Wikipedia:Peer review/USS Spitfire (1776 gunboat)/archive1

USS Spitfire (1776 gunboat)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

it is a new article. Thanks, Hollingsworth (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DanaBoomer

Hi! This looks like a great article overall. I'm not sure where you're headed with the article (for example, do you want to take it to GA or are you just looking for suggestions), but I'm going to give you the suggestions that I would if I were reviewing the article for GA status, and you can take them from there!

My main concern with the article as it stands right now is referencing. Articles on WP are coming more and more to expect in-line superscript referencing. For example, see the article MS West Honaker. You'll notice that the main editor uses a dual system to give extraneous information it's own section. However, the sections labeled "References" and "Bibliography" are the ones I'm attempting to point out. In the Spitfire article, I notice that you have some books and websites listed under references, as well as parenthetical referencing at the end of some paragraphs. Page numbers, however, are needed, as well as splitting out which information comes from which book.
The lead should be expanded. For an article of this length, one to two paragraphs is appropriate, and if only one paragraph, it should be more than two sentences. Because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, it generally doesn't need to be referenced unless you are backing up direct quotes or really controversial information.
External links, such as the one at the end of the Action at Valcour Island section, are not really supposed to be included, and it should probably be turned into a reference or external link.

Other than these things, this is a very nice article, and should be fairly easy to get to GA status. I don't watchlist peer reviews, so if you have any questions about my comments, please drop me a note on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]