Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battleship

Battleship

Featured article candidates/Battleship

This article rates as an FA, but hasn't been reviewed in any official capacity in nearly two years and as such is now on the verge of an FAR. I'm loathe to see that happen, so I am taking the initiative to keep the bronze star by offering to do the grunt work. I am interested in anything you guys think needs fixed, improved, expanded upon, trimmed down, cited, recited, corrected, or otherwise addressed. As this article falls within the scope of Operation Majestic Titan you may find others besides me moving to address the issues as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- All images are currently in need of alt text. One external link is reported as suspicious, please check and advise. ~~Two disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed.~~ TomStar81 (Talk) 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might expand on the definition of an armored frigate so that readers will understand how a steam battleship can be cut down, armored and called a frigate.
You might clarify that the definition of a "dreadnought" was limited to "all big guns". Some people have tried to expand that definition so that the South Carolina's aren't called dreadnoughts because of their triple-expansion engines.
Provide a link to super-fire so that readers can see exactly what is meant by that term.
Don't forget that the Italians modernized their battleships as well during the Thirties.
Guilio Cesare wasn't sunk by a mine in the Black Sea.
A mention of Stalin's BBs might be in orders, as well as a mention that the Soviet BB's were limited to gunfire support during WW2.
There's been no discussion of battlecruisers so why are Goeben/Yavuz, and the Soviet BC's even mentioned when the disposal of BB's is listed?

The External link checker in the tools show a geocities.com source, which isn't likely to be reliable. I'll check back with more items as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is combinedfleet.com a reliable source? And there are unformatted citation, sample:
^ [1] Defence power: developments of the decade
Also, check image captions for punctuation, per WP:MOS#Captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody believes anything I say, and think that I'm rampaging around vandalising and trashing everything (probably people give me these jobs as a poisoned chalice so I can take the blame or whatever as people think I'm a troll, and my opinions were never hidden), but whatever, I'll rant. Sandy went and posted warnings to the talk pages of articles with five different tags on them: Wikipedia:Featured_articles/Cleanup_listing. The number of variety of tags is not a good rank of FA-endangeredness. A lot of the articles high up on that list are well-cited, which is why the odd uncited sentence sticks out and is usually tagged for cites, whereas a lot of heavily citation-lacking articles like Fauna of Australia aren't, because there is no point in tagging almost every sentence. Bodyline has four problems listed, but only four sentences are unaccounted for. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport and Rail transport in India were removed for having 75%+ home-made or non-independent sources, but neither have any tags. A lot of the weakest articles sent to FAR had little/no tags before they were nominated; I mean most unreferenced start-class articles (and thus FAs), nobody adds ^{[citation needed]} everywhere. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly likely to be the first one targeted. Most of the ones at FAR are the least cited ones, with about 30%+ completely uncited paragraphs. There are few who don't go from the worst articles, but most do. And in any case, there are hundreds worse than this, although they haven't been littered with tags. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad 101

This article needs a ton of work to put it lightly. There isn't much to be gained by pointing out things that need fixing. Pretend you're at start class and go from there. The original FAC didn't appear to be an overwhelming vote of confidence for this article and that was two years ago. If I were assessing this article today I would feel guilty giving it a B as there are entire paragraphs and one complete section without cites. --Brad (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Land

Fundamentally, the article needs to be rewritten, section-by-section, as a summary of Ironclad warship, pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, and treaty battleship. I regret I don't have the time at the moment to do this. The Land (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]