Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/USS Missouri (BB-63)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] USS Missouri (BB-63)

Previous Peer Review
Its been over a year since this article was last reviewed in any official capacity, so I am request a new peer review for the Mighty Mo to ensure that she stays current with FA standards and to gain input on anything that may need to be addressed now that didn't need to be addressed then. All comments, no matter how small, are welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maralia

I've given her a fairly thorough copyedit now, and to my great surprise, there were no typos (insert Twilight Zone music). If it weren't such a blasted long article, it would have been a super easy copyedit :) A few issues:

  • Please be careful to un-DANS-ify text ('departed Sasebo June 4' is okay occasionally for variety, but normally should be "departed from Sasebo on June 4" for better English).
  • I noticed a lot of redundant interwiki links; I cleaned up tons of these manually, but a pass with AWB could help cut this down even further.
  • Is "Anniversary of the End of World War II ceremony" the literal name of a ceremony? If not, it shouldn't be capitalized.
  • Please review the external links: HNSA is redundant given the ussmissouri.com site; why link one video from ussmissouri.com when we already link to their main site; the NVR link is better off in References as {{NVR}}; the hazegray link could be added as a second parameter on the {{DANFS}} template; etc.

Maralia (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. My sleep cycle has been badly disrupted owing to my finals, but I will get around to fixing these up in the next day or two. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I have reviewed the external links breifly and removed three that I think have no business being here, more may be trimmed as I get down to business. "Anniversary of the End of World War II ceremony" is not a formal name, to my knowalge, so as you pointed out it should not be captialzied. For the redundent interwiki links, do you mean for the foriegn wikipedias or the linking of things already linked in previous paragraphs? And I will look into un DANFSifiying the text some over the next few days. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I meant redundant in the sense of linking Japan repeatedly, etc. Maralia (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Usally what I do is relink past terms when starting a new section header to cut down on the amount linking to the same term. Also, in a few cases (like Japan) the term may be linked to seperate articles (in Japan's case, either the Japan of today or the Empire of Japan from back then). If it bothers you though I will come up with some new system to reduce the linkage. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)