Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Tribal class destroyer (1936)

Tribal class destroyer (1936)

I'm currently working on this article for a while, trying to improve the article, but I can use some pointers as to how to proceed next. The article in my opinion does not qualify to be a B-class article but it is getting there. ThePointblank (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the_ed17

This is a quick run-through before I go to bed:

The lead is too short per WP:LEAD...make it a summary of the entire article.

I've expanded the lead somewhat, but it is a work in progress. ThePointblank (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSIMAGE, text should not be sandwiched between two images ("1941" section)
- Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Combine some of the 194_ sections, as one sentence sections are too short. (1943, 1944, Post-war)
"The ships today" section is almost hidden under all of those tables...
- Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want it to have a chance at B-class, many more in-line citations are needed everywhere...(including the tables)...if you want, tomorrow I'll take a gander through the article and add {{fact}} tags where cites are needed.
Is U-boat.net reliable?

I have found it reliable; I have used the source multiple times in university papers, and none of my history professors have made any comments that the source was not reliable. But as a precaution, I have posted a request at WP:RSN to double check, and will have a result. ThePointblank (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the source is deemed reliable enough, as the facts are not controversial enough, but it would be nice to gain access to their sources. ThePointblank (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe shoot them an e-mail? I dunno... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I hope that this helped! Drop me a line on my talk page if you want me to add the {{fact}} tags...cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go ahead and be as critical as you can be. I can really use the feedback. ThePointblank (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has to have in-line citations to even approach B-class...that's going to be the complaint of every other person who comes here. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know where so I can add them in, so be as critical as you can. ThePointblank (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you meant now. I have class tomorrow, so I'm going to bed right after this (=]) but I'll run through it at some point tomorrow to add the tags. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, unless you really want me to litter the article with those tags, I'll go off of what Saberwyn said: try to cite everything, as it will help you get through those higher levels if you cite everything you add now.

Try these things that have helped me with my articles:

- - - - Google Books, use the "Only limited and full preview" option though. Basically, with that option, you can read books online for free! :D :D :D
        
        If you could get your hands on Naval Weapons of World War Two by John Campbell... [(1985), Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-87021-459-4]... (is this on Google Books?)
        
        Talk to User:Trekphiler about this book—Fitzsimons, Bernard, ed. (1978). Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare, Volume 1. London: Phoebus.
        
        Conway's

Anyway, hope that these help. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, as evidenced on the USS Nevada (BB-36)'s FAC, Hazegray (current ref#2) is not reliable... very unfortunately. Nevada got through A-class with it becuase it was borderline, but I had to get rid of it during the FAC. It's your choice to replace it or not, but if you find a different source that says the same thing, you may as well replace it. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Also, don't do what I did on Nevada! When using {{cite web}}, use the "non-linked retrieval date" i.e.

{{cite web |url= |title= |accessmonthday=October 30 |accessyear=2008 |last= |first= |date= |work= |publisher= }}

Why? Because the people at FAC will make you go through and change every ref so that the dates are not linked... Easier to format them right when you add them in! =/ (I got lucky—Maralia did it for me. =]) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done ThePointblank (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, try Global Security too. :) —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 07:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saberwyn

One drive-by observation: I'm really uncomfortable with the section "The ships today", both as a heading an as a section (as it currently only contains two dot points. One idea might be to expand this out to a "Fates" (or other heading) section, which deals with what happened to the class as a whole (I know its listed in the ship tables above, but having that information in some nice, meaty paragraphs is also good). In this section, you could cover how many were lost to enemy action (and highlight any particularly noteworthy losses), how many were scrapped and any decisions influencing the scrapping (i.e. is there a reason three Canadian ships were scrapped in the same year? Why were Canadian and Australian ships kept in service longer than their Britsh counterparts? etc. - no panic if there isn't actually a reason for these), what classes replaced the Tribals in the various navies, as well as the current information on one museum ship and one dive site.

As for the citation issue raised by the ed_17 above, when I work on articles I attempt to cite everything, in order to head off issues like challenged facts or unverifiability (I personally believe that every fact can be challenged, and this can bog down any future attempts at A-class, Good Article, and/or Featured Article status). I prefer books to websites, and citations should include the specific page number the statement was derived from.

In other news, I'd personally like to see

a little more content in the "Service" section

a reduction in the wikilinks to really common terms (things like dates, countries, and measurements - see WP:MOSDATE and WP:OVERLINK)

Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spell out measurements and terms... non-maritime people do not have an idea what an o/a is, and non-Imperial-measurement people will be confused by references to "4.7^{quote mark} guns".

Done ThePointblank (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a text copyedit, but then again, what article couldn't benefit from one?

Hit me on my talk page if you need any help or clarification. -- saberwyn 07:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan4314

A bit of advice re; the lead. Copy this page's lead. Furthering what Saberwyn said; Survivors is another good one. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See earlier comment ThePointblank (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there is only one survivor, which is why I rolled it in with "Fates". An entire section in the class article for one ship seems excessive. -- saberwyn 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you guys whether you deem it necessary or not, I agree that "Survivors" may not be appropriate then. However the word "Fates" sounds very peculiar. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, how do you guys think just Fate sounds? The article is about the class after all, and this is "the fate of the class". Ryan4314 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL spent an hour rewriting the "fates" section today, and now it's been completely rewritten. I admit the new version is better, just wish Saberwyn had rewrote the section before I did, could've done something else with that hour :( Ryan4314 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress As of [1]

So how do you guys think of the progress so far? I want to expand the introduction some more (aiming for 2 paragraphs), and I will finish citing and expanding the subsections 1942, 1944, and Post-War sections (I may just dump the Post-War section and merge it with the "Fates" section (I might rename it to Post-War or something else). ThePointblank (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking MUCH better! Your plan is good too, as the lead is still too short. Again, consider merging some of the years (i.e. 1940–1941 etc, making sure to use an endash) and it would be a good idea to merge Post-war and Fates, as they talk about (mostly) the same things. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how about the current page as is? I've done the merge of the two sections, and finished the citations and minor expansions of the service part. ThePointblank (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead still needs expanding, a lot, it would be ideal to make it look similar to the one here. As the author of an FA class warship article, I'd recommend just copying it and changing the relevant information. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, try copying and combining the intros from Iowa class battleship and Alaska class battlecruiser. (These are class articles =]) —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 17:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An even better idea, although don't forget the Iowa article is FA. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progressing quite nicely. I've done a bit of a copyedit and thrown some {{fact}} tags down where I think you really need a supporting citation, but overall it is starting to take shape. -- saberwyn 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress As of November 26 2008

I've done some more work citing the article, and making modifications as I felt necessary. One question however; for a article on a class of ships, does the picture in the infobox has to be one of the lead ship, as I have located another picture in a different article that I feel is of better quality. ThePointblank (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that the top pic should be one that best illustrates the ship. If this is not the class lead, so be it. -- saberwyn 05:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, use of the museum ship Haida poses a slight problem, as a different photo from almost the same angle is used to illustrate the "Post-war" section. I suggest replacing this second image with something showing a different view of Haida. -- saberwyn 06:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done ThePointblank (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done more expansion of the service history of the class; most of the service data for the British and Canadian ships are largely done for the World War II period, while I still need to work on the Australian history as well. I would also need more information on the post war service for both the Australian and Canadian Tribals to continue to flesh out the article. ThePointblank (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]