Wikipedia:Peer review/List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy/archive1

List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy

 * 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 June 2009.
 * 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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a lot of work on it, and I would like to see it become A-class (WP:MILHIST rates lists as if they were articles; only difference is FL instead of FA) or an FL. I want to know exactly what is wrong with it. It probably needs copyediting, but I wanted to be certain before I put the tag on; potentially wasting a few minutes of someone's life.

Thanks, mynameinc (t|c| o |r) 12:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 22:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I found this interesting. I have little or no relevant knowledge, so the article taught me something. I am inclined to agree with your remark that it needs copyediting; the prose is a bit wayward in places. I have done a detailed review on the lead and the first section, highlighting the prose issues that need fixing (and a few other points). Similar prose problems arise in the remaining sections, so a good copyditor is a necessity. I've also made a suggestion on the table formats.


 * Lead
 * I don't think the first paragraph meets the requirement of WP:LEAD which says, inter alia: The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable? You begin by introducing the history of the destroyer class of ships. This feela as though it should be the second sentence rather than the first.
 * A date is required for the Spanish-American war
 * "Roosevelt wrote..." Where did he write this, and to whom was he addressing his remarks?
 * "pushing for..." would be better as "and pushed for", or "and pressed for"
 * "Congress soon authorised..." Can you give a date? Thus "On [date] Congress authorized..."
 * "From 1918–41..." Should be "Between 1918–41"
 * "During World War II, the United States began building destroyers with five-gun main batteries, but without stability problems." This sentence reads oddly; I think it's the "but", followed by an unexplained reference to stability problems. These problems do not appear to be identified later in the article.
 * Why is "frigates" in quotes? Should the term be linked?
 * Tangled sentence: "Other destroyers were produced, including the last all-gun destroyers, and a class for the Shah of Iran, but instead was added to the U.S. Navy, due to the Iranian Revolution." The sentence should be split along the lines "Other classes were produced, including the last all-gun destroyers. A special class was produced for the Shah of Iran, but due to the Iranian Revolution these ships could not be delivered and were added to the U.S. Navy"
 * Small numbers (under 10) should be written out, thus "three" not 3.
 * Pre-World War I
 * Several problems with this sentence: "The threat a small, fast, torpedo–delivering ship could pose to the battle line became clear to navies around the world; giving birth to the torpedo boat, including the USS Cushing of the United States Navy.":-
 * "Torpedo-delivering should have a hyphen not an n-dash
 * The semicolon is misplaced - should be a comma. Better still, the sentnce could be split (see below)
 * Some rephrasing is also advised (see below)
 * Thus, the sentence might read: "The potential threat posed to the battle line by a small, fast, torpedo–delivering ship became clear to navies around the world.  This potential gave birth to the torpedo boat, of which USS Cushing was the United States Navy's first."
 * "As president..." - give the date[s]
 * nbsp missing: "16 torpedo boats". There may well be others so please check.
 * Small numbers are shown numerically when they should be written out.
 * Clarification needed: "The Smith and Paulding classes weighted 740 short tons (670 t), the reason these classes were nicknamed "flivvers" (lightweights)." Without some means of weight comparison, it is not apparent that 740-ton ships were lightweight. Try: "The Smith and Paulding classes weighted 740 short tons (670 t), this relatively light weight being the reason these classes were nicknamed "flivvers" (lightweights)."
 * Tables
 * These look generally in good order. On a point of presentation, however, could the details in the columns be centered? I know that writing repeated "align = center" will be a chore, but the effect on the tables' appearances will be worth it.

I hope that these comments and suggestions will help you to improve the article to the standard you desire. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)