Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Attack on Sydney Harbour

Attack on Sydney Harbour

This peer review request is following a major rewrite and expansion of the article. I am looking to eventually push this article up to Featured Article status, and as such request that others point out any errors or omissions from the article, as well as provide advice for what needs improving to reach FAC status. I have identified several "things to do" at Talk:Attack on Sydney Harbour#Further expansion, but an external view is requested. -- saberwyn 04:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you done an automated peer review? See AndyZ's javascript program. I have done one, result is here - it might be a good idea to move it though. The APR seemed to have some sensible opinions.Garrie 07:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I hadn't. Thank you. I'll chew through what it says. -- saberwyn 07:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Since the article describes the attacks on Sydney AND Newcastle, the article should be renamed to reflect this. - 52 Pickup 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main attack, as well as one of the two secondary bombardments, was on Sydney Harbour. That aside, do you have any suggestions as to what the article should be renamed to? -- saberwyn 23:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you could somehow put the Newcastle bombardment in the Aftermath section, then I don't think a renaming would be called for. Even if you leave the article outline as is, I still don't think the article necessarily needs to be renamed. CLA 07:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Overall, quite nice. A few points to consider, though:

The "partof" field in the infobox ought to be readable as a single phrase; see any of Cla68's WWII articles for a good way of doing this.
- Now reads "Part of the Battle for Australia during World War II". Appropriate? -- saberwyn 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Kirill 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The single explanatory note would be better off worked in with the rest of them; see below.
- See below. -- saberwyn 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"References" should be "Notes" and "Bibliography" should be "References". (There are other options, of course; but "bibliography" is essentially deprecated as a section name, as it's difficult to distinguish whether it's intended as a listing of references or merely as further reading.)

I have chosen to lay it out in this way as it is the way I have been taught at university. I split the Footnotes (notes on the content of the text) from the References (the specific citations for the texts used in compiling the article) to avoid losing the former amongst the latter. Also, I use the term bibliography in the definition that it is a list of all texts cited within the article as opposed to a "Reading list" or "Further reading" article, as this implies to me the inclusion of material above and/or beyond that used for the article.

I am also slightly confused because this layout was acceptable when I submitted the AHS Centaur article to Peer Review, A-class Review, and FAC (at least, I assume it was, because nobody commented). Further advice and guidance to the relevant sections of the policies is requested, if I am in the wrong. -- saberwyn 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A strict reading of WP:LAYOUT#Standard appendices and descriptions would suggest that "Bibliography" is intended for listing further reading, rather than references. As far as Centaur goes: it may have been missed during the FAC, or perhaps the guideline is outdated. It's not that big of a deal, in any case; I prefer a simpler two-section structure (c.f. this), but if you're more comfortable with keeping the existing headings, you're basically free to do so until someone at FAC bothers to object over it. ;-) Kirill 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scrollable footnote box is, frankly, a horrible idea, as it makes the article unprintable. Even a collapsing NavFrame would be better than this.
- Done.-- saberwyn 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some thorough copyediting would be helpful. One particular issue to check for is the use of a semicolon when a colon is needed (e.g. "Six submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy were involved in the attack on Sydney harbour; I-21, I-22, I-24, I-27, I-28, and I-29.", "21 sleeping Navy sailors were killed; 19 Royal Australian Navy, 2 Royal Navy.", etc.).

Kirill 02:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Will work on it, but due to my "proximity" to the text, more eyes would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]