Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/USS Simpson (FFG-56)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] USS Simpson (FFG-56)
This article has undergone various tarnsformations and it seems unclear (outside of vanity entries) what should or should not be included to obtain A class. At one time there was a long entry about the Dayton Peace Accord along with an incomplete list of CO's. This information was removed rather than edited and called unecessary. I have read the project page and need clarification. I also believe this article is above Stub level. Bigfred105 18:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kirill Lokshin
Mmm, this is a difficult case. Given that there aren't any space concerns, I think it would be acceptable to go into a greater level of detail than is currently present. Some things that might be included:
- History from 1984 to 1988: shakedown cruises, that sort of thing.
- A description of deployments since 1988. I assume the ship hasn't been sitting in a Florida dock for nearly two decades; as it is, the article gives no information at all on what the ship has done.
More generally:
- Copious citations should be added. This shouldn't be too difficult for a topic like this, I think.
- The see-also section should be trimmed, if possible.
I'm not sure whether including something like a list of COs would be a good idea or not; I can see where having it available may be useful, but it would probably set a bad precedent for longer articles to try and follow. Kirill Lokshin 00:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] old windy bear
Specifically:
- 1. WAY too short; there is plenty of technical data on that class of warship out there, and we should be able to use most of it - the article now is little more than an introduction;
- 2. Virtually no citing;
- 3 As Kirill so eloquently said, "what has the vessal been doing since 1988?"
- 4 BAD idea on list of Commanding Officers; it would set a bad precedent. I can see where we might mention that a famous admiral commanded such and such a warship in his career, but we don't want to get into routinely listing CO's unless a particular CO is of vital importance in his or her own right. old windy bear 22:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
