Talk:Australian Surface Fleet Review/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 09:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Comments to follow shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Source spotcheck

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

This article needs significant work. There are issues with sourcing, layout, and prose.

Sourcing

Significant uncited material marked with {{cn}} tags.
Use of unreliable sources including YouTube videos. Almost none of the "Timeline of vessels" section is verifed by a reliable source.
The recommendations section is sourced to a primary source, when there should be lots of secondary sources available.

Layout

The article suffers severely from MOS:OVERSECTION—the prose is excessively divided up, meaning it loses clarity.
Per MOS:EMBED, the information in the "Timeline of vessels" section would benefit from being in prose—the changes made to the fleet would be clearer.
Per MOS:NO-TABLES, tables should only be used when they provide a significant advantage over prose. I cannot see how the "Recommendations" section is improved by being in a table; in fact, it seems to duplicate the "Outcome and response" section and could be scrapped entirely. The exact same goes for the "Summary" section.
Per MOS:LEAD, the lead section should summarise the body. In actual fact, the lead summarises almost none of the body, and contains information not found in the body.

Prose

There is no explanation of the state of Australia's navy beyond "much smaller". That could be anywhere between 1 ship and 200.
Government is consistently and incorrectly capitalised.
There are numerous grammar/punctuation errors.

I'm placing this review on hold so the substantial issues can be worked on; feel free to ping me if you have any questions. If the issues are not resolved in one week, I will fail this nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok I'll get on it. Thanks for your review. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I've made changes to the article based on your recommendation. This includes reducing amount of tables, adding more to lead, and more context to the background. I've completely removed the timeline of vessels section as I completely agree with what you said and it really isn't necessary regardless. I've also ran the prose through a number of grammar and spelling checkers and did edits and final checks myself. I have fixed the few cn tags. One thing I am unsure about is your opinion on the oversectioning. I read the guidelines and based on my read I think it seems okay and could actually help with clarity as people are able to see information regarding the individual changes to each ship in a concise manner. Please let me know what else I can do going forward. I really appreciate you taking on this review. Thanks :) DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is certainly improved. Assorted comments follow:

note that for technical reasons, section headings should not contain links (MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS).
- Ok thankyou I will fix that right now. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the "summary" section still duplicates the previous paragraphs. I don't see any reason for keeping it in the article—it makes the article more unclear.
Be careful with tenses. The future tense will of course become inaccurate at some point and implies certainty that may not be present; try to keep in the present tense if possible (i.e. instead of "The DoD will acquire", say "the DoD plans to acquire", or the "DoD has announced plans to acquire").
When using acronyms such as DoD or GPF, make sure you have previously defined their meaning in text, as you do with "Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD)". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made edits to comply with the above mentioned points. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - For MOS:OVERSECTION, I was not suggesting "remove all section headers", but instead to cut down on them (" Short paragraphs generally do not warrant their own subheadings"). I see you have now subdivided "Outcome and response" into "tier" sections—I would suggest removing all the smaller headings (level-4 in size). Two or three-sentence paragraphs such as the ones in this section do not really need their own subheadings.
  - Since we have lots of images, consider using {{multiple image}} in the body—it looks more professional.
  - The body is missing discussion of who wrote the review and when they did so, and when its results were published. I would suggest including this information in the "Background" section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks man ill get on this when I can. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Hey man, so there this is no level 4 or below subheadings (just level 2 or 3 at the lowest i think.) Ive made changes you recommended to Outcome and Response and would like your opinion on them as im not quite sure. Ive added a new section of the future of the naval industry as well. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good changes. I like the addition of the naval industry section; however, I think you could structure it in prose or in list form better. Instead of saying "at Osbourne" four times and "at Henderson" thrice, you could say something like "At Osbourne... [list of all the things that will be done there]. At Henderson [another list]." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    absolutely, will get to that in a few hours. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    done. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now. All that's left is to ensure the lead is a proper summary of the sections in the article. See WP:LEAD for details.

Hey @AirshipJungleman29 ive done a rewriting of the lead to comply with what you have asked, get back to me if you having any thing else you'd like me to cover. :) DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a copyedit of the revised lead. The article currently says that the results of the review were announced on 20 February, but is that correct? The source indicates that that seems to be the date the government response was released. Are they the same thing? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah they're the same thing as the government response is the only available review as the rest was classified. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.