Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 Lokshin 01:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- 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 "" style? Cla68 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- 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 Lokshin 13:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- 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)
-
