Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Hood (51)/archive1

HMS Hood (51) edit

This article has been the subject of tender loving care from a number of editors in recent months (including myself), and is now well up to A-class standard. Taking in order the A-class critia listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, we have:

Well-written: Good, grammatical English prose, without unnecessary Anglicisms or Americanisms
Clear: Text is comprehensible, acronyms and technical terms explained in context.
Complete: There is more that could be said on this ship, especially about its design history and inter-war service. However, the existing text is more than adequate for a non-specialist user, and the design description is exceptionally complete.
Length: The article is long, but this is appropriate to a vessel of such exceptional historical importance.
Introduction and section headings: The introduction is adequate and clear, and the article is well-structured. The section headings are accurate descriptions of the contents and there is little duplication or redundancy.
External references: The article is exceptional in this regard, both in quantity and quality of referenced sources, both printed and on-line. Exceptional care has been taken in the referencing of the text, especially in the context of the controversy over the ship's loss, with particular focus on primary sources.
Illustrations: These are numerous, relevant, of good quality, clearly and accurately captioned and copyright-free.

Checking against the potential issues listed under the B-class criteria, non of these arise. Many months of collective effort have eliminated POV and unreferenced assertions, maintained balance in areas of controversy, and filled the outstanding gaps in the article. It would be pleasant for all concerned to see these efforts acknowledged by the Wikipedia community.

John Moore 309 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose A very good article, I commend all of you who worked on the page. I would not give your article an A just yet though, I think that there are a few things that could be better presented:

For starters I would recommend moving the entire "pricipal characteristics" section to the class page. Since all members of a class share indentical, or at the very least similar, characteristics I think that this section would be better represented in the class article. This was done with the articles USS Missouri & USS Wisconsin; both of these articles discuss only the history of the ships, all in depth information regarding the armorment, armour, aircraft, and weapons systems are discussed at length in their class article Iowa-class battleship. Since all three of these articles are already Featured Status there is a good chance that they will be the standard(s) by which Hood will be judged.
Consider moving "modern theories on the sinking" to its own article. This has been done with regards to the Kursk incident.

Other than that I feel that this article has the potential to go places. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be better going through a peer review? Raymond Palmer 14:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose There are some sections that lack references (which is troublesome). I also think peer review would be a good destination for this article. Carom 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reads OK, but needs a longer peer review. Wandalstouring 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]