Skip to current requests for peer review

WikiProject Video games
Main page talk   Talk page archive talk
Manual of style Article guidelines talk   Naming convention talk Templates talk Sources talk
Departments Assessment talk   Requests talk   Archive talk   Bot log talk Peer review talk   Archive talk Collaboration talk   History talk Reference library talk   Print archive talk Newsletter talk   Current issue Draft Video game images talk
Articles Article alerts talk Pages for deletion talk New pages talk Article requests talk Essential articles talk Featured articles talk Good articles talk
Task forces Arcade talk Atari talk Atlus talk BioWare talk Castlevania talk Command & Conquer talk Destroy All Humans! talk Devil May Cry talk Dragon Quest talk Dungeons & Dragons talk The Elder Scrolls talk Gears of War talk Grand Theft Auto talk id Software talk Mega Man talk Mortal Kombat talk MU* talk Nintendo talk Pro gaming talk Sega talk Silent Hill talk The Sims talk Soul talk StarCraft talk Suikoden talk Valve talk Visual novels talk Warcraft talk
WikiProject Portal talk Project category talk Project cleanup talk Popular pages talk Traffic statistics talk Article statistics talk Project members talk Wikipedia 0.7 workshop talk
view • talk • edit • changes

Shortcut: WP:VGPR The Peer review process for WikiProject Video games exposes video-game-related articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the "Everyday life" section of the Peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. The revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For video-game-related editing advice, see the article guidelines of the VG WikiProject. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing can be directed to the Cleanup department of the WikiProject.

Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. To add a nomination: Add the parameter peer=yes to the {{WikiProject Video games}} template (or a redirect, such as {{Vgproj}}) on the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Within the notice, click on the bold link that appears to open a page to discuss the review of your article. Place ===[[ARTICLE NAME]]=== at the top. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~). Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Place {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page. List the request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/to do, so that it shows up on {{WikiProject Video games}}. WikiProject Video games is currently in a trial period of a peer review cross-listing partnership with WikiProject Military history, to improve the quality of reviews. To invite MILHIST participation in a VG peer review, please post the following boilerplate at WT:MILHIST: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Partner peer review notice|Name of article|Raw link to review|Video games}} ~~~~ Consult the volunteers list for assistance if desired. How to respond to a request Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title. Feel free to correct the article yourself. How to remove a request You may remove to the VG Peer review archive any inactive listings or listings older than one month, inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments) articles that have become featured article candidates After removing the listing, replace peer=yes with old-peer=yes in the {{WikiProject Video games}} template on the article's talk page. If the talk page uses {{ArticleHistory}}, it is preferred to note the review there and not use the old-peer=yes parameter. How to resubmit a request If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for peer review at a later time: Move the old peer review page to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]] or the next open archive Edit [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME]], removing the redirect, and leaving [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]] as a link to the archived discussion. Update the article talk page and the peer review archive to reflect the new link to the archived peer review Place {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees below.

Contents 1 Requests 1.1 Crash Nitro Kart 1.2 Halo: Reach 1.3 Zeno Clash 1.4 Pong Toss! Frat Party Games 1.4.1 Comments from Guyinblack25 2 Wikipedia:Peer review articles 2.1 The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay 2.2 Guitar Hero: Van Halen 3 WikiProject Military history articles 3.1 Inner German border 3.1.1 Jayen466 3.1.2 Auntieruth 3.1.3 Shimgray 3.1.4 Laurinavicius 3.2 Pearl Corkhill 3.2.1 Abraham, B.S. 3.2.2 Jinnai 3.2.3 Ian Rose 3.3 List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS 3.3.1 Auntieruth55 3.4 Collins class submarine 3.4.1 MBK004 3.4.2 Nick-D 4 Archives

[edit] Requests

[edit] Crash Nitro Kart

I've done a lot of tinkering with this article and I have to say that the article's come a long way since about two years ago. I'm working towards getting the page to Good Article status and I believe it is coming close to that point. I just need some more experienced editors to look over the current article, cite out what could be improved and judge whether or not it is worthy of being a Good Article candidate. Thank you for your time. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Quick comments:
  • File:CNKGameplay.jpg needs to be shrunk in resolution to meet WP:NFCC (I suggest under .1 megapixels.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the pic. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Halo: Reach

As part of featured topic retention this article needs to be vetted. I know there's not much to dissect, but any suggestions are appreciated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Fall 2010" may be too ambiguous without a location. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• I noticed that the infobox said September 2010, but the source lists only Fall 2010. I updated it. Other than that it looks as good as it can considering what little info we know. --Teancum (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Zeno Clash

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I just went through it and revamped/expanded quite a bit, from 8k this morning to 18k. Added a whole bunch of sources too. This is my first extensive article rewrite, and would like input from fellow WPVG members. BlazerKnight (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is very good. Raise to B class anyone? If anybody thinks I'm being too generous, say so, and I'll take another look at it when I'm more awake and not in agony, but I think this is in far better condition than it was and definitely not Start-class anymore. BlazerKnight, would you like me to try and find the PC Gamer UK review? I think they gave it a delicious beating. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The PC Gamer UK review would be excellent. BlazerKnight (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look for it, but I may not get around to it today. I was planning on a Mass Effect marathon. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Added an assessment to the article's Talk page. Right now it's C-Class, but very close to B. It's also got a lot of potential for GA. --Teancum (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done most of those for you. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

As requested. Keep in mind that I'm judging the article by FA standard, so if I come off as unnecessarily harsh or blunt, sorry. I just figure it's best to aim for FA quality, then you won't have to worry about difficulties at WP:GAN and always can go for the shiny star :)

• Images
  • Images are now required to have alt text for disabled users with screen readers. Read WP:ALT for a primer.
    • Ha, I anticipated this! *cough* They do have alt text, hopefully those are sufficient.
  • Sweet, free images! w00t! The non-free one, File:Zeno Clash.jpg, could use a more thorough non-free rationale, however. File:Halo 3 ODST Box Art.png isn't bad, although it should explain why there are no free alternatives (such as the developers/publishers haven't released any similar images into public domain.)
• Lead
  • I'm not a fan of how the lead is currently structured. Generally video game articles start by explaining what the game is, who developed/published it, release dates and details, and then the basic overview of the plot, if important. As it stands, "It uses Valve Corporation's Source engine." is simply not important enough to be the second sentence of the lead.
  • Per WP:LEADCITE, I think the quotes and specific figures could be removed, along with the specific figures. Basically, for such a short article, you only need two paragraphs for the lead, and summarizing its reception and awards is the way to go here.
  • Along those lines, more about the actual development of the game would be good to add to the lead, and removing details about release would also be a sound plan.
• Gameplay
  • As part of a general problem of video game articles, it presumes too much familiarity with A) video games and B) the video game in question. First off, you should start by restating what kind of game it is with greater elaboration. Secondly, there are a lot of terms not explained until the plot, so either put to the plot before the gameplay, or work in the relevant details.
  • What is the goal of the game? How does the game share aspects with other genres? These things are what we need to know!
• Plot
  • "Regardless, when he encounters them a fight ensues" Huh? You've spent the last couple of sentences saying how they still consider him one of them, and he respects them. Why would they fight?
    • It's his brothers and sisters who still consider him one of them. Plus, the Corwids are insane, and often fight each other for random reasons. Maybe it should be rephrased for clarity.
  • I think the plot could be slimmed down a bit; things like the Hunter are really just game play padding and don't affect the main story, and can be safely cut, for instance.
• Development
  • "they have been developing game mods since the 1990s" not everyone knows what a mod is.
    • Is linking Mod (computer gaming) sufficient or should I add a rudimentary definition?
  • "While Zeno Clash is ACE Team's first original game" tense issues. Since the game's released, historical details should be phrased as past tense.
  • "Zeno Clash was initially conceived as a total conversion modification using the Source engine. After showing a demo version to Valve, " What the Source engine is, and that Valve is Source's developer, needs to be mentioned. Remember, the lead summarizes what is in the article body.
  • "Regarding the unique and widely praised art style" that sounds like fluff and NPOV, especially since we haven't gotten to any support for the art accolades.
  • I think the post-release section can just be renamed "Release", as per video game and also film articles it covers such developments anyhow.
• Reception
  • This is the section that I think could use the most work. First off, it should have more critical opinions than just four reviews. Since many listed at Metacritic are magazines, I suggest going through the video games reference library and seeing if any users have the print copies of these reviews.
  • Depending on how much reception there is, such sections in FA video game articles take one of two forms: the first, dividing the section into positive and negative reviews, and commenting on aspects in each, or if there's more reviews to go with, breaking the game down into sections and discussing each part separately. Example of the first method: Myst III: Exile. Example of the second method: Halo Wars.
• General
  • As said earlier, a greater focus on accessibility is needed. Make the plot intro in the lead more clear for those who have never played the game. Get someone who hasn't played the game (and hopefully isn't a video game nerd) to read the article and show you where they get confused.
  • Referencing is an issue. For example the entire second paragraph of gameplay is sourced to [1], but nowhere in the citation does it provide support for at least this part of the paragraph: "The story is revealed through character dialogue and cutscenes, and is completely linear." See WP:V and WP:OR so you know when and what to cite, and how to cite clearly.
  • A comment on references: WP:WIAFA requires "high quality" reliable sources; in other words the best sources available. I can tell you right know which sources would fall under scrutiny: http://www.zillionmonkey.com, http://www.playhard.ru/, http://www.torrentfreak.com/, and http://www.kotaku.com/. Kotaku can generally be resolved by making sure the author meets WP:SPS. See WP:VG/S for more tips and a partial listing of "good" sites.
    • The ZillionMonkey and PlayHard sources are interviews with the developers, making them a sort of primary source, can they still be used? Also, about the Kotaku thing, are you saying some of the authors are considered experts while others are not? Have Wikipedians already determined which meet WP:SPS, or do I have to figure it out myself?

Hope these comments are helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied to some of the points. Don't have time now, so I will improve the article at a later date. Thanks again for such a thorough review. BlazerKnight (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pong Toss! Frat Party Games

Did some work and fixed some problems found in the last peer review, though gameplay will always be a problem as I don't actually own the game (so if anyone of you owns the game, please give some help!). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully being helpful this time, maybe a screenshot of the game should be added. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I dunno; I kinda like this. As it stands, I'm not sure the article requires any fair use images, as the images it has demonstrates the subject adequately. This way, I don't have to worry at all about fair use images. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but what about people who never played this game? Maybe they want to see a picture of it. GamerPro64 (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but with a free use image to demonstrate gameplay, the appearance of the game may not be enough to sustain a fair use image. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Guyinblack25

Interesting article. Surprised a little WiiWare game stirred up so much content. Here are the issues that stood out to me.

The lead

• I think some release years would be helpful for the lead.
  "It was first released in North America in 2008, and was later released in Europe the following year."
• Trim and condense. The Speed Pong part is more detail than is needed for the lead.
  "Players can either choose to playengage in the Pong Toss mode, the standard mode of play, orand the Speed Pong mode, which encourages playersallows them to strategically use power-ups to negatively effect their opponents in order to sink their ping pong ball first."
• I think these two sentences can be joined to improve flow.
  "Each mode has its own top five score list. Up, with up to four players may play either mode togetherable to participate."
  • Not crazy about the suggested wording I gave, but I think you get the idea.
• I think a word is missing.
  "Pong Toss received a very negative reception..."
  • Also, this sentence repeated in the reception. I would change one for variance.
• I think there's too much detail about what specific people said about the game. I would summarize the comments: Common criticism focused on the game's premise, graphics, and control scheme.
• There's nothing about the development of the game. There are some good bits in the first two paragraphs of "Development". Go ahead and add them in.

Gameplay

• Don't think adding an extra word for context would hurt. Your call.
  "...use the Wii Remote to throw a virtual ping pong ball across..."
• I agree with GamerPro about a screenshot image in this section. Does the game use 3D or 2D graphics? Are the graphics realistic or cartoony? What perspective do you play it from: first person or side view? Some of this can be added to "Gameplay", but a picture would really help. We can worry about shifting images later around to make it all fit in nicely.
• The bit about the JV Games adding speed pong should probably go to the "Development" section.
• Combine the two sentences to improve flow.
  "Players can select from one of three environments to play in, with a choice of different tables. Players, and can also create acustomize their player character to play as."

Unfortunately, it's late and I'll have to finish up another time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 07:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Comment was removing the image in the infobox a good idea. While true it "does nothing to demonstrate the subject matter." it does make a significant contribution to user that this article is about a WiiWare game much as a cover would indicate for a video game or a logo for a piece of software. Keeping it there would prove no problems at a good article or featured article nomination. Salavat (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: It seems the removal of the image maybe was done more to work out positioning on the image below the infobox and it that case maybe a logo should be considered if the cover doesnt work well. Salavat (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review articles

The following video-game-related articles are transcluded here from standard peer review.

[edit] The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because of a recommendation from JimmyBlackwing, the copyeditor of the article. So with some help with fellow editors, I could get Escape from Butcher Bay to FA status. Thanks, GamerPro64 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• General
  • There are some dabs you need to address.

Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The alt text could use some work; there's spelling errors, issues with tone (contractions) and some very awkward wording (blood spatter over the hands doesn't translate to "blood spatter on walls", for instance.) File:CREBBRiddick.jpg is missing Alt text, however I'm going to suggest that it be removed for better compliance with WP:NFCC. If you're going to justify keeping it, it needs a much better FUR (and probably a better and larger image is necessary; you can barely see what's going on in the image, and you can push the size without going over .1 megapixels.)

  I need a second opnion on removing the picture. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I say remove it. A free picture of Vin Diesel could easily be placed in Development; combined with the box shot, I'd say it's good enough to get Riddick's appearance across to readers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  O.K, I removed the picture. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  I think I fixed tthe alt text in the pictures. Also, Jimmy, I tried getting a picture of Vin Diesel on the article but I have trouble with having alt text on it. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  If you show me which picture you're using (there's two in his article), I can help write the alt text. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  Well, the one that I like more on the article is File:VinDieselMarch09.jpg. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  I added the picture tot the article and added the ALT text Jimmy gave me. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Prose
  • "The designers of Escape from Butcher Bay sought to avoid making the game a "see-the-movie-play-the-movie" experience, in contrast to other film tie-in games." First off, quotes in the lead have to be sourced (WP:LEADCITE); secondly, this quote does jack for my understanding. "Play the movie?" I'm assuming it means it's not a fully interactive game experience, but it's better to explicitly state what they are talking about.
    • I reworded it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • It's fine in the lead now but it's still a tad unclear in the body. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Now fixed, I think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I probably sound like a broken record in these video game peer reviews, but... accessibility, accessibility, accessibility! I think wiki-editors have been spoiled by internal linking, so that they don't explain terms in the text. If you don't give at least a one-bit description, readers have to click away from the article... and it's doubtful they may come back. "In Escape from Butcher Bay, the player takes the role of Richard B. Riddick and attempts to escape from a prison called Butcher Bay.[1] " Who is Riddick, besides the protagonist? "Unlike many first-person shooters, the game contains no heads-up display"... what's a heads-up display (especially considering it's really nothing more than a butchering of head-up display, people might be confused.)
  • There's a lot of weaselly, passive voice throughout the article, that leads to repetitious and uninteresting prose. "The player may interact with the prison's residents,[9] from whom quests may be received; the player earns information, tools and other rewards by completing quests.[10] Violent conflict often occurs between the player, inmates and prison guards.[1][9] The player may attack with Riddick's bare hands, or with improvised weapons such as shivs and clubs. Punches can be strung together to create combos."
    • Quests are only sometimes received from inmates. Most of the time, it's just idle talk. Also, talking to inmates is usually an option, not a requirement. Rewording it to active voice removes the intended meaning. I'll have to fix the other one; "the player attacks" should be fine. I don't see how any of it is "weaselly", though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • My concern is that the sentences are all structured the same and sound repetitive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I've been working on the prose for awhile, so I can't tell what you mean; I'm too close to the wording. Could you point out a few more specific examples? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I switched a few sentences, where appropriate, to active voice. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "With Johns' help, Riddick eludes the guards and tricks them into killing the warden. The two then steal a ship and escape the prison." Wait, what? Why would the bounty hunter help Riddick?
    • This is more of an issue with content than prose. As I remember it: throughout the game, Johns gets screwed over by the prison officials; he eventually gets fed up and helps Riddick escape. It doesn't make sense here because that subplot isn't mentioned. GamerPro: is it possible to add it in? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't have a reference, I, more or less, added the text to the sentence. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More comments when possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• • "tarbreeze intended the game to feature more role-playing elements, but they were removed due to feedback from Diesel and game testers. Starbreeze senior producer Peter Wanat referred to the game's role-playing elements as "RPG-lite", and said, "We tried to limit the number of really hard or really intricate RPG elements, and that was a choice because we wanted the game to be playable."" Lots of repetition of elements... maybe something like "components" or another synonym to mix it up?
    • I decided that the "RPG-lite" comment was covered by the full quote, so I axed it. And I changed the word's first appearance to "systems". The repetition should be gone, now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I see that they produced a developer commentary for the directors cut of the game. Methinks that might add to the comprehensiveness of the development section, no?
  • Pet peeve for reception sections; it's generally best to list critics, not just publications, ex. "Douglass Perry of IGN" or similar. While they are representing their publication, it's still one critic's view (it also helps avoid confusion if you're reviewing different versions of the same title.) Speaking of which, are there a couple of reviews of the directors' edition that could be included?

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done with adding names of reviewers. I will now look for quotes from the director's edition. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• When I have time I'll check my LexisNexis/Proquest subscriptions to look for more critical commentary and coverage from print publications. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar Hero: Van Halen

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

Looking to get a peer review, as this is a strange release: the commercial product is not available until Dec but promotional copies with GH5 were sent out already, so there's some reception, but not a complete one.

Thanks, MASEM (t) 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but needs more work to make it accessible to readers who know nothing of these games. Here are a few suggestions.

• The image needs alt text. WP:ALT has details.

Lead

• The current lead says nothing about critical reception. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections.
• "The game content was developed by Underground Development, with the primary engine code developed by Neversoft and Budcat Creations. The game is published by Activision Blizzard." - Active voice is usually more crisp than passive. These two sentences would be easy to flip to active, thus: "Underground Development produced the game content, while Neversoft and Budcat Creations developed the primary engine code. Activision Blizzard published the game."

Gameplay

• I think more background information that explained the nature of the game, how it is played, and its relationship to the songs would be helpful. How does someone win? Can one person play the game, or is it a multiple-player game? What are the songs for besides listening?
• "The game does not feature the additions that are present in Guitar Hero 5, such as drop-in/drop-out play" - Should "drop-in/drop-out" be explained or linked?
• "are playable avatars in the game for the Van Halen songs" - Wikilink avatar?
• "The band is represented by their current looks... " - "The band members are represented by their current looks... " to avoid "band ... their"?
• "these outfits are also included for Wolfgang Van Halen" - Maybe "an older outfit"? His age wouldn't affect his current outfit.
• The "citation needed" tag should be addressed.
• "notes that the lack of such material was not due to any demands or requests made by David Lee Roth... " - Just plain "Roth" will do since his full name appears just before this sentence.

Reception

• "Early reviews of the promotional version of the game received as part of the Guitar Hero 5 before its retail launch were negative of the game." - Tighten by deleting "of the game"?
• "IGN's Eric Brudvig rated the game a 4.9/10, citing problems with the lack of relevance of Van Halen relative to the culture of the 2000s, including having their avatars based on their older appearance rather than of that during the 80s, the lack of songs from Sammy Hagar's period in the band, and the lack of features since introduced with Guitar Hero 5, and ultimately saying those that got the game free through the promotion "got what they paid for". - Too complex. Split into two complete sentences.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history articles

The following military history articles are transcluded here from the Military history project's peer reviews. Such reviews are cross listed between the two projects to obtain the outside view of a military history layman. Video game project members are encouraged to provide comments on grammar, sources, content, etc.

To invite MILHIST participation in a VG peer review, please post the following boilerplate at WT:MILHIST: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Partner peer review notice|Name of article|Raw link to review|Video games}} ~~~~

[edit] Inner German border

Over the last few months I've been carrying out a sort of one-man Wikiproject on the end of the Cold War - next month is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening of the border between the two Germanies. As well as carrying out a great deal of research, I went to Germany and cycled nearly the full length of the former border, taking a large number of photographs and doing a lot of on-the-ground research over the course of several weeks. I've rewritten and greatly expanded the inner German border article and will be creating and expanding various other related articles in the coming weeks. I'm aiming to get the article up to Featured Article standard, but as a first step I'd appreciate it if it could be peer reviewed and reassessed. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jayen466

• Comment As I said on the talk page, it looks outstanding. I've fixed what disambig links there were, and inserted non-breaking spaces after numbers in dates etc. throughout (except in citation templates). I'll do some work on the alt texts as well.
• As far as I am concerned, this looks pretty much like FA quality right now – you've done an amazing amount of research – and it would be cool to have this on the main page on November 9, marking 20 years since the Berlin Wall fell.
• Queries:
  1. We say that the "death strip" was informally known as "Pieck Strasse". It's sourced to Rottman p. 17, but I am perturbed by the fact that I can't find a single reference to that being the control strip's nickname elsewhere. Could you double-check? --JN466 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

     It's referred to as "Pieck-Allee" by some other sources. Shears calls it by that name in his book (p. 71) and it's also mentioned on p. 178 of Wilfred Ahrens, Hilferufe von drüben: die DDR vertreibt ihre Kinder: authentische Berichte. "Straße" might be an equivalent alternative name or a mistake by Rottman; it's hard to say. But it's clear that it was nicknamed "Pieck-something", whether "Straße" or "Allee". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

     It seems to have been "Allee":

     • http://books.google.co.uk/books?lr=&id=Kz9aAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Pieck-Allee%22+ddr&q=pieck-allee#search_anchor (Ahrens, as you say ...)
     • http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_1384-544-1-30.pdf
     • http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_5916-544-1-30.pdf

     GDR humour had a certain something ... --JN466 23:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

     just GDR humor? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

     Adversity gave it a particular edge (although Berlin humour in particular always had that edge). An "Allee" in German is a tree-lined avenue, so it really fits well. --JN466 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

     OK, I'll change it to match those sources. (If you're after GDR jokes try the following: two Stasi agents are talking one day. One of them asks the other, "What are you thinking?" The other replies, "Oh, same as you." The first retorts: "Then you are under arrest!") -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

      :) I note we have an article on this: East German jokes. Many of them lose something in translation though ... --JN466 14:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

     I also read somewhere that EG was called the "Banana-less Republic" a spoof on the Banana Republic idea. I'll try to find that source, but you might keep your eyes open for it too. Perhaps in Harsch, I might find it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

     in his introduction to Banana cultures: agriculture, consumption, and environmental change in Honduras and the United States (2005). By John Soluri. He refers to it in the intro, linking places of production and consumption. Basically, his point is that Bananas are a "staple" only in a consumer-oriented society; furthermore, the consumption of bananas (the ability to transport, buy, etc.) weighs heavily on the backs of laborers in the third world economies, the quintessential exploited proletariat. Probably you'd need to cite pp 1-18. University of Texas Press. ISBN: 978-0-292-71256-0 Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

     I've seen that too. It's referred to on page 5 of John Rodden, Repainting the little red schoolhouse: a history of Eastern German education: "Jubilant East Germans sported bumper stickers featuring two bananas forming the letter "D" (for Deutschland) or hung Dollar Bananas on the windshields of their little two-cylinder Trabant cars, under the words: "German Banana Republic, R.I.P."" Apparently even now east(ern) Germans eat 20% more bananas than their western counterparts. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  2. I've done all (or at least most) of the n-dashes, but we still have some non-compliance with the WP:HYPHEN section of WP:MOS. For example, "a 500 metres (1,600 ft) wide strip" should be "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) strip" or "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) -wide strip" according to WP:HYPHEN. Where the convert template is used, the hyphen can be added by using the adj=on parameter. Personally, I find "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) -long strip" well-nigh intolerable; suggest we use "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) strip" instead (i.e. convert template with adj=on, and dropping the word "wide"). What should we do in cases where we give both height and width and "high" and "wide" can't simply be dropped? --JN466 01:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

     J, slow down! You'll soon have as many edits as Chris. Let him do the hyphens and such. He's an experienced editor. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

     Just to let you guys know, I just knocked off nearly a hundred n-dashes in compliance with WP:HYPHEN and with the advice of Cameltrader's Advisor (which greatly speeds up the repetitive task of combing over the article's dashes to see that they comply with WP:HYPHEN). Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

     Ruth is right, Chris. You've produced 25,000 words of prose with (apparently) just a few dozen edits in the page history, and I've produced a few dozen dashes and non-breaking spaces with almost as many edits. It won't look right if I end up having more edits than you, without having contributed any substance to the article, so I'll slow down a bit. --JN466 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

     Appearances are deceptive! I wrote most of it offline and much of it on the ground in the course of visiting the places described in the article. I don't mind in the least if you continue fixing technical issues. In fact, I'd be very grateful if you could continue (as fast as you like!) as it frees me up to resolve the more substantive content issues that have been raised. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

     Sounds like a fun holiday!! (Okay then, but I'll avoid making lots of small edits.) --JN466 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  3. There are two works by Childs cited. References such as "Childs, p. 30" are therefore ambiguous. It would probably make sense to include both works in the References section. --JN466 14:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

     Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

     Resolved, hopefully. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  4. The slogan Wir steht hier! said to have been used by protesters can't be right. Please check the source. --JN466 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

     An IP has changed this now to Wir bleiben hier, and that seems to be how it was phrased at the time: [2]. Looks okay. --JN466 18:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  5. A few references are hyperlinked, e.g. <ref>[[#Jarausch|Jarausch]] ... or <ref>[[#Cramer|Cramer]] ... but most are not. Reviewers at FAC are likely to ask for one consistent style. --JN466 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  6. Is the Herleshausen image dated correctly? It looks as though one could just drive through; that would not have been possible in 1985. JN466 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

     There were two sets of border facilities at each crossing point, one on the east side and one on the west side. What you're looking at in that image is the West German border facility. The view is looking west into West Germany - the vantage point is just to the western side of the border. The East German border facility point is further east, behind the vantage point (note that the border line isn't visible). You can see here where the West German border facility (now demolished, of course) once stood. I'll tweak the caption to make this clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

     Sounds good. --JN466 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  7. The Inner_German_border#Watchtowers_and_bunkers section has a few unsourced paragraphs (the first two, and also some of the detailed measurements and other info on the various types of tower). When you go to FAC, people may want you to add sources; it's probably best to add them now.

     Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  8. The Inner_German_border#The_fall_of_the_border section is also very thin on references, especially the first half. Much of it is arguably common knowledge, but reviewers might want a ref for things like East Germans not being allowed to travel to Poland.

     Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  9. Otherwise, I'd encourage you to take the article to FAC now; you seem to have done all the remaining alt texts, and the last tweaks if any were needed can still be worked out while it's sitting at FAC. Good luck. JN466 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

     I'll fix as many of those remaining issues as I can and take it to FAC in a couple of hours' time, hopefully. Thanks very much for all your help - it's been invaluable. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) the FA folks will quibble over the use of "the" and similar types of words in the headings. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll fix that. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Auntieruth

This is a fantastic article. I've was impressed when I read it for assessment at the WP Germany, and am still favorably impressed with it now. It's undergone some tweaking, and its in better wiki-shape. I will be very pleased to support it for featured article as well. As far as the prose goes, it's in great shape. Your sources are sufficient, maybe a bit heavy on the East German perspective in some areas, but balanced with the Wessie/Weissie perspective in others. Good Job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shimgray

I'm impressed by this article, I have to say! Long and comprehensive and interesting.

One issue that leaps out at me - there's a lot of East German government-produced images here. One or two (eg/ the film screenshot showing the DDR's view of the border) are tagged as non-free, but almost all of them are tagged as PD-GermanGov on Commons. This template says:

"This image is in the public domain according to German copyright law because it is part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German federal or state authority or court (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG)."

As far as I can tell, though, this seems to be a fairly restricted provision applying to certain specified sets of official documents - laws, rulings, etc - rather than a general government-works-are-free. Do these images really qualify? Even if they do, that law may still be problematic - s.5 refers to the "Änderungsverbot" of s.62, which seems to prohibit making derivatives (but this may be a translation error). Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The images were produced by the Stasi and are from the BtSU, the German government agency responsible for managing the Stasi's files. They were published in a series of museum exhibits and handouts as well as being available directly from the BtSU. If they don't fall under PD-GermanGov, perhaps they can be used as fair use? If someone with more experience of German government copyrights could comment, that would be very helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Laurinavicius

To put it simply, this article is suberb! There are no glaring problems and the biggest issue I've seen was the minor detail of n-dashes, which has been fixed. I have no qualms about this article and would be glad to support it for featured article status. Great job! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl Corkhill

Just classed at B following expansion, was hoping for some tips on how to get to GA level. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham, B.S.

Looks pretty good so far. Just a few general comments for the moment, though:

• I would wikilink National Library of Australia in the lead.
• Endashes are required in all date ranges in the article, and page ranges in citations.
• The access dates in citations are inconsistent, with some capitalised and others not. I think this is due to differing cite templates. In order to remedy this, I would recommend the use of Template:Cite web for internet sources (stick with the London Gazette temp for that though), and Template:Cite book for book sources listed in "References" section. Also, it is best that the place of publishment be added to the book sources.
• If you are aiming to progress further up the quality scale with the article, then I would recommend you add alt text to the images.
• Although I don't think it is a requirement, it is preferred that consecutive cites go in numerical order. For instance: "She was discharged on 22 June 1919.[3][2]". In this case, it is preferred that the [2] goes before the [3].

This is all for the moment, but hopefully I will be back soon to go through the prose. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jinnai

Good start, but there are some problems.

• Early life and Later life sections and Later service subsection need to be either expanded or merged, especially the former. Short sections, especially the Early life, won't be able to stand on their own for higher quality articles.
  • Personally as the article stands you could do this is just 2 sections - Military life with a subsection on her award and non-military life. There is not enough info for either early or late life to stand on their own.
    • I disagree. Although there is only a limited amount of information in two of the sections, the article flows logically and has a sophisticated structure. If these were to be cut out, I believe the structure would be rather confusing and poorly presented. Just my thoughts, and it is up to Backslash Forwardslash. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sure trying to scrape everything I can on the early life and later life sections, as without it the article would be incoherent. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I think s/he means the actual subheadings, rather than the information itself. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Don't remove the info. However it should be structured better.陣内_Jinnai 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Are any of the other 6 women known? They should be linked to or put in a footnote after the note about them if you have the information.
• add {{persondata}} to the article
• The article needs to conform with WP:DATE. Stuff like 1st of September should be redone to formatting for the rest of the article.陣内_Jinnai 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find any "st of" in the article. Where did you see it? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I found two, but one was a quote. Fixed the other, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks like it was fixed.陣内_Jinnai 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Rose

Good to see such an article - well done. In addition to points raised above, my thoughts:

• The first thing needed for any future assessment was a copyedit to fix typos, improve phrasing and add some clarity, which I've had a go at.
• I find the level of detail a bit light for GA myself; although that assessment is designed for shorter articles, I myself wouldn't submit one of mine for GAR without a bit more meat on it. If you can't find any more sources, you could still exploit her ADB entry for further detail (e.g. early life, which would help negate Jinnai's concerns re. having a separate section for that) and perhaps some others.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS

Previous review

I am asking for a second review of the list. I now consider the article close to ready and thanks to Jim Sweeney the article may soon qualify for A-class and maybe even for FAC. My concern is the footnotes section which is quite lengthy. Please let me know where the article can be improved. I also would like to know how the alt= parameter of the images is to be handled. I assume this is required for every image but I see limited value when every image describes more or less the same thing. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Auntieruth55

wouldn't those pictures be more manageable in gallery format after the charts, or, even better, inserted into the chart, such as is done here? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I second Auntieruth's comment about a gallery after the appropriate table. That will reduce the amount of empty space. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

looks much better. It's still cumbersome, but at least manageable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you translating schwer verwundet=heavily wounded? If so, you have the proper grammar (heavily is constructed correctly, as is wounded), but the wrong adverb. We would say badly wounded (or seriously wounded), and I think (not certain) this is universal throughout the US/Commonwealth/Britain etc. Other various: tödlich verwundet=fatally wounded, gefährlich verletzt = seriously wounded or badly wounded.

severe is the better choice, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

another question: several of these men show up on more than one chart (i.e., Sepp Dietrich). Is it worth pulling the multiple lists out? Or is it possible to alphabetize the whole sheebang?

I realize it's been a HUGE job, and cudos for doing it. Just pondering manageability. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Some men show up in multiple sub-lists because of the nature of the Knight's Cross. The KC had 5 different grades, and recipients could receive a higher grade if they continued to distinguish themselves in combat. I tried explaining this in the lead section. I therefore feel that a list of Waffen-SS KC recipients should point this out. However I do see the point that this article has become somewhat of a monster. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Collins class submarine

This article recently underwent a major expansion in order to solve multiple issues; content was poorly organised, some sections were filled with peacock terms and/or copied directly from the source, and there were a lack of sources for large sections of the article.

With these problems (hopefully) solved, I would like to see the article make the run towards the higher ratings (A, GA, FA), and am requesting a peer review with the intention of bringing this to pass. I acknowledge that there are some areas already identified where the article needs improvement (i.e. some assorted citation/clarification tags in the text, and the poor state of the "Appearances in media and fiction" section), and assistance or suggestions to solve these and other problems with the article would be greatly appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: As it has been over a month since someone has commented on the article, should this peer review be closed? Any further suggestions or comments can always be made at the article's talk page. -- saberwyn 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MBK004

• For the "Appearances in media and fiction" section, that needs to follow WP:MILPOP explicitly, and integrate the operational aspects into the actual service history of the vessels instead of lumping them all together in a section that is a magnet for every insignificant appearance of the vessels.
• As for the rest of the article, when I get a chance I'll leave a more thorough review. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The content regarding the documentary and coffee table book is already replicated and integrated in the operational history section of Rankin, the relevent submarine. I'm not sure how major the "7 Wonders of the Australian Engineering World" appearance is... the claim was in the article when I started, and I have not yet found any sources independant of the work commenting on it. The fictional sub in "Y: The Last Man" is a major factor across multiple issues, with the submarine 'hosting' the main characters in their travels during volumes 6 and 7 of the 10-volume series, and one of the officers joining the main characters for the rest of the series. However, again, I haven't yet found reliable published commentary on this. The easiest solution would probably be to scrub the section entirely. -- saberwyn 01:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Update: I've scrubbed it. Let me know if you think anything should be put back in. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nick-D

Congratulations on your fantastic work expanding this article - it really is very impressive. My comments are

• The second sentence in the 3rd para of the lead is rather long and complex
  • Trimmed that sentance down a bit. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• The background section could include a description of how the RAN's views on submarines changed as a result of the emphatic success of the Oberon class (which were purchased mainly to be used to support ASW training but ended up being outstanding front line assets)
  • The article is fairly long and complex as it is, and I think this information would be more relevant in the article for the Oberon class or the RAN submarine service. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• You could expand upon the decision to build the boats in Australia; this was a very big decision for Cabinet to make given the poor state of the Australian shipbuilding industry at the time and several ministers later said that they didn't realise what they'd gotten the Government into.
  • Will get back to you on this one, need to find sources to back this up. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I read this in Yule and Woolner's book Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • There's a two-page history of Australian shipbuilding in the book, but I haven't yet found anything connecting the state of the industry to the decision (or the wisdom thereof) to build some or all of the boats down under. I'll keep digging, though. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Update: I can't find anything substantial on the decision beyond whats already in the article in Yule/Woolner or any of the other sources. If I come across anything in new sources in the future, I'll use it, but no guarantees on me being able to find anything. -- saberwyn 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• It's probably an over-statement to say that building the subs in Queensland would have been "political suicide for the project" - 'politically unacceptable' perhaps?
  • Toned down. "Politically unacceptable" sounds like it was a Canberra decision, not a company decision, so I've used "politically unwise". -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Am I right in thinking that the combat system which was eventually installed on the subs was the same as that used for the USN's Virginia class?
  • My understanding is that they were based on the same platform, with some modifications made to the combat system for each class covering features not required for the other class. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the cite clarifying this. -- saberwyn 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that the SH-2G Super Seasprite program/fiasco is a good comparison to draw on in a section which basically argues that cost increases weren't that bad - is there an average rate which can be used as a comparison instead? (the Seasprites are often considered the least successful recent Defence acquisition program, so just about everything is better then it was)
  • Seasprite was the example used in the source (which was written back when that acquisition was still kinda viable). No average rate was given, but your point is made. If I can find someting giving the average overrrun, I'll add it back in, but for now I've removed the comparison. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• The 'Sensors and systems' section should be converted to prose. The subs ESM system should also be identified as this is a key part of their capabilities.
  • The sensors and systems was left in list form to avoid a lot of single sentance-fragment paragraphs. The sources I've accessed so far have been fairly light on information about these systems (as opposed to simply "The Collins class is fited with:...") and as more I find more information I'll add it in and expand it to prose. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I've tried converting it to paragraphs. How does it look now? -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• The 'characteristics' section should mention that the boats' design includes the ability to land special forces teams and that Collins was specially fitted with large hatches to support their operations during her recent major refit (according to Jane's Fighting Ships). I think that some or all of the other boats will also be fitted with the larger hatches.
  • According to MILHIST Logisitcs, you have access to Jane's Fighting Ships. If you could add the information in with a specific cite, that would be brilliant. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll look it up next time I'm near a copy (which should be in the next week). There are also some mentions of this on the ASC website, but Jane's is obviously the better source. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Saberwyn, the 99-00 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships is on my shelf. Is that up to date enough for the question you want answered - not clear what exactly it is from this thread. Update: there's nothing in my edition about Special Forces hatches. Buckshot06(prof) 05:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I think that Collins was modified to better support SF in about 2005 Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• According to The Age, Waller was the boat which supported INTERFET in 1999
  • Thanks. Added. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• The 'operational history' section should mention that the boats are routinely deployed on operations in peacetime to keep an eye on Australia's neigbours
  • If I can find a source that makes this claim, I'll add it in. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll also try to find where I saw this. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • This press release states that the subs are "a surveillance and intelligence gathering-platform during peace time". Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I've drummed up a bit of content in the first paragraph of the "Operational History" ("The submarines' primary missions are..."). I didn't use the abovementioned source, but I've instead pulled a couple of facts from the 7:30 Report transcript you used to cite the special forces capability. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• The coverage of the poor working conditions on the submarines and what's being done about this should be expanded. The report on this released late last year is on the Defence website and got a lot of media attention. The report found that only SAS teams in Afghanistan had worse working conditions than submariners on an operational deployment!
  • Was this the Submarine Workforce Sustainability Review? I'll look for more sources covering this. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yep, that's the report. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Added a line to the relevant part of the "Ship's company" section re: lowest morale and job satisfaction in the RAN. I'll keep an eye out for some more content to bulk that up a bit. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Found some other sources that go into a little more detail than those previously used, so I've traded them in and bulked up the paragraph a little. -- saberwyn 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• The 'Public perception' section repeats quite a bit of material mentioned earlier in the article. The statements that the RAN was slow to realise that the Collins class required a high degree of support and development also seems a bit out of place here. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Any suggestions on what could be eliminated or moved elsewhere? -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The first para could be integrated with the 'development and design' section (as it seems to be about specialists' views and political maneuvering), the second para could be split between the 'development and design' and 'Problems during construction and trials' sections, the third para could be integrated with the 'Problems during construction and trials' section, the fourth seems to fit in with the 'McIntosh-Prescott Report and Fast Track program' sub-section and the final para with the 'Operational history' section. Those are just suggestions though. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I've removed the section and placed it at User:Saberwyn/Collins class#Public perception scrapyard. From there, I've merged some of the content back into the rest of the article, and eliminated some of the duplication, but I'm not sure how to work the rest in at the moment. -- saberwyn 06:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Update: I think I have most of it intefrated back in now. -- saberwyn 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

WikiProject Video games Peer review archive