Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/USS Bridgeport (AD-10)

USS Bridgeport (AD-10)

I think I've gotten this article into pretty good shape but would like some feedback on what could stand to be improved, expanded, etc. Bellhalla (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maralia

I've made some minor changes, mostly in the lead where I tried to clarify her various names over the years. A couple other things I wanted to point out:

In the 'Post war period' section, there's a bit of redundancy in the first sentence: "Toward the end of 1918 [. . .] on December 13, 1918".
MARAD gives more info about her final disposal: she was sold for scrap on 6 Feb 1948 to H. H. Buncher Company ( [1], see Disposal Card, Front of Card 1).
It might be worth splitting the 'Careers' section of the infobox to distinguish her Army service from her Navy service. With so many 'Characteristics' sections, though, I'm of mixed feelings about whether this would be an improvement.

All in all, it's quite comprehensive and well written. Well done! Maralia (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the first item and expanded on the ship’s demise per your link. I had toyed with the idea of a separate section for U.S. Navy and U.S. Army before, so I went ahead and implemented that as well. And I changed the "Characteristics" section so that there is only one heading, with some "subheadings" indicating differences in the various incarnations. I think the box flows better now. Thanks for your input. Bellhalla (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I'm not sure about bold so many times in the lead. I would have thought that id no. 3009 would have sufficed as the name stays the same, and just italic the other names? Just a suggestion though.
If the dates are mentioned in the prose, they can be cited there and you don't need so many cites in the infobox.
You need to move the image USS Bridgeport (far left) is among the ships greeting the arrival of President Woodrow Wilson in Brest. about 4 paragraphs down to avoid that massive gap between Post War period and the text.
If you put the book names under References then you can change the cites to just Charles, p. 342. so the differecne between the whole title cites and the "charles p. 11" aren't so obvious. Have a look at Operation Camargue above or Mozambican War of Independence or Siege of Malakand to see what I mean. Again, up to you though, just a suggestion.
You need to make re-directs from all her alternate names to this article.

All I can think of, good stuff! SGGH ^speak! 14:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]