Wikipedia:Peer review/Submarine/archive1
Submarine is a former featured article, but it has lost its status a few months ago. Since then I've made some major edits, mostly additions, to counter the problems stated in the FA removal. The context suggests this article deserves FA status, and I hope to improve it at least to the best of FA standarts. However, the views on required improvement can differ, and I'd like to get advice before making new major changes. The specific problems may be:
- Length. The article is above average length, being about 67 kilobytes. In my personal opinion, this is justified by the subject being both highly technical and historical, and too complex to be covered in a short article. However, prior to further expansion, I'd appreciate comments on what sections might be removed or compressed, and how. Please don't suggest breaking it in subarticles; while there already are some, I'd prefer the subject to be mostly covered in a single article. I'd also appreciate opinions on whether increased length is justified.
- Readability. While I tried to make the article well readable, I'm still not sure whether all sections can be understood by all readers. Anyone with a technical higher education should have no problems reading it, but there can be some hardships for people without it. Please read the article and note any sections or sentences that might be difficult to understand and should be explained.
- Citations. My job is connected with design og submarines, and I wrote sections (in the first half of the article) mostly basing on first-hand knowledge, however inserting citations wherever I found some sources. There still may be a number of statements without sources stated, so any help with pointing them or, better, suggesting sources to mention, would improve the article.
- Other concerns. The article might miss some important detail, be too technical, or have other problems. Please point whatever else could improve it, and just improve it if you have time. -- CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The body of the article is quite good. The Achille's heel is the referencing. The refs should be in proper format, prefereably cite php, and you lots more footnotes. If you can do this, I'd then suggest resubmitting for FA. Rlevse 12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)