GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: BurritoTunnelMaintenance ( talk · contribs) 21:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, @ Crook1:. I'm afraid this is my first time doing a GA review, but I hope you'll bear with me. I'm sure we can get through this with a little diligence and mutual forbearance. I've read the prior review, and I can imagine that was a frustrating experience. I'll begin with the table version of the review template, below, and work on filling it in, so you have a clear idea of my thoughts, and where things stand. Please feel free to add any comments you like at any point in the process. I'll try to be clear with my questions. BurritoTunnelMaintenance ( talk) 21:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
In places where I feel like very minor edits would address issues I'd otherwise have raised, principally with clarity of wording, I'm going to go ahead and make those changes. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert them, and I will, of course, take no offense, though I may then suggest that you address whatever issue I was trying to ameliorate. BurritoTunnelMaintenance ( talk) 21:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Generally good. Some construction is a little unwieldy, but easily clarified. Missing commas here and there, which I'll try to right as I see them. There's a fair bit of usage which I suspect to be specifically nautical; in context, it provides the right tone, but I'll need to read carefully to figure out whether all meanings can be gleaned from context, or if any of it requires explanation or internal links for a lay reader to fully understand. More on this as I go.
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Section capitalization is fixed now. Layout is sensible, and the material is organized in a straight-forward chronology. I don't see any fiction. We have an elegant variation problem throughout the article. Many synonyms are used for she/ship/vessel/freighter/steamer, resulting in a kind of clunkiness, and leading to occasional unclarity as to whether the same ship is being referred to, or some different one. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I don't think any of the sources are controversial. Some of the contemporaneous media accounts may have been poorly-researched at the time, but I don't think the article relies upon portions that are problematic. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | The article uses a lot of nautical terms-of-art, which may appear to the lay reader to be original research, but which, upon inspection, accurately summarize the facts as represented in the cited sources. My recommendation is to, wherever possible, use common language in the article, rather than terms-of-art. So, although there may be a superficial appearance of original research, I've found the references to be solid, and I've found no speculation, fiction, hypotheses, or drawing-of-conclusions. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | CopyBot/Turnitin don't find any plagiarized text, and I don't see anything inappropriately copied from the cited sources. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | It's definitely comprehensive. If it leaves questions unanswered, I'll note them here. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | It feels to me as though it strikes an excellent balance, leavening the many specific details with fascinating anecdotes and stories about its history. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | I see nothing I'd characterize as biased. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | There are no edit-wars or argument over the facts. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | A single image isn't much to go on. I recognize that there may not be too many extant images of the ship itself, and it may not have changed appearance significantly through its twenty-six years. Perhaps an image of the sponsor would liven things up?
A map of PQ-16's route, showing the location of the sinking?
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | I'd say we're still too thin here. There's a single image, and it's un-captioned.
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
BurritoTunnelMaintenance,
Crook1, where does this review stand? What is left to be done? I should probably point out that the
GA criteria number 6 on images/media start out by saying Illustrated, if possible
: the "if possible" is a key part of the criteria. It's only possible if there are either free images or valid non-free use rationales are provided for images that aren't free, and those rationales are highly restrictive. Some good articles don't have any images at all because nothing can legitimately be used. BurritoTunnelMaintenance, as this is your first GA review, let me recommend
Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not to your attention. I found it very helpful when I was doing my first GA reviews in terms of understanding what the criteria mean and what they don't.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
04:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
BurritoTunnelMaintenance, Crook1, I apologize for not returning after my initial status query. It seemed that I ought at least to do a minor copyedit and deal with some of the issues above, which I have just completed. About a few of those issues:
all the modern cranessounds overly broad (how many types were there?), and as the entire paragraph is unsourced, I was unable to check to see what was meant. This needs to be addressed.
clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audienceprose requirement—then examples of such instances should be proffered by the reviewer, and they (and others like them) should be addressed by the nominator. If they don't truly affect clarity, concision, and comprehension, then it's probably a Featured Article issue, not a Good Article one.
I hope this is helpful. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
On 11 September 1915, Mrs. Eurana E. Schwab, wife of Charles M. Schwab, pressed a button in her house in Bethlehem and the electrically operated guillotine cut the cord releasing the vessel into the water. We're informed of the identity of her husband before the trivial statement that she pressed a button. It's not necessary and contributes nada to reader comprehension. Nowhere are males referred to as 'Mr.' nor are they referred foremost to as 'the husband of ...'. You can almost get away with 'Mrs. John McGregor' because 'John' is typically a masculine name, but elsewhere it's dated. Mr rnddude ( talk) 23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
BurritoTunnelMaintenance has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so I have requested a second opinion in the hopes of finding someone to finish this GA review. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Before diving deeper - what makes convoy.web a reliable source? Ealdgyth ( talk) 17:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ GreatLakesShips: Anything? Ealdgyth ( talk) 12:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: BurritoTunnelMaintenance ( talk · contribs) 21:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, @ Crook1:. I'm afraid this is my first time doing a GA review, but I hope you'll bear with me. I'm sure we can get through this with a little diligence and mutual forbearance. I've read the prior review, and I can imagine that was a frustrating experience. I'll begin with the table version of the review template, below, and work on filling it in, so you have a clear idea of my thoughts, and where things stand. Please feel free to add any comments you like at any point in the process. I'll try to be clear with my questions. BurritoTunnelMaintenance ( talk) 21:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
In places where I feel like very minor edits would address issues I'd otherwise have raised, principally with clarity of wording, I'm going to go ahead and make those changes. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert them, and I will, of course, take no offense, though I may then suggest that you address whatever issue I was trying to ameliorate. BurritoTunnelMaintenance ( talk) 21:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Generally good. Some construction is a little unwieldy, but easily clarified. Missing commas here and there, which I'll try to right as I see them. There's a fair bit of usage which I suspect to be specifically nautical; in context, it provides the right tone, but I'll need to read carefully to figure out whether all meanings can be gleaned from context, or if any of it requires explanation or internal links for a lay reader to fully understand. More on this as I go.
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Section capitalization is fixed now. Layout is sensible, and the material is organized in a straight-forward chronology. I don't see any fiction. We have an elegant variation problem throughout the article. Many synonyms are used for she/ship/vessel/freighter/steamer, resulting in a kind of clunkiness, and leading to occasional unclarity as to whether the same ship is being referred to, or some different one. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I don't think any of the sources are controversial. Some of the contemporaneous media accounts may have been poorly-researched at the time, but I don't think the article relies upon portions that are problematic. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | The article uses a lot of nautical terms-of-art, which may appear to the lay reader to be original research, but which, upon inspection, accurately summarize the facts as represented in the cited sources. My recommendation is to, wherever possible, use common language in the article, rather than terms-of-art. So, although there may be a superficial appearance of original research, I've found the references to be solid, and I've found no speculation, fiction, hypotheses, or drawing-of-conclusions. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | CopyBot/Turnitin don't find any plagiarized text, and I don't see anything inappropriately copied from the cited sources. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | It's definitely comprehensive. If it leaves questions unanswered, I'll note them here. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | It feels to me as though it strikes an excellent balance, leavening the many specific details with fascinating anecdotes and stories about its history. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | I see nothing I'd characterize as biased. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | There are no edit-wars or argument over the facts. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | A single image isn't much to go on. I recognize that there may not be too many extant images of the ship itself, and it may not have changed appearance significantly through its twenty-six years. Perhaps an image of the sponsor would liven things up?
A map of PQ-16's route, showing the location of the sinking?
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | I'd say we're still too thin here. There's a single image, and it's un-captioned.
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
BurritoTunnelMaintenance,
Crook1, where does this review stand? What is left to be done? I should probably point out that the
GA criteria number 6 on images/media start out by saying Illustrated, if possible
: the "if possible" is a key part of the criteria. It's only possible if there are either free images or valid non-free use rationales are provided for images that aren't free, and those rationales are highly restrictive. Some good articles don't have any images at all because nothing can legitimately be used. BurritoTunnelMaintenance, as this is your first GA review, let me recommend
Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not to your attention. I found it very helpful when I was doing my first GA reviews in terms of understanding what the criteria mean and what they don't.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
04:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
BurritoTunnelMaintenance, Crook1, I apologize for not returning after my initial status query. It seemed that I ought at least to do a minor copyedit and deal with some of the issues above, which I have just completed. About a few of those issues:
all the modern cranessounds overly broad (how many types were there?), and as the entire paragraph is unsourced, I was unable to check to see what was meant. This needs to be addressed.
clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audienceprose requirement—then examples of such instances should be proffered by the reviewer, and they (and others like them) should be addressed by the nominator. If they don't truly affect clarity, concision, and comprehension, then it's probably a Featured Article issue, not a Good Article one.
I hope this is helpful. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
On 11 September 1915, Mrs. Eurana E. Schwab, wife of Charles M. Schwab, pressed a button in her house in Bethlehem and the electrically operated guillotine cut the cord releasing the vessel into the water. We're informed of the identity of her husband before the trivial statement that she pressed a button. It's not necessary and contributes nada to reader comprehension. Nowhere are males referred to as 'Mr.' nor are they referred foremost to as 'the husband of ...'. You can almost get away with 'Mrs. John McGregor' because 'John' is typically a masculine name, but elsewhere it's dated. Mr rnddude ( talk) 23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
BurritoTunnelMaintenance has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so I have requested a second opinion in the hopes of finding someone to finish this GA review. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Before diving deeper - what makes convoy.web a reliable source? Ealdgyth ( talk) 17:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@ GreatLakesShips: Anything? Ealdgyth ( talk) 12:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)