Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/HMCS Prince David (F89)

HMCS Prince David
Please comment as I feel that the page is near it's completion and I fear that it may be getting too lengthy. My intention is to use this page as a template for HMCS Prince Robert (sister ship) and I'd like any problems worked out in advance. Thanks. Alberg22 15:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Some general suggestions: The length is, I think, not a concern; there are many excellent articles quite a bit longer than this one. Kirill Lokshin 01:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dates in headings look much neater enclosed in parentheses than merely trailing a comma.
 * More citations would be good, if possible; as it is, there are a number of uncited paragraphs in the article.
 * In general, an extended quotation should be given more context than "A press clipping from a British newspaper:"; I can't really see the point of starting a new paragraph there.
 * The existence of a "Trivia" section is a fairly major flaw. Articles should not generally include trivia per se, and certainly not in a dedicated section of its own.  The material is interesting, but needs to be worked into the body of the text, rather than left hanging off the end.
 * The "Commanding Officers" section might be better off as a floating table farther up the article, to reduce the negative impact of a raw list.
 * The "Published Sources & Credits" section should be named "References".
 * The lead talks a great deal about the RCN, and fairly little about this specific ship; it should be a summary of the article, not a general background section.

old windy bear
Comments:
 * Length is not a concern, many articles are longer than this one;
 * References are now far better, and the trivia section is gone, which is good.
 * The article is now fairly good, certainly you have vastly improved it over it's original state when it was submitted for review.
 * The Ships Time Line section did not download for me, (I could have downloaded some software and then downloaded it, but did not) and you might wish to consider most readers will likely not be able to download it, and whether you should keep it in that form.old windy bear 22:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)