Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The review department of the Ships WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles within its scope.

The department hosts two forms of review internal to the project:

It also provides a convenient collection of Ships articles currently undergoing formal review outside the project:

Our articles frequently overlap the scope of WP:MILHIST. If there is overlap, when you request a review here, please add the same review directory to WP:MHR. Other projects overlap ours, so check for additional project banners for the article. Place a note at the top of your review page that the article is being reviewed by multiple projects which may have different criteria and results.

Note: The lists below have been initialized with reviews from WP:MILHIST, please remove as you add Ships reviews.

Contents

[edit] Peer review

Instructions
Requesting a review
  1. Create Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/Name of nominated article.
  2. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  3. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  4. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of peer review requests below.

If an article is listed for a second (or third, and so forth) peer review:

  1. Move (do not copy) the existing peer review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/Name of nominated article, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new request page).
  3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the request (e.g. "Prior peer review here.").
Commenting

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== Your user name ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current peer review archive page.
edit
Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Los_Angeles_class_submarine

Looking to get some more eyes on this article. I would preferably like someone other than me to check it for B-class status and look for copy-edit and other mistakes. If editors have time, this article could use some attention from someone in possession of some of the book resources listed on the talk page. That is, of course, above and beyond, but given enough sources this article could easily get to GA status.

I gave it a copyedit and assessed it as B-class. I have three suggestions. First, the article could use some more citations. Second, there is some redundancy in the Notes and References sections. For example, since the Running Critical book is in the References section, footnote #5 could simply be <ref>Tyler 1986, p. 24, 56, 66-67.</ref> Finally, try to get as much information into your citations as possible — for example, footnote #9 is by John Pike and was written on 10-06-2006. Cheers. HausTalk 00:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specific sections

Is there a way that the "in the press" section can be expanded? I'm not sure from memory how many times the class (rather than individual ships shows up in the popular press. That being said, it doesn't feel right leaving out the link the incidents nor does it look good with just that link in there.

Thanks! Protonk (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of missing ships

I've just started compiling this list for almost a month. I think I have come upon a stable format in which new entries can simply be added to the existing table structure. I also need to develop criteria for inclusion. As one can realise, this list can grow very large. Thanks, --Kvasir (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saipem 7000

I have added an infobox and some data on this vessel and would appreciate some input for improving the article Gmac101 13:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A-Class review

Instructions
Requesting a review

To request an A-Class review of an article:

  1. Create Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Name of nominated article.
  2. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  3. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  4. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.

If an article is nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be demoted:

  1. Move (do not copy) the existing review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Name of nominated article, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new nomination page).
  3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the nomination statement (e.g. "Prior nomination here.").

There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.

Commenting

Reviewers should keep the criteria for featured articles in mind when supporting or opposing a nomination. However, please note that (unlike actual featured articles) A-Class articles are not expected to fully meet all of the criteria; an objection should indicate a substantive problem with the article. In particular, objections over relatively minor issues of writing style or formatting should be avoided at this stage; a comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written article should qualify for A-Class status even if it could use some further copyediting.

Closing and archiving

Reviews will be closed by one of the project coordinators after four days have elapsed. An article will generally be promoted to A-Class if (a) it has garnered at least three endorsements from uninvolved editors, and (b) there are no substantive objections indicative of a major flaw in the article.

To close a review, coordinators should:

  1. Move the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} from the list of requests below to the current archive page.
  2. Add {{subst:archive top}} and {{subst:archive bottom}} to the top and bottom of the review subpage, respectively.
edit
Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Bulk carrier

This article was listed as a GA a year ago and later failed at FAC. Since then, I've whittled down on the FAC feedback to the point that I think there is only one remaining issue which I expect to resolve soon. The article has recently had a peer review and Maralia has been kind enough to work her magic on the article, and has been invaluable in polishing it up. Cheers. HausTalk 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

1. Is there enough information to start an article for SS John Bowes in the second paragraph of the history section?
2. wikify handysize, handymax, panamax, capesize, Kamsarmax in the article text under subheading Size categories. Some people may ignore the table provided
Question. I wikilinked handysize, handymax, panamax, and capesize. The minor size categories: Kamsarmax, Setouchmax, Dunkirkmax, and Newcastlemax probably wouldn't have enough material to justify articles. For example, I couldn't even find a mention of the Setouch Sea at Wikipedia. I'm taking another look at whether there's enough information to justify articles on these size-classes.
Perhaps a small explanation where mentioned would be sufficient enough to take care of the problem if there isn't enough to support articles.
3. Kamsarmax is not in the table, and what about Setouchmax, Dunkirkmax, and Newcastlemax?
I changed the table header from "Bulk carrier size categories" to "Major bulk carrier size categories" to try to underscore the distinction between these two groups of size categories. Does that do the trick?
Y Done Yes it is much more clear now as to what is happening in that section.
4. Is the Edmund Fitzgerald worth a mention?
Note: I linked the Fitz where its photo appears. I had meant to say that some mention under Fleet characteristics would be in order since you mention Great Lakes bulkers but now I see where that may veer off topic.
5. Under the subheading Scrap prices would ship breaking be more descriptive? I'm not sure if we would want to mention the controversial subject of poor Indians dying while ship breaking from toxic spew
Y Done The section is now Ship breaking
6. Under Voyages what is tramp trade ?
Y Done Good point — I added a wikilink, which I think takes care of this.
7. Under Loading and unloading the statement Loading and unloading a bulker is time-consuming and dangerous needs a cite or an article link.
8. Under Architecture, need to link to beam and draft explanations
Y Done
9. Under Machinery is there enough information to start an article on the River Boyne?
10. Under Hatches what is Unified Requirement S21?
Question. I changed this around and added a link to UR-S21 itself. Did that do the trick?
My thoughts were that someone who is really interested in bulk carriers might want to read more on that subject but if there is no article able to be made or if the text isn't public domain then where can someone read the whole thing?
11. Under Hull, 8th paragraph, would Naval Constructor or Naval architecture help with naval architect?
Y Done
12. Under See also, can this section be trimmed down some? Also, ship names need italics.
Y Done I cut it down from 10 links to 5 and italicized.
13. Throughout the article I'm concerned about the use of "Bulkers". Should it be Bulker's or Bulkers' ?
Question. I'm not 100% sure that I understand the issue. The word works like the more familiar word tanker: one tanker, two tankers, the tanker's anchors.
I should digress on this issue as I'm not so sure myself yet in at least one instance I saw bulker's used as opposed to bulkers.
The article is very informative overall and I'm trying to play the part of a person who knows nothing about bulk carriers or shipping in general. This is all the comments I have for now. This took a bit longer than I anticipated.
--Brad (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, and excellent catches! It's always astonishing to see what a new pair of eyes will find. I picked off some low-hanging fruit already and will work through the rest of your list as the day progresses. HausTalk 12:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidates

Instructions

Featured article candidates are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate an article for featured article status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the official instructions.

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:07, 17 May 2008.

[edit] HMS Cardiff (D108)

Self Nominator: The main issue raised in this article's "A" class review, was the need for a copyedit, this has since be done by Maralia (it's also had a peer review since then). I'm going AFK now, but I'll next be able to reply at approx 17:00 (UTC) tomorrow, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Excellent work, Ryan. Very brief comment: does the "Early career" sub-section have potential for expansion? The sub-section's title also seems awkward but, hey, that's subjective. SoLando (Talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I could expand it using this source, although I worry that anything I add might mess up the flow, but I'll give it a shot :) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to go AFK for a bit, I can probably attempt this at about approx 18:00 (UTC) tomorrow. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, would you mind giving it a quick check over though please. I'm on a different computer and I don't have my tools, like spell checker for example :s Ryan4314 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've given it a copyedit. Great work. SoLando (Talk) 23:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments I gave this another quick copyedit pass. A few issues:

  • "where she shot down the last enemy aircraft of the conflict" - 'enemy' is needlessly POV; just 'Argentine', please.
  • "Cardiff spent the rest of June acting as the Local Anti Air Warfare Coordinator around the islands." - Why capitalize this role?
  • "In the same year she participated in the US Navy Fleet Battle Exercise as an integree to the Digital Fires Network." - Is this meant to be intégrée? Whatever it is, please use something less obscure. Also, what is 'Digital Fires Network'?

Maralia (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Will do - (add) Just for the record the "enemy" bit wasn't me being malicious against Argentina, I believe my motive at the time, was to try and make clear that the kill she made was actually against an enemy aircraft, as opposed to the other 50% of her "kills" that was against a friendly aircraft unfortunately :(
  • In the source it's referred to as "LAAWC", shall I put LAAWC up in brackets?
  • Gets me! LOL I didn't actually add this bit, I haven't a clue about it either, I'll get the guy who added it to simplify it
I'll make a start on these tonight, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done the first two, the user hasn't replied to me re; the "Digital Fires Network", so I'll try and simplify it (just need some time to research it), didn't want you all to think I've stalled or something ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't have much luck, I'm still a little foggy on the whole affair, so I decided to remove it instead, it's hardly of great relevance ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Just saw the email, The DFS is hardly insignificant ;)
I'm in the middle of delivering some training at the moment so if this can wait til Monday I'll look at it. The problem is probably that I'll need to write an article on Naval Fires first, to avoid explaining the whole lot in here. Unfortunately the issue is much wider than the Naval Gunfire Support Article is both crap and not the whole story.
ALR (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for the "insignificant", I only thought so as I literally know nothing about it, lol I didn't even realise the "Fire" bit meant "gunfire", I thought it was about flamey fire. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Naval Fires is the delivery of fire effect from the maritime environment, that includes Naval Gunfire Support (either ashore or anti-surface), maritime launched cruise missile (either from surface or submarine) or fire effect from sea-based aircraft. the Digital Fires Network is a co-ordination network to ensure that delivery of effect is synchronised from different platforms with a shared recognised picture. That makes sure that the desired effect is achieved, resources are not squandered where they're not required and the force are responsive to the needs of the land or air forces.
ALR (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That is great, now it needs to be put into accessible, encyclopedic language. Woody (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually it needs sourced; meeting notes, architecture diagrams and my own trainers notes won't do.
ALR (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportComment I think this is a very good article. It has been copyedited a number of times which has improved the flow. It seems to meet all MOS requirements. The sourcing has improved greatly since the A-Class review; though I still have a few questions. Source 13 (The Gulf. HMS Cardiff—The 1982 Ship's Company.) is a link to an image, it doesn't verify anything. Source 48 (Archive copy at the Internet Archive) doesn't list the actual information. Use {{cite web}} with the archiveurl= and archivedate parameters. Fix those, and I will support. Well done. Woody (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Amended Woody (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Replaced [13], and changed [48] to {{cite web}} (could you check I did this properly please). Ryan4314 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That placates me; I support now. With regards to the gap in the available knowledge that Tom highlights, that is not unusual. Finding verifiable sources is extremely hard and sometimes the ships simply haven't done anything of worth. Regards Woody (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Of worth??? Charming.
Lots of valuable military activity is routine and therefore not reported, either in the media or in other literature. Mind you there does seem to be a bit of a culture of recent trivia in many ship related articles, whereas more substantive less recent history is missing, because sources aren't easily available. T42s in the 80s were workhorses, in that time she probably did three major deployments and a host of minor jobs.
ALR (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That is not what I meant ALR, and you know it. By worth, I mean nothing that got noted in reliable sources and nothing out of the ordinary for a ship of that size in the 80s. If you can find the information in reliable sources, then please list it. Cardiff is most well-known for her action in the Falklands, which is why, unsurprisingly, that is what is concentrated on. Woody (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
lol ALR, plz don't piss off my only Supporter ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, should have included a smiley. I suspect your usage typifies the current view that the civilian population, even those who are informed and knowledgeable, don't really understand what modern operational forces do. Much of the work on the cold war doesn't deal with individual platforms, but it does talk about the operations which went on. Most of the sources for now are probably ephemera.
ALR (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I wasn't that offended, and Ryan, I am hardly going to change my comments because of a disagreement with another user ;) Most sources are ephemeral I agree, which is why specific books regarding the Cardiff should be used over online sources. If only such books existed. Woody (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In that case, feel free to tear into each other lol! On a serious note, I am looking forward to reading about DFN when you get round to starting the article, as a civilian I could proof-read it for you both, to make sure it's understandable. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Is the sentence "On a lesser note, Cardiff’s rugby team fared well in this period by reaching the finals of the Mid-Ships Rugby Competition and defeating a team from Llandaff Rugby Club." really needed in article reated to a destroyer in the Royal Navy? If not, then I would suggest ommitting it.
    • Was there no availiable history for the ship from 1982-1990? It seems a little strange that there would be an eight year ommission between two points of conflict. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This issue has been raised before in the GA and "A" class reviews, I can't find any online sources (here's a list of most of Cardiff refs I've found), but your welcome to look. I could find out from former crew what she got up to, but obviously if I can't find a ref for it (one that's need to be up to FA standard), it'd be fruitless task. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Ok then, the article meets all existing criteria for FA, but do keep an eye out for any info that on that missing eight year time period; sooner or later it will become an issue again, either at a peer review level or at the FAR(C) level. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ɬ

  • Generally supportive of FA, although acknowledge that I've already provided some input. I have a couple of areas which more thought could be put into though.
  • I don't know if this vague comment is intended as a support; if it is, the declarer should bold per WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • She later participated in the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as part of the Royal Navy's Armilla Patrol; Cardiff thwarted attempts to smuggle oil out of the country, but was not involved in the actual invasion. is not really all that representative of the contribution. Armilla patrol wasn't a precursor to the Iraq invasion, the Op had gone on in various guises for in excess of 10 years. I think come the time of Telic it was known as Op Bolton anyway... I think perhaps the current phrasing puts undue weight on the Bush family feud.
  • What other Battle Honours did CARDIFF hold? I'm pretty sure that it would have been more than two, her predecessor hulls probably gained some as well.
  • You might want to explain LAAWC.
  • Cardiff didn't fire the lightweight torpedo, her cab did.
  • The history gap is a bit of an issue, but already covered elsewhere. Buckshot has already pointed you towards Naval Hysterical branch who might be able to source something for you.
ALR (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I knew about how long the Armilla Patrols have existed, didn't realise the wording made it seem like an operation made especially for the build-up to Iraq. I'll reword it, plus it's articles explains it's a regular deployment anyway. The Royal navy reference for it (which is later in the article per WP:LEAD) still refers to it as Armilla Patrol instead of "Op Bolton".
  • "Bush family feud"?
  • I'm not 100% sure, but I think a ship's specific article (i.e. D108) only talks about the battle honours she earned, whereas her namesake's article (i.e. HMS Cardiff) talks about the name's legacy of battle honours. I don't think she (D108) has any other battle honours, she wasn't involved Yugoslavia, and I don't even think ships in the Yugoslavia campaign got battle honours, campaign medals for their crews yes, but I don't know about a battle honour. Anyway I've asked Tom about it, hopefully he'll get back to me.
  • There was an explanation of this, but it was suggested that I remove it during her A-Class review.
  • Have you got a ref for this? The "Report of Proceedings" ref (June 2nd) confirms it was an STWS launch. If you're interested, Ken also posted this on the SAMA forums regarding the incident;

Having just posted something relating to torpedoes and HMS Broadsword I had a 'flashback' to our torpedo saga;

We had just arrived with the reinforcement group and everyone was a bit twitchy. All was quiet this particular day when the sonar lads picked up a contact.............bedlam ensued. We were on our own, no other units were near to assist us in prosecuting this possible submarine. It was going to take time to get our Lynx helicopter airborne armed with the right weapon so we opted do it ourselves and if required use our STWS (Shipborne Torpedo Weapon System). We twisted and turned and closed this 'submarine' which was now on a steady heading towards us at slow speed.............'stalking us'.

"Right PWO (Principle Warfare Officer).........lets attack the bastard" said our Captain. "Errr.........Aye Aye Sir" says the PWO. More speed, turning and general bedlam. All this time the sonar lads were reporting the contact with high confidence and the rest of us radar lads were shitting a brick. 'Pigsy' Purvis sat next to me says "F**k me Griff.....this is it!" His great ugly head moving closer to me. Thanks for that 'Pigsy'.

Cardiff zooms towards the submarine and launches a torpedo from the STWS launcher "Thooomp"...........delay............"Kerboooom". Captain leeps out of his chair and runs toward the ladder heading for the bridge............."PWO, I'm orf to the bridge to smell for diesel", smiling like a little boy in a toffee shop.

All the radar lads are still staring at their screens bewildered and wondering what has just happened...........no submarine. Just a great lump of rock on the seabed and a very keen sonar crew. When this incident is reported to the Admiral he is heard to say "Funny how the new boys react every time a shrimp farts".

Ryan4314 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Armilla went through a number of names over time, it was Bolton in the late 90s early '00s. I think my main issue is with the wording implying that it was related to Telic.
  • Family Feud, really just my take on the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion.
  • No problem, I just find it odd not to aggregate the battle honours.
  • No problem, I didn't think the Batch 1 had STWS, but clearly they did.
ALR (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just saw the question you asked Tom. It might be that US policy is driving Wikipedia again. In the UK the ship bears the battle honours associated with the name, rather than just the hull. It means that the hulls have history and tradition ;)
No point in fighting the Wikipedia system though.
ALR (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of the wording now? Go easy on Tom, he probably just doesn't understand that we do things differently in the UK, that a ship is eternal, living through her namesakes. I'll rephrase the question to him. In regards to the STWS, I have a great little crown piccy of Cardiff firing a torpedo in the Gulf in '82, I'll e-mail it to you :) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Featured article review

Instructions

Featured article reviews are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To list an article for featured article review, or to comment on a listing, you must follow the official instructions.

edit


[edit] Non-article featured content candidates

Instructions

Non-article featured content candidates are controlled by one of several external processes, depending on the type of content; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate something for featured status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the appropriate official instructions:

edit


[edit] Archives

Peer review


A-Class review
  • 2006 (promoted/failed)
  • 2007 (promoted/failed)