Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/AHS Centaur

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.

AHS Centaur

Following several weaks of heavy work and reccomendation by another editor, I am submitting AHS Centaur for A Class Review. I wish to see if the article quality is good enough for A status, or if not, what needs to be worked on to drag it the rest of the way. -- saberwyn 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Start by getting all the date wikilinks (or not sorted out). Then theres the indent on references as part of bibliography. Some unencylopedic phrasing "The cost blew out..." . Thumbed picture hardcoding of sizes. Perhaps GA article status should be the first point of call before A. GraemeLeggett 09:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also look at the Guide on Lead section writing. GraemeLeggett 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. All dates have been wikilinked, and other edits made per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
2. Indent on "references" has been used to indicate that the references are taken as part of the bibliography (by showing exactly where and how each text is used), and to differentiate it from the "Footnotes" section below to decrease confusion (or so I hoped).
   • Is the current layout what you mean? -- saberwyn 11:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Some unencyclopedic phrasing, including your specific example, has been altered. Due to my 'proximity' to the text, I may personally be unable to identify other instances.
4. "Thumbed picture hardcoding of sizes"... Could you please elaborate. I don't have a clue what you mean by this.
5. Maybe. I personally find the "A/GA" thing confusing, particularly with regards to which comes first. Following the conclusion of this assessment, if failed, I will submit for GA.

Further comments? -- saberwyn 10:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted 3 {{fact}} tags for 3 main events mentioned in the lead. Starting w/ a well referenced lead gives more credibility to the rest.

I personally don't like red links. So i suggest creating articles even if they would be stubs. If you need any help on that please drop me a line. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that statements cited in the body of the article don't need to have duplicate citations in the lead, incidentally. Kirill Lokshin 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't cite them in the intro. However, I will go and add have added the relevant citations. -- saberwyn 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps repeating what others have said above:
  • You don't need inline citations in the intro unless it's information not contained in the main body.
  • Placing citations throughout each paragraph is ok, but you can also combine them all into a single citation at the end of each paragraph. This cuts down on the disruption to the text and the length of your footnotes section.
  • I think I might include the "hospital ship refit" section in the "operational history" so that the article's timeline doesn't jump back and forth.
  • The first paragraph in the "Memorials" section is uncited.
  • Some of your footnote information for the third paragraph in the "Attacker" section isn't showing up in the "footnotes" section for some reason.

Otherwise, an excellent article and almost there. Cla68 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • 1. To have citations in the intro or not to... please make up your mind people. Every single piece in the intro can be found in the main text.
      2. I tend to follow a policy of citing everything, because I believe that if a particular claim is contested, it is easy to identify and confirm which source text made the claim. It also shows that not a single part of the article is original research or unverifiable personal conclusion. If there is a further call to remove or reorganise the references, I will not stand in the way.
      3. Refit information is located where it is as the specific information in that section relates to the design of the vessel, not the actions of the vessel.
      4. The first paragraph of the "Memorial" section was there when I started working on the article, and I have not been able to find a source for this infomrmation yet.
         • UPDATE: That section was there in the first version of the article. I have contacted the original author in the hopes he can recall where this information was pulled from . -- saberwyn 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
         • Have found a source for some of the facts in this section, source has been added
      5. Hidden information is now unhidden, one of the ref name tags was not closed. -- saberwyn 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - while I have to confess to playing a minor supporting role in developing this article, I believe that it fully meets the criteria used when considering A-class status. In particular, the article covers the ship and the events surrounding her sinking in great detail and is an interesting read. --Nick Dowling 08:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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.