Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Captain class frigate/Archive 1

Captain class frigate

I am hoping for advice on how to further improve this article in the hope of eventually getting it up to A-class.
Thefrood (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

I have a few opening suggestions.

1. The lead should be expanded, as per WP:LEAD.
2. In the section "Royal Navy Alterations", I would get rid of the bullet point format and write it out in paragraphs. Although this isn't a ship, it would be similar to how I wrote the "modernization" portion of the article AMX-30E.
3. Images need to be better distributed along the article, instead of bunched in certain portions. I would also experiment with moving some images to the left (perhaps alternating).
4. Personally, I would get rid of those long lists of ship classes, or find a better way of integrating them into the text. Otherwise, you could make separate articles for them (provided you have enough information); these would be "lists", as opposed to pure "articles", but the concept is the same.
5. Under camouflage and insignia I make the same suggestion as I did for the Royal Navy Alterations section.
6. Operations needs more text and less lists, in my opinion. It's just not aesthetic as it is right now, and has little readable prose. You can add a list as a supplement to the text, but you should not replace text with a list.
7. For the memorial, I suggest the layout to be similar to the citation here (indented, as opposed to a floating box).

I hope these offer at least some help in looking for where to improve the article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Benea

• There are quite a few areas where some clarifications or tweaks will speed progress through higher class reviews. I've picked out a few:
  • '...nearly all the surviving Captain class was returned to the US Navy as quickly...' - nearly all of the surviving Captain class frigates were returned...?
  • 'The final result was...' - perhaps just the result was ?
  • 'The ordinary sailors were also astounded to discover that they got to sleep in bunks and it would be many years before the rest of the Royal Navy gave up their hammocks. The crews of the new Captains were also initially very suspicious of the newfangled welded design; Royal Navy ships of the time were largely riveted together.' - I know what you're getting at, but I'd be careful of making generalisations, how about something along the lines of Also amongst the differences with British vessels were the provision of bunks rather than hammocks, and the use of welds rather than rivets in the design.?
  • '...where the ships were rebuilt more on Admiralty lines.' - does this mean the ships were rebuilt more after a previous rebuilding, or that the subsequent rebuilding was more along Admiralty lines? And by lines I assume you mean something like design or standard?
  • 'the Evarts class was not designed to carry torpedo tubes' - the Evarts class was not fitted with torpedo tubes or the Evarts class was not designed to carry torpedoes would fix this I think.
  • 'The Captains had a crew of 156 (Evarts) and 186 (Buckley)...' - could be clarified, The Captains either had a crew of 156 (Evarts) or 186 (Buckley)...?
  • 'The bulk of the ratings were Hostilities Only and all had to be trained from scratch in which ever branch of the Navy they had chosen to serve. After about six weeks square bashing and getting physically fit, they moved onto the job training. Many of the senior non-commissioned officers were pre-war regular service who had been promoted.' - 'trained from scratch', 'square bashing' and 'pre-war regular service' might be clarified in less colloquial terms. Hostilities Only as a concept would probably benefit from either being an article, or explained a little more fully.
  • 'ending with impressive certificates' - what does this mean? Again be careful of potential POV pitfalls, terms like 'graceful shear' and 'daringly rakish cowls', and phrases such as 'Those that served on these ships came to view these features as being very handsome.' might be better placed within directly attributed quotes. The nature of the qualifications could also be clarified.
  • 'It is understood that these ships were originally to named after Captains...' - understood by whom, is it a fact or not? If so, try using just The ships were originally to be named...'
  • '66 of the 78 were the first to bear...' does the 66 reference a specific range of the ships, or is it just the quantity? If the latter, perhaps 66 of the 78 frigates were assigned names that until that point had not been borne by earlier Royal Navy ships would be a useful clarification?
  • '...own individual insignia, where these distinctive and colourful designs were painted on the side of the ship's funnel' - should perhaps be something like which were then painted on the side of the ship's funnel. Also 'distinctive and colourful' seems to be a rather unencyclopaedic tone. Similarly 'the replacing of the primitive American two seat "thunder trough" toilets (which did not offer even so much as a simple canvas screen to spare blushes)' could be formalised. (Primitive seems POV and 'spare blushes' an unnecessary euphemism.
• Definitely agree with a reworking of the 'Operations' section into something more textual - try moving the tables into their own list style article(s) if you want to retain the information.
• The memorial section could be further contextualised, rather than being dominated by the quote. The quote could also be better formatted.
• I'd like to see some expansion in the reasons why such a dramatic reworking of the ships was necessary. Why didn't the US shipyards build them to the Admiralty standard, or handle the conversions themselves? Why were some of the modifications deemed necessary/useful?
• WP:MOSDATE will require the dates to be delinked, and arranged in the British-English date style (i.e. 14 January 1944 rather than January 14 1944)

These are just suggestions of course, and you are free to disregard any you disagree with, but overall it's a fine article, but one that probably needs just a little more work before it's ready for an A class review. Benea (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

David Fuchs

{{doing}} --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that the lead, besides being too short, doesn't adequately introduce readers not familiar to the subject. For example, "The Captain class was 78 frigates of the Royal Navy, constructed in the United States, launched in 1942–1943 and delivered to the United Kingdom under the provisions of Lend-Lease." First off, shouldn't it be "The Captain class was a designation given to 78..." or something along those lines? Grammatically it doesn't make any sense. Perhaps a line explaining the lend-lease act would also be helpful so a reader wouldn't be confused right off the bat about what's going on, especially since you reference the agreement later on in the lead. Strangely enough, the lend-lease act is not mentioned under history, where I would expect some information. (It just sounds like the british were being pushy and told the slavish americans to build them some ships, thank you kindly.) :P
• Could the subheadings in bullet form be converted to prose? (Captain class frigate#Royal Navy alterations) I think that would be a more graceful and slimmer way to present it.
• Under #Ships, there's some wonky image alignment issues. Also, sources for the lists of frigates?
• While it's purely up to you about how you reference, it's easier on the eyes and easier to see where the citation is coming from if you axe the title from the reference, i.e. "Donald, 10." such as used in articles like Bone Wars and Chicxulub Crater (if you want the p. I don't really care.) For multiple books with the same author, you just put the year, i.e. "Lenton (1998), 22." It just makes it less of a wall of text.

Hope some of these comments are helpful. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC) ~This review was performed by a member of WikiProject Video Games. Consider performing a partner review on an article listed here.

Isn't it Captain-class instead of Captain-class frigate? I'm no expert on the subject (not even close), but I always thought that vessel names and classes were italicized (ex., Iowa). --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Only when the class name is the actual name of the class leader, not a term that describes the naming of every vessel of the class like Flower class corvette and Tribal class destroyer for other examples. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)