Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/AHS Centaur

AHS Centaur

The article on AHS Centaur was promoted to Featured Article status just short of two years ago. In that time, there have been changes to the article, plus alterations to and tightening of the FA criteria. I would like to know if the article still meets the FA criteria, and if not, what needs to be done. -- saberwyn 08:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference:

• The previous peer review (from February 2007) is here.
• The A class review (from May 2007) is here.
• The Featured Article Candidate discussion (which resulted in the article's promotion to FA in June 2007) is here.

the ed17

• Comment - I've just read through the entire article, and I am amazed that it is in such good shape for a 2-year old FA. However, I have a major query: at the end of the "Attacker" section, it seems to imply/say that Nakagawa might not have been the attacker (as there was not enough evidence. However, the rest of the article, namely the "Reasons for attack" section, advances the viewpoint that Nakagawa was the commander. If this was intentional, I apologize, but just a thought. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nakagawa was the commander of I-177 at the time of the attack, but that submarine was one of three that were in the area at the time and could have attacked Centaur. In the immediate aftermath (during the war crimes tribunals), there wasn't enough evidence to prove which of these submarines was responsible. The publication of the War History Series in 1979 indicated that I-177, with Nakagawa commanding, was the responsible submarine, and all of the sources on the attack I have seen accept this as fact.

That said, any suggestions on how it could be made clearer? -- saberwyn 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that information (that Nakagawa was almost certainly the commander) could be added at the end of the "Attacker" section? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the "Attacker" section, partly to make the identifying of Nakagawa clearer, and partly because I think that section could be a little better structured. It will take me a little while because I don't have access to some of the sources used at the moment. I'll notify here when its done. -- saberwyn 07:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The "Attacker" section has been rewritten, and tweakes have been made to the "Reasons for Attack" section. Hopefully this clarifies things. -- saberwyn 07:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

I've formated the citations. I'll look at the prose more carefully soon YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Guyinblack25

Quite an informative article, and one that looks to have stood the test of time. I haven't finished reading the article, but here are the issues which stood out to me.

• Terms like keel, stern, and draft (hull) should be wikilinked for readers unfamiliar with the topic, such as myself.
• Per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images, images should not be left aligned directly under level 3 headings to prevent a break between the heading and the prose. I would either right align them or move them a paragraph or two down closer to the most relevant text.
• This is more a preferred style issue, but there are several instances where consecutive sentences both use the same citation. I've always tried consolidating them to cover groups of sentences. That's just me though.
• The "Military reaction" section starts with a single sentence paragraph. I'd integrate it with the following paragraph.
• The first sentence of "Official protests" is a bit confusing with its comma usage. The list of groups involved in the consultation is the culprit. It might benefit from splitting the sentence in two.

I'll finish up tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

In order

1. Examples given linked at first appearance in the text.
2. Images dropped down or moved elsewhere in the article.
3. I'm the opposite... I prefer attaching citations to every sentance so that readers know that that particular sentance can be verified by that particular citation.
4. Problem is, the first sentance describes the general reaction from military personnel, while the subsequent paragraph describes a reaction to the attack by the military as an organisation, and it doesn't seem right to strap that sentance to the front one of one. Thoughts?
5. Done. How does it read now?

Looking forward to the rest of your observations. -- saberwyn 23:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Round two-

• I'm no military expert, but I don't see much difference between the reaction of an organization and the reaction of its members. They're different levels of military, but still military. I'd say the amount of overlap outweighs the differences. That's just me though.
  The only other suggestion I have is to expand on the content of the servicemen's reaction. One or two more sentences would be all that's needed (if there's any available).
• Under the "Reasons for attack" section, second sentence of the second paragraph, I believe a semi-colon should be used instead of a colon. "...until reaching the Great Barrier Reef:; her course keeping..."
• Under the "Nakagawa unaware" section, should 'unfortunate accident' use double quotes instead of single? I assume this might be another difference of styles.
• Under "Memorials", I'd wikilink cairn.
• I would reorder the "Memorials" section chronologically.
• After reading the whole article, the lead feels a bit off. Specifically how it jumps right into its attack, then summarizes the article. I don't really have any suggestions, and assume its more just a difference of style.

Quite a fine article. It was a pleasure to read and very informative. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Round two replies

1. Here's an example of what I mean. You and your colleages walk into work after a good weekend, to find that your workplace has been destroyed, equipment vandalised, etc. You and your colleages are likely to be angered and annoyed. Your company is likely to review security proceedures and contact the police to begin an investigation. That said, I like the idea of adding a few more lines to evolve it into a paragraph, and am hunting for possible sources.
2. Agreed, done.
3. In my understanding of Australian English, single quotes are for emphasis and double quotes are for quotations. Having read the relevant sentace, I don't think there should be any quote marks at all as it could be intended as scare quotes (that may have been my intention when I originally wrote it, but if so, its not appropriate per NPOV), and have removed them.
4. Done
5. No answer at this moment in time, need to have a think about it Done, how does it look now? -- saberwyn 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
6. The reason the attack is mentioned straight off the bat is that it is the key reason why the ship is notable. Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#First_sentence, the subject of the article and why it is notable should be clearly identified as early as possible.

-- saberwyn 02:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I only saw two other minor issues:

• Should this be semicolon instead of a colon? "...by other Allied personnel:; United States Army Air Force General..."
• I would add a {{-}} tag at the end of the "Memorials" section so the picture doesn't run into the footnotes.

Article looks great, like it could weather a couple more years. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Saberwyn-closing

I'm closing this peer review as I will be unable to react to suggestions after this weekend for about a month. I would like to thank everyone who has expressed a view here, and hope the changes made to the article are satisfatory enough for AHS Centuar to retain FA status. Any further observations or comments are more than welcome at the article's talk page. -- saberwyn 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)