| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…after a long and grueling effort by a great many people from a wide variety of backgrounds the article has finally come full circle in that it now no longer contains any citation needed tags, or dead links, and having been rewritten and retooled I feel the time is right to shoot for FAC resurrection. Accordingly, I am aiming this article through PR to begin that process, and I am looking for any type of constructive feedback (keeping in mind that, like all great projects, ours has a few loopholes that allow for certain quirks - like calling ships "she" - to stay in an article) prior to moving on to A-class and FA-class. In particular, thanks in no small part to Brad101's outstanding (frustrating?) radar for locating this problem, I want to make sure that the information cited in the article agrees with its source material, and I want to make sure that all citations in the article are considered accurate and appropriate for ACR/FAC. Otherwise, anything else you would like to bring to our attention would be appreciated.
On behalf of all who have worked on the article over the years, TomStar81 (Talk) 23:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Nikkimaria
- Citation for the paragraph about boilers?
- Check for overlinking - I see two instances where destroyer is linked thrice in a single sentence
- This is likely a result of paragraph shift - most of the sentences have been split up and rejoined over the course of the reconstruction of the article. I'll take a careful read through of the article to see if I can find any other examples and remove them, though allow me to note for the record that my style here is to link the terms and the start of each new section, so a degree of overlink may be present as a result. If that bothers anyone, lemme know and I will tweak my editing accordingly.
- Check alphabetization of bibliography
- A few refs with formatting problems - for example, FNs 8 and 10
- I see at least three different date formats
- Are these in the article, the citations, or the references/biblo sections?
- Does FN 19 refer to FN 65?
- FN20: no full bibliographic info for this source
- Cited sources shouldn't be in Further reading, uncited sources shouldn't be in Bibliography
- Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
- Can I ask for clarification on this one? Do mean like finding the books in the library or where I found the information in the books I referenced (like page numbers, etc)?
- Norman Polmar or Polmar Norman?
- Either way works, but your right, it needs to be all one way or all the other :)
- Be consistent in whether shortened citations include all authors, how they disambiguate, etc
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Navweaps or NavWeaps? Noris or Norris?
- FN98 is missing publisher, FN99 is missing retrieval date
More later. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Comments. Just some copyediting notes: - Dank (push to talk)
- "The Iowa-class battleships were a class of fast battleships ordered by the United States Navy": class/battleships/class/battleships. I recommend: "The Iowa-class battleships were ordered by the United States Navy", then "Six were ordered" in the next sentence can become "Six of the class of fast battleships were ordered".
- "had been laid down": were laid down
- "as a result of the postwar": after the postwar, per WP:Checklist#because
- "draw down": drawdown
- "canceled prior to completion": canceled (I think most will assume that "canceled" means "not completed", and for the few who don't, they'll find out soon enough.)
- "Iowa class ships": Iowa-class ships
- "longest examples of their type": What type? Maybe: "longest battleships" (I think I remember that, but don't quote me)
- "followed the design pattern set forth in the preceding North Carolina- and South Dakota-class battleships, which placed great emphasis on ...": shared the emphasis of the North Carolina- and South Dakota-class battleships on
- - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- COMMENT: I want to apologize to everyone in advance for this, but over the last week or so I've been up to my neck in medical paperwork as my dad scrambles to get the last of his job application material turned in ahead of a 4-week stint on Odessa/Midland, Texas. I should be able to give this project my full and undivided attention again on or about December 12. In the mean time, keep the suggestions coming so I know what to work on why I get back here. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 23:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I had a rather nasty stomache virus, but I am finally back, and I am gonna start working on this. I'm away from my library until early next year, but hopefully it will not be a big deal. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)