'd either add more or remove the section. The "Decorations/Awards" section suffers a similar problem, consider using the Ship honours= item in Infobox Ship Career.

For citing the books you list under "Google Book Search," use {{Cite book}} instead. The info is available under the "About this book" tab, for example here. I'm sure there are articles you cited that could be handled better with {{Cite journal}} than with {{Cite web}}. But quite nicely done, overall. Cheers Haus^Talk 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for contributing, I'll get to work on changing those refs now (erghh I hate it though, it's so repetitive), will I still be able make GA grade without a "See Also" section then? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. You can absolutely make GA without a "See Also" section. Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Two small items: I think #46, #47, and #49 all point to the same place (these are 3 different news stories on the same website), and "3000" needs a comma. After that, the only issues I have all under the category of copyediting. Here are a few examples of bits of prose that I think could be shined up:

• Ambush , problems, Phalanx probably shouldn't be in quotes,
• Counter-measure or Countermeasure instead of CounterMeasure,
• "trails and weapon training programme" -> "trails and a weapons training programme"? (I'm not sure what you saw wrong with this, myself personally I think "trails" is a typo for "trials")
• "There have been calls made by former Navy..." -> (something like) "Former Navy servicemen in Cardiff have called for the ship to be made into a local tourist attraction."
• "Approximately an hour later[15]..." -> "Approximately an hour later...Scots Guards of the 2nd Battalion.[15]"
• "Once the guards realised they were being targeted..." can probably be improved (What do you think of it now?)
• "in the quadrennial NATO exercise, Strong Resolve" -> "in Strong Resolve, the quadrennial NATO exercise"
• something fishy's going on at "fate; 50°49′07″N 1°07′50″W / 50.818486, -1.130644 her bell" (What do you think of it now?)

Here's some copyediting advice that includes things like printing the article out, not reading it for a couple of days, and reading it out loud that will help a lot in spiffing up the language. Cheers. Haus^Talk 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's some great advice! So I'm gonna take a couple of days away from the article, then print it out, read aloud etc just before I rewrite/"flow" it, feel free to keep adding to the article as you guys see fit. Also I've asked Tom some interesting questions on his talk page here that I'd really appreciate if you guys could take a look at as well please. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. has anyone looked at the article with Internet Explorer? Is there a big space at the end of the Falklands section? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

SoLando

Excellent article (I was the initiator years before the policy/guideline structure that exists for articles had developed to the level that Wikipedia is now accustomed to - so I'm not necessarily culpable for its original state ;-). Anyway:

• There are numerous skeleton paragraphs that could be consolidated. Prose flow would be improved by the elimination of these single-sentence paragraphs.
• "Post Falklands War (1982-1990)" could be combined with the preceding section. Is there potential for expansion?
• Some dates are unlinked. Dates should be linked (e.g. 24 January) to enable account preferences (see WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking).

Have you done this Lando? I always get confused on this one, I know I have to link full dates but am not sure what day & month ones require it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs)

Full dates (e.g. 23 January and 24 January 2008) are linked to enable account preferences for time formatting. Solitary months and years are, however, usually not linked (e.g. January and 2008). I've scoured the article for unlinked dates and didn't notice any. That issue would appear to have been resolved :-) SoLando (Talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "Awards" section doesn't seem viable as a distinct body of text. I suggest integrating the information with other sections and/or incorporating it into the lead.
• "See Also" is redundant as the Type 45 is identified as a replacement in the main body.

I've listed this peer review at MILHIST so there will hopefully be greater input. SoLando (Talk) 18:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

Well done, I enjoyed reading the article. I do have suggestion though: IMO, it would be better to place the terms first and then their abreviations, rather than having the abreviations and then the terms in parenthasis. I will take another read through this evening if the opurtinity to do so arises and see about adding additional comments then. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)