Wikipedia:Peer review/Aircraft carrier/archive1

Aircraft Carrier[edit]

I saw this article, and think it definitely has potential to become featured. It's well written and is already listed as a good article, but before I put it up for FAC I wanted to see if anyone has any suggestions. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 08:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the image copyright tags (WP:IMAGE)- Image:Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.jpg , ~~Image:HIJMS Taiho 02.jpg~~, Image:Buqueproyeccionestrategica.jpg, and Image:HIJMS Taiho 02.jpg have obsolete tags, Image:Viraat lengthy.jpg should be replaced by a free use image if possible, and since there are already more than enough images on this article, Image:HMS Hermes (R12) (Royal Navy aircraft carrier.jpg should probably be replaced also if possible.

Also, references should be cited properly (see WP:CITE and WP:CITE/ES). {{Cite web}} may come in useful here. More inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs) should be added to cite the facts and figures of this 38kb article- 3 is not sufficient. Ideally, there should be at least 1 per section.

Please also expand the lead to a couple of paragraphs- see WP:LEAD. AndyZ _t 17:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have started work, but thats a lot to fix. Citing should be possible, but I have started on the Images. By the way, you mentioned the same image twice. Lead paragraph I'm drawing a blank with so far, references I can try to fix. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs -

19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops :). I think it was used twice, so I just put it down twice by an accident. AndyZ _t 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I must point out that there is no such thing as an insufficient notes/citations to article size-ratio. Please specify what you feel needs citation or footnoting and why. Most references tend to be entirely intuitive even if they're only inserted under "References" and without page references.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Flight deck configuration" section could use a better image associated with it. The current image shows a control tower but does not illustrate the take-off and landing area or the layout/orientation of the flight deck. Try to get at least one references in every sub-section within the "Future aircraft carriers" section. The "See also" shouldn't repeat wikilinks that are already in the body, so VSTOL, etc. can be removed. The organization of the article can be improved (always be considering and re-considering the organization). The article begins and ends logically with layout/purpose and the future of aircraft carriers but I don't see a logical flow or pattern to the middle sections. The middle sections (from "Common types" to "U.S. Carrier Operations in Southeast Asia") seem to be telling a history but are not organized as such. The sub-heading "Modern carriers" could be removed (I don't see why that section is separated from the section above it). --maclean25 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction should include some history; although WWII is mentioned, the intro should state something like "First conceived of by XX, aircraft carriers were first built in 19XX as experimental prototypes. The first combat-ready aircraft carriers went into service in 19XX and by WWII they were a major focus of naval warfare." Currently, the intro gives little historical overview/context. Kaisershatner 14:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None too shabby at a first glance. The only concern I have right now is the tendency for rather over-specific sub-sections. "Future aircraft carriers" could probably be joined into just one big section and one section per national carrier fleet should really be avoided. "UN Carrier Operations in the Korean War" and "U.S. Carrier Operations in Southeast Asia" seem rather out of place. They belong under "History" one way or the other. / Peter ^Isotalo 07:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]