Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Barbarossa class ocean liner

Barbarossa-class ocean liner

This is the first ship class article I have written and would like to see what areas need work, like what is missing, not covered in enough detail, etc. Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad101

My POV for what its worth is that you have a solid B class article that I believe would pass a GA. What are the prospects for expansion? I think the subject has been covered well enough for a class article and further information could be found in the individual ship articles. The only negative I could find was the table of ships is pushing to the right of my screen requiring that I scroll to read the complete table. Of course this just could be my screen settings. --Brad (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is wide. Is all the information in the table really necessary, do you think? Or is table form (since there are only ten ships) even really the way to go? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table form is better than a numerical or bullet listing. If you eliminate one or two columns from the table it will stop the scrolling. Columns most likely expendable are Dimensions and Later Names. --Brad (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the dimensions per your suggestion (and the one below). How does it look? — Bellhalla (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great now. I also adjusted the infobox to meet the count stated in the lead of the article. --Brad (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marathi_mulgaa

Good article. To your question on the need for all the data in the columns, I think this could be useful data. I'd only question the need for the tonnage and the dimensions, since all of them seem pretty close to each other (since all the ships were of the same class). Brad's probably looking at the table on an 800x600 screen res. It looks fine as-is on my screen. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was unusual that all of the ships, even thought the same class varied so much, which is why I included the dimensions. They do seem to take up a lot of room and don't really add a lot. I'll take them out and see if that still looks alright. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101

A very nice little article which I too think should make GA without too many problems. I recommend expanding the lead to include some of the notable aspects of the ships' careers, but I think the information in the tables is relevant and interesting and should be kept if possible.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the lead a bit sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen

The article looks fine for GA except that the lead needs to be longer. For FA, the whole article might want to go into more detail if possible. Also, I am not sure, if it is compulsory, put multiple pages or page ranges usually use "pp." whereas you have used only single p for single and multiple pages. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borg Sphere

It's correct that the multiple pages need to be pp.
Otherwise it looks good except for the lead. I would suggest rewriting and expanding the lead to be a more general overview, and then making another section that has the statistics, such as propulsion, etc. that you have in the lead, and also have more statistics there. You might be able to put the tonnage in this section, should you decide to create it, and take it out of the table.
Overall it's a very good B-class and could probably make a GA. Borg Sphere (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]