Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Protection of Military Remains Act 1986

Protection of Military Remains Act 1986

I've just expanded this article and would like it to progress to B-class and hopefully on to A class. Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford

Looks very good. On a first glance: 1) A few more cites at the end of paragraphs 2) Spell checking. The difference between American spelling and British spelling keeps me from correcting all the typos.

Hope that helps until I can do a more through read.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the cites to the end of sentences or paragraphs and added a couple more - let me know what you think. My spell checker (UK english) only objected to redesignation and proper names. Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benea

Just a quick comment, I'll have a more thorough look later, but shouldn't the full 'World War I' and 'World War II' be used, rather than the abbreviation? Or given that this is about a British act, the more standard commonwealth English usage, i.e. 'First World War' and 'Second World War'? Benea (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed WWI and WWII as you suggest Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woody

Looking good: I have assessed it as B-Class. It meets all those criteria. A few comments:

General

I am not sure whether to class this as a list article or as an "article" article. I think this is in the grey area between the two, a grey area that is yet to be adequately defined over at FAC/FLC. In that sense, you could head either way. You could split off the list of protected shipwrecks into a separate list, that could easily reach FL class, all the information is there. It is then a question of finding anymore information (if there is any) to fill out the main article and bring that up to FA.

Good point. There is some extra material for the main article. I've added a wish list on the article's talk page. It is then a question of deciding how much text the list article should have Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After additional expansion of the list of designated sites (2012 & 2017), I have split the embedded table into its own list article. Que (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any cross-overs with List of designations under the Protection of Wrecks Act. A point of expansion might be any cross-overs with that. Was the Miiltary Remains Act a split from the Protection of Wrecks Act?

I think it would be good to have something discussing the POW. There is no overlap in fact (i.e. no vessels designated under both), although legalistically there is nothing to stop this. I'm not aware of any secondary sources however that have discussed this, so the potential for verifiable material will be limited to the factual statements. Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOS specific

I agree with Benea, First World War/Second World War should be used instead of WWI and WWII, it looks more professional.

done Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that your date-links are consistent. You need to either remove all date links, or link all of the dates in the table.

dates in table now linked with dts Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would link High Court in its first instance.

linked Merchant Navy, High Court, Appeal Court and Secretary of State Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References should come after punctuation.

Think this is all done now (thanks to David Underdown) Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some reviewers at FAC strongly prefer the references to be at the end of sentences/paragraphs so as not to interrupt the flow of articles. I am ambivalent, but some reviewers have stronger feelings on the matter.

I've done this, except where I think it's necessary to separate the links for the 2002, 2006 and 2008 designations Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DASH, there should be an emdash in the table. ([[Jutland]]—International Waters)

done Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, some small MOS things, but this is a very good article, well-written. Good work, if you have any questions, leave them here or on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan4314

Lets have those "little arrows" at the top of the table, that allow you to sort the columns. Mind, you'll have to probably edit the text a bit to make it "sorting friendly". Ryan4314 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and in the table, change the use of "Falklands" link to either "Falkland Islands/War", this wont affect the size of the columns and it looks a bit sloppy (sorry I mean that in a nice way ;). Ryan4314 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]