Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/Maestrale class frigate

Maestrale class frigate
i cleaned up this article and feel that it is pretty good hornplayer2 (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Were you interested in expanding the article and taking it higher in class? Right now I would rate it a C-class. --Brad (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

i was just trying to clean it up. im not really sure how much i can expand it, based on my knowledge (zero) on this subject. hornplayer2 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case you should have put in an Assessment Request where a Peer review is more tuned towards editors seeking comments on how to improve the article to make A or FA class. --Brad (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling
This article is off to a good start, but at present it wouldn't quality for B-class. My suggestions for how you could further improve it are:
 * The article is short and doesn't fully cover the topic. Iowa class battleship is a good example for the kinds of topics which could be covered.
 * The article presently doesn't have any inline citations - lots of these are added so that all of its text is supported by a citation
 * Some of the prose is a bit awkward, and the article would benefit from a copy-edit
 * 'ONU' needs to be spelled out
 * The 'Lupo vs Maestrale' section needs a new, more formal, title (eg, something like 'comparison with Lupo class'). The fact that the Maestrales are upgraded Lupos should be in one of the first paragraphs of the article rather than this section. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Borg_Sphere
This article seems to be OK, but needs quite a bit of work before it can make B or GA class. Overall it is a good start, but C-class at best, if that, and needs to have some serious time and effort put into it to have it become B/GA. Borg Sphere (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've copy-edited it for you, it has lots of serious trouble with grammatical errors and formatting.
 * The other main issue is that it is full of jargon, which I have not removed as I am not familiar enough with the modern naval weaponry. Abbreviations throughout need to be explained in detail and linked.
 * The article still has a very informal tone, which I have not fixed due to time constraints.
 * It needs many more citations. It has only two references, and no inlines anywhere. I've added some citation needed tags, but there are many more places which need to be fixed.
 * Also, the article should talk briefly about the service history of each ship, see Nimitz class aircraft carrier for an example.