Wikipedia:Peer review/RMS Titanic/archive1

RMS Titanic[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it up to the standard that such a well known topic needs and deserves to be. In my opinion there are sections and sub-sections of inadequate length that need to be condensed, expanded or removed entirely. I think as well that there is too much emphasis on intimate and trivial details. I think that the article ought to be more incisive but still very informative to the reader. I'd just like your opinions for how I should go about doing that.

Also, I'm not just going to blank the page and do a complete rewrite or not consult anybody because that would be idiotic. I plan to create a subpage on my user profile

Thanks, Hadseys 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

Regarding removing "trivial" material - Yes that is an okay path, perhaps for material like "... sunlit veranda fitted with trellis decorations". One option is to move some of the minor data into an explanatory footnote: that way it is still available to the reader, but not in the body. See WP:EXPLNOTE for options on how to present explanatory footnotes vis-a-vis citation footnotes.
How to remove - First, I'd recommend getting some buy-in from the article Talk page, before you start removing any material. Explain your goals and the WP policies.
Summary style - To review the guidelines on splitting-off pieces of an article (to make it smaller and tighter), first review WP:SUBARTICLE, WP:SPLIT, WP:Content fork and WP:Summary style.
Bibliography: some refs not in alphabetical order, e.g. Browne, Father; O'Donnell
Footnote formatting: not uniform: some end in periods, some do not.
Organization: Consider combining "Construction" with "Features" sections ... topics are very close & Construction looks like an orphan
Non-professional prose: "....has provoked more outrage..." not too encyclopedic. Although many were outraged, that sort of emotional word should be attributed to specific sources that were attributed, not put in the encyclopedia's voice. Ditto for "heroically" ... needs more specific attribution.
Verifiability: Virtually every sentence should have a footnote, but many are missing. Perhaps the footnotes at the end of each paragraph apply to the entire paragraph? Regardless, the standard now for top-quality WP articles is at least one for each (non-trivial) sentence.
Organization: Consider combining "Legends" & "Anniversary" & "Discovery of wreck" & "Insufficient lifeboats" sections into one section (but keep them as subsections) that covers all after-sinking events, perhaps called "Legacy" or "Aftermath"? (If use "Aftermath", must rename existing "aftermath" section).
Picture layout: The picture with caption "The first class dining room aboard Olympic" is not laid out well in my Chrome browser: it is overlapping the text above it.
Table layout: The table in section "Survivors, victims and statistics" is conflicting with the two images from the section above it: perhaps that section above ("Arrival of Carpathia in New York") could have one of its pictures removed?
Better flow - Sentences like "Californian eventually responded." are a bit short & choppy. Ideally the flow should be more fluid and narrative.

That's all for now ... I'll try to do a more in-depth look later. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]