Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope edit
I am respectfully nominating this article for A-class review, i have just put it through peer review and i believe it now meets the criteria for A-class. Thankyou Woodym555 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure he was a nice chap and knew his job, but the intro is far away from neutrally presenting facts. Almost every general is somehow famous because at least his subordinates know his name. Wandalstouring 08:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with reservations. I think the lead could do with improvement (will take a look at it myself). Also I'm not sure that the web sources which provide the bulk of the references are of the highest quality. The Hood Association bio, for instance, is essentially self-published and non-reviewed. I doubt there is too much error introduced as a result, but much better to reference the published biograhies which the Hood Association article summarises. The Land 20:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for your comments. I have removed all but one of the HMS Hood bio refs and replaced them with oublished. The only major contributor of web based refs is now the Royal Navy and i think they are a fairly reputable source even if they are POV. Woodym555 11:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.
Oppose. I think the article is almost there. I tried to fix some of the POV problems, but the sections on the World War II battles just don't flow very well. Each of those sections should summarize the main battle articles, with brief background, action, aftermath, and significance descriptions with dates, as well as highlighting Cunningham's role in each. Also, is there more information on his post-war life? The references section lists 11 books that look like they have good information on this admiral, but it appears that only three or four of those books were used as sources for the article. Furthermore, the references aren't listed in alphabetical order by author's name. I think you've done good work with the article, but it just needs a little more work to meet the criteria.CLA 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have sorted the refs and moved some to a further reading section as they are not used. They were original references that i have not read or seen and as such i can't use them. I have restructured most of the WWII battles now and think i have addressed your concerns Woodym555 11:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it meets the criteria now but you might should recheck some of the punctuation and sentence structure in the WWII section. If you have a chance to look at the other references that weren't used they might provide you with more information for some of the smaller sections like his post-WWII life. CLA 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.