Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

I would like to nominate the article for a "Good" article designation and, if successful, eventually as a "featured" article. But first I'm requesting a peer review to help the article be as good as possible before nominating for those categories. Thank-you in advance for your inputs and suggestions. Cla68 17:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

A nice article, but still some work to be done:

Inline citations are a must; this is especially needed for subjective or speculative material (e.g. "Abe appeared to lose his nerve"), but can be used liberally throughout the article.
There are a lot of single-sentence paragraphs that should be merged into less choppy prose.
The "Aftermath" section is far too short to stand on its own. If there's not enough material, it should be removed entirely; but I suspect there's more that can be added here.
Ideally, some of the red-links should be eliminated—particularly those for individual ships—but this is only an issue that might come up during a featured article nomination.

Otherwise, this looks to be a well-written piece! Kirill Lok s h in 01:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the constructive inputs. Is it ok to use non-linked citations like: "Abe appeared to lose his nerve (Morrison, 1958)"? Or should the citations be the "^[1]" style? Cla68 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The preference on FAC is to use the new cite.php style (<ref>Morrison</ref>), but I think either of the other styles would probably be acceptable as well. Kirill Lok s h in 13:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now how to do the new cite style and I'm going to do that to the article as soon as I get a chance and have all the reference information I need. The short paragraphs have been combined and the "Aftermath" section has been expanded. I'll also take out some of the red-links. If no objection, I'll archive this peer review. I'll plan on nominating this article for "good" status once I've corrected the citation/reference issue. Thanks again for the help. Cla68 12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]