Wikipedia:Peer review/SS Andrea Doria/archive1

SS Andrea Doria

After reading through the article, I believe that it has the potential to be a featured article. Aside from a lack of description about the ship itself, I am unsure how else to improve it. Any thoughts? Pentawing 05:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks quite good to me. I can't think of anything to add, and it's an enjoyable read. The only oddity I noticed was the sentence toward the end of the first section about communication improvements and good response averting the loss of life from the Titanic 40 years ago. Well I know what you meant, but it does have a slightly humorous time-travel connotations. :) — RJH 05:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not comprehensive - it is missing 2 sections: 1) early history - background (Italy reconstruction and image rebuilding), who build it, where, perhaps a contemporary newspaper review, launching ceremony, etc. and 2) ship features - details of construction, etc. Also, the term uses many terms which have no stubs - I ilinled them in the lead, please create a short stub to explain to laic (like me) what is an A-deck, double hull or watertight compartment. After this, I believe the article can pass the FA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I included information about ship features and construction, though I believe more could be added. Pentawing 02:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alot of the specific facts that are in the intro should be moved into the actual article where you would actually expect to see it. For eample before the description of the accident it should be explained where the Andrea Doria and the Stockholm were going. The intro should be more of an overview than the only place you find the size of the ship and its destination. MechBrowman 03:01, May 31, 2005 (UTC)