Wikipedia:Peer review/USS Mahan (DD-364)/archive1

USS Mahan (DD-364)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

User:Pendright is a new user who created his peer review page in the wrong place, so I'm copying the content over here. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright says: I added the lead to the above article and re-worked the body. The article’s origin is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS). In addition, I included three general references to the existing two. United States Destroyer Operations In World War II – 1953: This book contains twenty pages of information about the eight-year existence of Mahan, and it parallels the material in the DANFS article. Rear Admiral Thomas L Wattles edited the book’s manuscript, and its preparation was aided by critical comment from destroyer officers. Kamikaze – 2000: This book devotes two pages to the sinking of Mahan and confirms the DANFS material. AT WAR with the WIND – 2008: This book devotes three pages to the sinking of Mahan and confirms the DANFS material. I added an external link to USS Mahan Association, because it has a host of details about Mahan and contains first-hand accounts of the Kamikaze attack and sinking.

Please help me make this article a better one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendright (talk • contribs)

Comment: I have taken a quick look. I think that the most approprate forum for improving this article would be within the MilHist project, rather than in the main Peer Review process which is intended for articles in a later stage of development. I can't say whether the article meets requirements for comprehensiveness or accuracy, but one obvious problem is that there are no inline citations whatever in the text (this would normally warrant a major cleanup banner at the head). Some of the prose organisation looks dodgy; one section consists of a single short sentence. The mania for adding co-ordinates to all and sundry seems particularly inappropriate in an article about a ship which presumably moved about a bit. New editors should always be encouraged, and I am sure that there will be plenty of willing hands within Milhist. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taken in the spirit in which it is given, constructive criticism can be a powerful force for improvement. Thank you for pointing out the article’s shortcomings. Pendright (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hi Pendright, and welcome to Wikipedia! At this point, I have to echo Brian's comments, especially with regard to the complete lack of in-line citations. This is something that needs to be done before a detailed peer review can really take place. I would suggest looking at some of the ship articles listed at Wikipedia:FA#Warfare (these are the best of the best of the warfare articles on WP) and aim to have this article look like that. A short, almost non-existent construction/design section and a lack of detail about her final engagement are two things that jump out to me as needing expansion. At this point, probably focus on referencing, and then bring the article back to Peer Review if you still feel the need. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcome and thoughts on how to improve the article. They’ll be very useful, I know, as I continue to grapple with the process. Thanks too for leaving the door open for questions. Pendright (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]