This peer review discussion has been closed.
I just recently expanded this article and I wanted to see if others would be willing to tear it apart and correct my mistakes. Normally, I would ask for it to be reviewed at GA-quality, but it would be nice if it could be reviewed for FA-quality (so, feel free to point out anything that might help, if you are familiar with those processes), as I can easily tackle anything pointed out here. Thanks!
Kevin Rutherford (
talk)
01:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Comments from Nikkimaria
Lead's a bit on the long side for the length of the article
You seem to like the word "also" a lot, at one point concluding a trio of "also" sentences with "the yard also also built" - try cutting down on those, and definitely don't double them. Same applies to "additionally", and avoid "Additionally, the yard also"-type constructions. There's several instances of "including"/"included" and "in order to" as well; seek variety in your phrasings.
The only licensing tag present says "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States".
Nikkimaria (
talk)
07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)reply
If it's a Navy image, there should be an original source somewhere, but I don't know whether the original file included that source or not, so unfortunately I don't know whether undeletion would be helpful.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I suggest trying to read the article aloud - while it might feel silly, it will help to eliminate many grammar, flow, and clarity issues. For example, reading out loud should highlight a problem with the first sentence of the last lead paragraph
"The shipyard itself can trace its beginnings" - "itself" isn't needed unless there's something to contrast it with, which you haven't done (at least not clearly). And presumably the shipyard is not sentient enough to compile its history ;-)
Fixed, although I think I wrote it at the time to distinguish between the yard and the company (as in later years there is a bit of a difference in operation between the two).
Kevin Rutherford (
talk)
06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)reply
"after a man approached him about it" - this seems odd; someone just randomly walked up and said "hey, build an engine"? Or was he noted as an area inventor before that?
"Work on the engine began in 1884, and continued into 1885, when it was deemed a financial failure, and Watson decided to work with his business partner Frank O. Wellington on ship building, creating the Fore River Engine Company" - too many commas, too many clauses. There are several instances of this type of issue.
"work with his business partner Frank O. Wellington", then in the next paragraph "Watson and his business partner Frank O. Wellington" - check for other instances of repetition. Also later in the sentence: "after realizing the profitability of the enterprise after building". Reducing your wordiness should help to solve some of these.
Enough prose comments for now, but this needs considerable smoothing out in that respect
"soon an order came in for the seven-masted Thomas W. Lawson. This was immediately followed by an order for the six-masted William L. Douglas" - why is one of these italicized and the other not?
Skipping ahead to references...Consider columning the Notes, providing a separate heading for the bibliography (I'm assuming?) at the bottom, and move the Further reading to after cited sources per
WP:LAYOUT
For FAC citation formatting will need much greater consistency. Sometimes your citations are templated, sometimes not; you italicize the Globe in one citation then not the next; some books have locations while others don't; etc
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I just recently expanded this article and I wanted to see if others would be willing to tear it apart and correct my mistakes. Normally, I would ask for it to be reviewed at GA-quality, but it would be nice if it could be reviewed for FA-quality (so, feel free to point out anything that might help, if you are familiar with those processes), as I can easily tackle anything pointed out here. Thanks!
Kevin Rutherford (
talk)
01:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Comments from Nikkimaria
Lead's a bit on the long side for the length of the article
You seem to like the word "also" a lot, at one point concluding a trio of "also" sentences with "the yard also also built" - try cutting down on those, and definitely don't double them. Same applies to "additionally", and avoid "Additionally, the yard also"-type constructions. There's several instances of "including"/"included" and "in order to" as well; seek variety in your phrasings.
The only licensing tag present says "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States".
Nikkimaria (
talk)
07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)reply
If it's a Navy image, there should be an original source somewhere, but I don't know whether the original file included that source or not, so unfortunately I don't know whether undeletion would be helpful.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I suggest trying to read the article aloud - while it might feel silly, it will help to eliminate many grammar, flow, and clarity issues. For example, reading out loud should highlight a problem with the first sentence of the last lead paragraph
"The shipyard itself can trace its beginnings" - "itself" isn't needed unless there's something to contrast it with, which you haven't done (at least not clearly). And presumably the shipyard is not sentient enough to compile its history ;-)
Fixed, although I think I wrote it at the time to distinguish between the yard and the company (as in later years there is a bit of a difference in operation between the two).
Kevin Rutherford (
talk)
06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)reply
"after a man approached him about it" - this seems odd; someone just randomly walked up and said "hey, build an engine"? Or was he noted as an area inventor before that?
"Work on the engine began in 1884, and continued into 1885, when it was deemed a financial failure, and Watson decided to work with his business partner Frank O. Wellington on ship building, creating the Fore River Engine Company" - too many commas, too many clauses. There are several instances of this type of issue.
"work with his business partner Frank O. Wellington", then in the next paragraph "Watson and his business partner Frank O. Wellington" - check for other instances of repetition. Also later in the sentence: "after realizing the profitability of the enterprise after building". Reducing your wordiness should help to solve some of these.
Enough prose comments for now, but this needs considerable smoothing out in that respect
"soon an order came in for the seven-masted Thomas W. Lawson. This was immediately followed by an order for the six-masted William L. Douglas" - why is one of these italicized and the other not?
Skipping ahead to references...Consider columning the Notes, providing a separate heading for the bibliography (I'm assuming?) at the bottom, and move the Further reading to after cited sources per
WP:LAYOUT
For FAC citation formatting will need much greater consistency. Sometimes your citations are templated, sometimes not; you italicize the Globe in one citation then not the next; some books have locations while others don't; etc