Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/History of the Royal Australian Navy

History of the Royal Australian Navy

I would like to get this article to FA status or at least A class. Any help would greatly appreciated. Hossen27 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have expanded most of the sections and they have referenced the article thoroughly. Also expanded the introduction, what should I do now.Hossen27 07:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have stated the date of access for the websites I accessed. Removed all the {{Main}} and most of the {{Seealso}}. Some of images are now on the other side and the ship list has been removed, probably more suitable in the Vietnam article.Hossen27 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• The page has passed its Good Article nominationHossen27 05:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr

• You will need a lot more inline citations and references to get such an article to FA.
• The skeleton of the article looks OK but some flesh needs to be put on.
  • The lead must be expanded to 3 quite big paragraphs (obviously, only once the body of the article is done)
  • All the sections must be expanded, either with information from child articles or with new sources. Child articles seem to have additional references that should be used. I know one does not judge an article by its size, but one or two paragraphs per section is barely enough.
  • A lot of FAC reviewers seem to dislike lists, so these should be spinned in child articles or converted to prose (or converted to a drawing).

All in all, it looks like a nice start plan-wise, but the article still has to be built, either with new sources or with additional information from child articles (or both). And in any case, everything has to be referenced, preferably using inline citations. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Much better; but some technical things to clean up:

• The footnotes need to be formatted properly. Particularly for online sources, at least a date of access is required; and any additional information would be good.
• Stacking the images along one margin will produce spacing problems in the text if they're too close; I would suggest staggering them along both margins.
• Why is there a list of ships for the Vietnam War, but not for the others? Either it needs to be removed, or the other ones added, for consistency; I would suggest the first option, as lists are generally frowned on at FAC.
• {{Main}} is somewhat overused here; some battles, in particular, would be better linked directly rather than through an intrusive template.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated as much as possible by linking these terms within the body of the article.

Kirill Lokshin 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

Hossen, you have clearly put a lot of effort into devloping this article and it is progressing nicely. However, it faces some major future challenges:

• The main challenge is re-writing the article so that it's more than just copy-and-pastes from other RAN-related articles. At present the article is less than the sum of its parts as these disparate articles often don't sit together well. Obvious examples of this are changes in tense between paras and the lack of introductory wording in some sections.
• The article needs to be expanded so that adequate coverage is provided to all the important aspects of the RAN's history. For example, there is currently no mention of the RAN's role in the Malayan Emergency and Indonesian Confrontation or its support to INTERFET in 1999 or the intervention into the Solomon Islands in 2003.
• The article also needs to discuss matters of naval policy. At present its coverage is restricted to discussions of the RAN's role in various wars and the ships it was equipped with. For this article to reach FA status it needs to explain the political and military considerations behind the RAN's force structure and deployments over time. --Nick Dowling 11:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)