This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Japanese destroyers of World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
== Problems I had. =/ ==
This is not B-class because...
Fix these, and the article meets the B-class requirements. ..my apoligies for the "list" reasoning, as that was totally wrong. — Ed 17 ( Talk / Contribs) 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
And the wpships POV is that it makes a C but barely. Milhist does not use C-class yet. Your lead section is weak and each paragraph should have at least one reference cited. I'm liberal about assessments but this article is not B-class just yet. You've a lot of one or two line paragraphs that should be combined or expanded. With the amount of small paragraphs I can't see how the article meets the #2 requirement at this stage. I did change our importance rating from High to Top but that has no bearing on article quality. -- Brad ( talk) 04:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all round for the v constructive comments. It does show up, however, that there are differing peceptions at play. I'll attempt to address all reservations, but I'm surprised at "there are too many {citations} from one source" - if the source is good enough and comprehensive (and Whitney seems so), then is there a problem? I do think that more pics are needed, partic of the earlier types - if anyone has a source .... Relieved about the list comment! Folks at 137 ( talk) 08:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of the above points have, I hope, been addressed. The intro has been expanded. (I'll leave a reviewer to remove it, if appropriate.) "Citation needed" tags have been replaced by citations and their presentation has been rationalised as suggested. Suitable, good quality pics are hard to come by, but I will lower my standard, if necessary. I'm less convinced by the argument to merge small paras. The wiki guides to layout and writing better articles discourage short and single sentence paras, but don't rule them out. The purpose in the "Classes" section is to separate each description into two or three parts - summary, description and usage/ fate - although some are capable of expansion. What I would prefer not to do is to create single para sections of solid blocks of text - this is advised against in the guidelines. I await the boadsides! Folks at 137 ( talk) 19:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Japanese World War II destroyers. Please contribute. Folks at 137 ( talk) 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Japanese destroyers of World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
== Problems I had. =/ ==
This is not B-class because...
Fix these, and the article meets the B-class requirements. ..my apoligies for the "list" reasoning, as that was totally wrong. — Ed 17 ( Talk / Contribs) 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
And the wpships POV is that it makes a C but barely. Milhist does not use C-class yet. Your lead section is weak and each paragraph should have at least one reference cited. I'm liberal about assessments but this article is not B-class just yet. You've a lot of one or two line paragraphs that should be combined or expanded. With the amount of small paragraphs I can't see how the article meets the #2 requirement at this stage. I did change our importance rating from High to Top but that has no bearing on article quality. -- Brad ( talk) 04:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all round for the v constructive comments. It does show up, however, that there are differing peceptions at play. I'll attempt to address all reservations, but I'm surprised at "there are too many {citations} from one source" - if the source is good enough and comprehensive (and Whitney seems so), then is there a problem? I do think that more pics are needed, partic of the earlier types - if anyone has a source .... Relieved about the list comment! Folks at 137 ( talk) 08:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of the above points have, I hope, been addressed. The intro has been expanded. (I'll leave a reviewer to remove it, if appropriate.) "Citation needed" tags have been replaced by citations and their presentation has been rationalised as suggested. Suitable, good quality pics are hard to come by, but I will lower my standard, if necessary. I'm less convinced by the argument to merge small paras. The wiki guides to layout and writing better articles discourage short and single sentence paras, but don't rule them out. The purpose in the "Classes" section is to separate each description into two or three parts - summary, description and usage/ fate - although some are capable of expansion. What I would prefer not to do is to create single para sections of solid blocks of text - this is advised against in the guidelines. I await the boadsides! Folks at 137 ( talk) 19:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Japanese World War II destroyers. Please contribute. Folks at 137 ( talk) 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)