Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/HMS Ledbury (L90)

HMS Ledbury (L90)
Hi, i've just finished writing up this article, and I would really appreciate any help in improving it. Reuv 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Woodym555
This is a very good start, there are some areas for improvement though: This was a very quick overview, if you want me to expand on any comments then leave me a message here or on my talk page. I will try to check the text in detail when i have the time. On first viewing though it seems like good prose. Woodym555 17:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A new ship infobox is available from the following link on Wikiproject ships:WikiProject_Ships/Tables.
 * The references need clearing up. Are there any specific page numbers? In which case use specific page numbers. If you need an example on how to do this see Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope.
 * Also, try to use the ref name format and this will reduce the size of the text. Info can be found here: Footnotes under the subheading Citing a footnote more than once.
 * Could the further action section be expanded slightly. The article is currently based wholly on the Malta Convoys. Did the Ledbury play a major part in any other battles?
 * Could Operation Pedestal be broken down into subsections? At the moment there is a very large block of text.


 * Well done on the updates to the article, i have just done a thorough copyedit and i couldn't find many things that were wrong. A few weasel words were removed but little else needed work.
 * The main problem that i still have with the article is the emphasis on Operation Pedastal. I understand this is pivotal in the history of the Ledbury, but is there any information on any other actions. In the introduction it states "Her already impressive battle honours were further increased during the Allied landings in Sicily and Salerno, and in the Adriatic and Aegean." Yet it does not go into detail on these actions in the article. An expansion of these sections, even one or two paragraphs on each action and the role Ledbury played in it would make it a more rounded article. I hope that this is of some help. Again, any queries can be put here or on my talk page and i will be happy to help. Woodym555 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of Manual of Style related issues.
 * MoS:Times It needs to be correctly formatted throughout.
 * In the cite web template, you have accessdate and accessyear, it would reduce the text slightly if it was shown in the most common style of '|accessdate=2007-06-28'
 * Manual of Style (text formatting) has a small amount of text related to italics. I don't think that there is a specific rule related to the ship name always being in italics except in a title. The loose rule is that it should be used for emphasis so i do not think that all the instances of Ledbury should be in italics, quotations should be but not the ships name. Use other prefixes such as 'the Ledbury' that omit the italics.
 * Footnotes The correct syntax for the multiple footnotes is
 * This is an example of multiple references to the same footnote. &lt;ref name&#61;"multiple"/>  I think some browsers have problems dealing with your references as they are. Also so that new editors could easily understand the reference it is better to give them a name such as IWMweb13 or ref name="AuthorX"p.13 and not a, b, c as new editors would not be able to understand them.
 * Other than these small style objections, I would now put it up for GA Review to see what they say and it should be passed easily. Woodym555 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate a lot your help in this article, I've addressed the issues mentioned, removed the italics, arranged time according to MoS, and changed the dates for the references in the suggested style. I also renamed the multiple references and used the format given. Thanks a lot for the hints! Reuv 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)