Wikipedia:Peer review/HMS Cardiff (D108)/archive2

HMS Cardiff (D108)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm going to nominate this article for FA, i would just like a quick peer review before hand. There are two main things I am interested in; 1. Is this article understandable to people who don't know about the Falklands & Gulf wars or warships? 2. Would you all mind taking a look at the gallery on commons and suggesting what images (and how many) you think should be in the article please.

Cheers, Ryan4314 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Haus

The article's coming along nicely. Some notions from a fairly quick readthrough:

• the Coalition -> the Coalition of the First Gulf War
• probably link the first instance of ship decommissioning
• "Cardiff thwarted attempts to smuggle oil out of the country, but was not involved with the actual invasion." -> "Cardiff engaged in anti-smuggling operations to enforce the conditions of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme." That's close to verbatim to how we were instructed to explain it. :)
• "One of the first batch," feels clunky. I took a swing at it.
• I rewrote a couple of sentences later in that paragraph.
• I added 3 citation needed tags in the early career section. These seem to be pretty specific claims and it would be nice to know where they come from.
• 1st paragraph of Falklands War section could use more citation
• the redlinks could come back to bite you at FAC. It might save time to create stubs for these articles now.
• Gulf War (1990–91), coalition of nations was already wikilinked
• space after "surveillance" and before [40]
• (no. 335) not needed in caption
• "sabre-rattling" is actually "saber-rattling" in the reference
• I'd consider removing "quadrennial" and using "a training exercise conducted every four years." Same for "biennial." The light blue wikilinks distract attention from the story you're telling and put it on these words.
• Link the first use of tonnes. The word confuses us poor yanks.
• "was originally to be replaced", "it was announced." Consider using the active voice.
• "has been removed" -> "was removed"
• switch location of notes and references sections per WP:LAYOUT
• I'd move (at least) the following citations to references: #16, #18, #40, #48. Then you can go back and change the in-text citations to the format you use with Freedman.
• Don't be afraid to put "Royal Navy" in you references as author and/or publisher.

That might seem like a lot, but I think you'll fare well at FAC.

Cheers. Haus^Talk 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've had to go through this systemically, I've striked out all the ones I've done, and left a little note about stuff I'm unsure of;

• the Coalition -> the Coalition of the First Gulf War
• probably link the first instance of ship decommissioning
• "Cardiff thwarted attempts to smuggle oil out of the country, but was not involved with the actual invasion." -> "Cardiff engaged in anti-smuggling operations to enforce the conditions of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme." That's close to verbatim to how we were instructed to explain it. :) I'm wary of putting of this, I don't have a ref for this "oil for food programme" and I'm afraid I'm not really familiar with the Gulf era, are you sure this is the case?

Wariness is good. Take a look at page 60 of this document and see what you think.

Myself personally, I agree with you, but I don't think my current ref will stand up to it at FAC

• "One of the first batch," feels clunky. I took a swing at it.
• I added 3 citation needed tags in the early career section. These seem to be pretty specific claims and it would be nice to know where they come from.
• 1st paragraph of Falklands War section could use more citation It's meant to be a very simple overview of the war for those who've never even heard of it, can I get away without sourcing it?

Up to you, but if it comes up at FAC, you owe me a beer. :)

You're on ;)

• the redlinks could come back to bite you at FAC. It might save time to create stubs for these articles now.
• Gulf War (1990–91), coalition of nations was already wikilinked
• space after "surveillance" and before [40] good eye!
• (no. 335) not needed in caption
• "sabre-rattling" is actually "saber-rattling" in the reference I think this could stay as "sabre", both spellings mean the same thing, and per WP:ENGVAR, this article leans more to British usage

It's not a big deal, but there's a technical problem with changing the spelling and then putting it in quotes. You can't say "Joe said 'Blimey!'" if Joe really said "Snap!" But I won't tell anybody if you don't.

LOL there's a difference between "blimey" n "snap", perhaps Joe is British n did say "sabre" but American Burt typed it up for him n put "saber"!!!

• I'd consider removing "quadrennial" and using "a training exercise conducted every four years." Same for "biennial." The light blue wikilinks distract attention from the story you're telling and put it on these words.
• Link the first use of tonnes. The word confuses us poor yanks.
• "was originally to be replaced", "it was announced." Consider using the active voice. Errr help please lol, something about "cat having ate a mouse"

Maybe this is a better explanation.

Just so we're clear, Cardiff is the dog right? and "replaced" is the boy yea?

I honestly can't give a better explanation of the passive and active voices than the Purdue piece can, but I can show you a before-and-after example.

Cardiff was originally to be replaced in 2009 by HMS Daring, the first of the Royal Navy's next generation Type 45 destroyers.

The Royal Navy originally planned to replace Cardiff in 2009 with the first of the Type 45 destroyers, HMS Daring.

The article explains why it's good not to overuse the passive voice. But, it boils down to "Jack ate the pizza" being more clear and concise than "The pizza was eaten by Jack."

• "has been removed" -> "was removed"
• switch location of notes and references sections per WP:LAYOUT
• I'd move (at least) the following citations to references: #16, #18, #40, #48. Then you can go back and change the in-text citations to the format you use with Freedman. Erm, someone else did this for me, could you help me please. I'm not sure what sort of "cite" I should use

I'll do one so you can see what I mean. Here's a diff.

Is this right?

It's the right idea. The citations are usually something like <ref>Author Year, p. xxx.</ref> There's a lot of information here: Wikipedia:CITE#Shortened_notes]. That particular web page is hard to cite because there's no author's name and no clear date. I believe the publication year was 2007, so you could do something like <ref>''Deployment Diary'', 2007.</ref> Or, you could punt on this one and stick to references that have clear author and publication date info. The point is to get a balance more like that of, for example, USS Siboney (ID-2999).

OK cheers, I think I get it now, did you see my comment above about the dog? (unfortunately it wasn't sarcasm)

• Don't be afraid to put "Royal Navy" in you references as author and/or publisher.