Wikipedia:Peer review/Astrid (brig)/archive1

Astrid (brig)
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article has been assembled over the course of the last year. I believe that it is now the most complete summary of the history of the ship that is currently available. I would like to nominate the article for FA status soon, but before I do so I would like to ask for input about a) whether the article makes sense as it is currently written, b) whether anyone can track down any additional information that isn't currently included in the article; and c) whether anyone has any other comments/feedback on the article.

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Euryalus
My first ever peer review, so apologies for any technical errors. The article is certainly a detailed summary of the vessel, and flows in a logical order. Some minor points:

Lead Structure History Sinking and salvage I might have a few more shortly. Hope the above is helpful, and overall an interesting article. Euryalus (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The meaning of W.U.T.A is spelt out in the article body but might be better explained in the lead.
 * Per MOS, is it possible to slightly declutter the lead by transferring citations for uncontroversial points into the body of the article instead?
 * ✅ (Actually, as the references and info were all used in the article already, I've simply removed the extra cites from the lead.)
 * ✅ (Actually, as the references and info were all used in the article already, I've simply removed the extra cites from the lead.)
 * "Astrid was the smallest tall ship in the Dutch Fleet" - this isn't mentioned in the attached reference (ref 15)
 * ✅ It is in the reference, but the URL for the reference had changed - I've updated it.
 * The second paragraph on W.U.T.A tonnage, dimensions and engine might fit better in "Structure", especialy as neither the W.U.T.A nor the Astid specs are current (the vessel having been destroyed)
 * ✅ I've moved part of the second paragraph into the structure section, and the rest into the first paragraph in the history section.
 * Is there any record of who the new owners were in 1975?
 * "Alleged to have fallen into the hands of drugs smuggler" - alleged by who? Are there any statements by Customs or similar, upon which the SkyNews story might be based?
 * Is there any more information on the 1984 recovery and repair work? Some details of what was required to restore her would be great, though possibly hard to find.
 * For these three points, I'll try to do some more digging for additional refs, although I suspect that if they exist then they'll be tricky to find.
 * Is there any more information on the 1984 recovery and repair work? Some details of what was required to restore her would be great, though possibly hard to find.
 * For these three points, I'll try to do some more digging for additional refs, although I suspect that if they exist then they'll be tricky to find.
 * "The salvage company ... have been appointed..." - is the syntax incorrect here? Perhaps better as "were appointed"
 * ✅ That text is a bit dated; it was written as the events unfurled, but past tense is definitely better now.
 * "initial plans" for salvage suggests the actual plans were changed, but the article implies they occurred as proposed. Is there another way to word this, or can the word "initial" simply be removed?
 * ✅ the word "initial" isn't needed, so I've removed it.
 * Many thanks for your useful comments, and for reading through the article. :-) I've done most of them; I'll do some digging for extra refs to address the others soon. Any additional comments you have would be most appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing the peer review as nothing added for the alst couple of weeks, and most of the sisues above have been addressed. I've added a couple of additional comments at Talk:Astrid (brig). Again, an entertaining read. Euryalus (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)