Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/United States Navy

United States Navy

This is a former fac, having failed due to various reasons, but mostly because of writing style. I have gone through and done as thorough a copyedit as I can and would like to get some more feedback and suggestions. I think it is very close to being fa quality.Arcimpulse 05:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

ERcheck

A lot of good work has gone into the article. At first read, I find a few items that could be improved:

• In the lead paragraphs, provide specific citations for the following:

1. "the right 'to provide and maintain a navy.'"
2. "enacted this right in 1794"
3. "Its ability to project force is considered a key asset for the U.S. military." (Who considers it a key asset?)

• The Relationship with USMC section could use some copy edit.

1. The first paragraph does not flow smoothly — a listing of areas of relationship, but the lead sentence and the rest of the paragraph do not tie together.
2. The Medal of Honor and the U.S. Naval Academy are given as examples. How about the Blue Angels?

• The References and External links sections should be use consistent and standard formatting. (See Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style)

— ERcheck (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Not bad at all. One point that might come up, though, is the overwhelming prevalence of official Navy resources in the references, and the lack of books and other dead-tree works. Are there any good books on the topic that could get some citations pulled from them? Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure there are; I'll check out my local library and try to dig some up.Arcimpulse 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic

This is a very good but a very long article also! I think some of the sections at the end will have to be grouped together - and obviously shortened - into some larger section about additional information on the US Navy. Beyond that, Kirill makes a good point with the books. All the references are internet sites, and while that may be acceptable since they seem to be prestigious and reputable, it would add a greater touch of professionalism and sincerity if this article had two or three books as references. Also, there are currently about 40 some footnotes, which is a bit low for an article this size. Try to get some more like on the following:

-"On May 31, 2002, Secretary of the Navy Gordon England directed all U.S. naval ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism."

-"It includes traditional sailing terms, archaic English words, and a plethora of acronyms, joke phrases, crude expressions, and abbreviations that have been created within the past hundred years." Give an example too.

"Historically, the United States Navy has enjoyed a unique relationship with the United States Marine Corps (USMC), partly because they both specialize in seaborne operations."

-It may not also be a bad idea to source all the numbers given for the different amount of ships in the navy.

Overall, good job though.UberCryxic 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)