Talk:Doom Bar/Archive 1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doom Bar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found and fixed four.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: found and fixed one.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are a large number of stray single sentences, these need to be consolidated into paragraphs.

    Done I think. Both the Legend and Partial Removal sections have quite short paragraphs though... two sentences. Should I be consolidating further?

   The lead should summarise the entire article, as per WP:LEAD. Any material in the lead should also be in the artcile, which is not the case here. Done

   Her abandonment happened over the next few days. better to say something like "She was abandoned over the next few days. Done

   I made a few copy-edits

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I have placed some citation needed tags where cites are needed.  Done

   ref #19 "Presentation to Brave Milford Fishermen", Haverfordwest & Milford Haven Telegraph, 28 February. I am a little puzzled as to why a presentation to Milford seamen would include commendations of Padstow lifeboatmen?  Done I should have been clearer, it was due to the Padstow crew refusing.

   But the citation comes from the Haverfordwest & Milford Haven Telegraph! Milford Haven is in West Wales, ove ninety miles away by sea. Can you post the full text of the citation here?

   Good point, I've just re-read it, and I've got it wrong. will write it out below.  Done Now done, they were on a passing Steam Liner.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This combined with the natural sea salt made the sand very valuable to farmers to mix into manure Why? Needs some explanation. Done Cornwall has acidic soil.

   We could also do with some explanation of how a bar forms. There may be some pointers at Sand bank#Harbour and river bars. Done I'm still not 100% Satisfied, and could probably improve that with a diagram.

   However, after a series of mishaps blamed on Cruel Coppinger, Needs some explanation of who Cruel Coppinger was. Just a mention such as "the legendary wrecker Cruel Coppinger".  Done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images check out, do we need two images of the bar at low tide? Done I guess not, I've taken one out

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I think the article now meets the GA criteria, and I am happy to award GA status. As you say, there is still some room for improvement. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Full text of Milford Haven Article

Mr. T. G. Hancock presided at the weekly concert of the John Cory Sailors' Rest and during an interval in the proceedings said he had a pleasing duty to perform in the presentation to Mr. J. Horst, Mr. F. Reynolds and Mr. W. Cook, three members of the crew of the steam liner Chanticleer, who in November last volunteered to make up a life-boat crew that went to the rescue of a fisherman who was on the wreck of the "Angele", of Brest, on the Doom Bar, Padstow, and with great difficulty and danger saved the man's life. The act was all the more meritorious because the regular crew of the Padstow Lifeboat who had only just before been out to another wreck refused to make the second journey. The bravery of these three men had been recognised by the National Lifeboat Institution who at a meeting of the Committee of Management held in London in December adopted the following resolution:-

"That the best thanks of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution be presented to Mr. J. Horst, Mr. F. Reynolds and Mr. W. Cook, for gallantly coming forward as volunteers in the Padstow No. 1 Lifeboat, and assisting to save the master of the brigantine "Angele", of Brest, which was wrecked on the Doom Bar, Padstow, in a strong W.N.W. gale and very heavy sea on the 12th November 1912."

The Chairman asked the men mentioned to come forward to the platform, and Messrs Horst and Reynolds came to the front amidst loud cheers. Mr Cook, the Chairman said, was at sea, and he would have the pleasure of handing him his certificate again.

Dunbar?

Although it's only a secondary name here, perhaps it would be worth adding an other uses link here to Dunbar (disambiguation) or a link somewhere in the article to Dunbar. Incidentally, that name almost certainly has no connection with sandbars as it's in an area of rocky cliffs: see the suggested Brythonic source which looks likely. . . dave souza, talk 19:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely the feature was called the Dun Bar because that describes very well what it is - a Dun (greyish-brown) Bar (bank of sand, silt. etc., across the mouth of a river or harbour, obstructing navigation). I've lifted the definitions from the SOED. Mahonj (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Pre FAC checks

As an aid to meeting WP:Featured article criteria, I'll transclude a toolbox for the article as a starting point. --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Altviewer shows no problems except the File:Red pog.svg issue that I'm trying to fix at Template talk:Location map #Suppressing alt text for the marker.
• Citation bot has been run - no changes needed.
• Dablinks shows no problems.
• Checklinks came up with problems with:
  • http://www.stepper-point.co.uk/newsletters/newsletter_12_summer_2008.pdf (Ref 42) - seems to be a glitch that has now resolved.
  • http://www.promare.co.uk/whiting/ArrowToWhiting.html (Ref 27) - the site is very slow and timed out on checklinks, but will load eventually.
  • http://www.promare.co.uk/whiting/index.htm (Ref 31) - as above.

I'll update the accessdates to indicate they are working as of today.

• Rdcheck found the redirect Doom Bar (beer) to be invalid. I've updated the redirect and left an html comment in the article text.
• Reflinks shows no problems.

--RexxS (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a positive start. I've redirected the beer to the brewery, which seems like the obvious place for it to be. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Left aligned images at start of subsections

User:Epbr123#Style and prose checklist says "Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections". There's a few examples of this in this article currently, although most of them are only at the start of level 2 subsections and are left-aligned because the preceding images are right-aligned, and the other one is left-aligned because there's a quote taking up the right-aligned space.

So are these OK to leave as they are, or do some of them need changing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a fiddle, moving some images around and adding a couple more - We don't have any left-alinged images at the start of subsections and the "left/right" rule is in tact. The only problem would come if I find any more images! Let's hope I don't... Worm^TT(talk) 09:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I read the checklist to say that it's fine to have Left-aligned images at the start of sections, but not subsections - have I misinterpreted? Worm^TT(talk) 09:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes you're right.

On a related note, the current layout generates a very large amount of whitespace when viewed at 1440x900 in Internet Explorer, not quite so bad in FireFox but still noticeable. I'm wondering if there aren't perhaps too many pictures, and the reader is left feeling that there are portions of the article that are mainly picture-driven, with the text added alongside the pictures in order to justify and explain them, rather than the other way round as it should be.

I wonder if it's worth putting the "Doom bar at low tide" picture into the infobox (a bit bigger), and not using the "Waves breaking on the Doom bar" picture at all? Although there are perhaps good reasons to have one pic at low water and one at high water, the latter image is very hard to understand without reading the caption and parts of the article first - it just looks like some water photographed from some land. The former picture is much better as it clearly shows the Doom Bar itself and instantly makes clear what it is.

Maybe we need a replacement "at high tide" pic - I'm told today is a great day for taking pictures of wind and wave in south-west England :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Would love to be down there taking photos, but I'm a good 5-6 hours away! If you think any pictures should be removed, or swapped about, please do go ahead - I'm picture happy, and that's possibly not a good thing. I've also used a few {{clear}}s, which might account for the whitespace on IE - it might be better to take them back out. Worm^TT(talk) 09:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Helicopter rescues yacht - clarification needed

"the Padstow lifeboat and a rescue helicopter rescued two yachts in separate incidents". Now, clearly, the helicopter did not rescue the yacht - there's a video on YouTube that shows what happens when you try to tow a boat (even a small one) with a helicopter. I guess the helicopter just rescued the crew, but the lifeboat might have rescued the crew or rescued both yacht and crew. I'm reluctant to reword it myself, since I don't know which it is. Any ideas? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The associated source gives a very good account of what happened that day, but doesn't mention what happened to the second yacht (the first was towed to safety after the crew and two lifeboat personel were airlifted). I've added a couple of words to confirm that it was the crews that were rescued, not they yachts. Worm^TT≡talk≡ 11:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting for FAC

I got a question about this one; I think it's going to need some work. For instance, in the lead:

• "it represented a significant hazard to shipping due to the complicated route boats needed to take": due to -> owing to. I know, "due to" doesn't sound all that terrible to me either, but Garner's, Chicago and many British style guides disagree, saying that "due to" should always modify a noun or noun phrase. What's being modified here is the whole clause, that is, it's the fact that it represented a significant hazard that is "due to" something, so "owing to" is better. If you were saying that a sand bar constituted the hazard, you could say the hazard was "due to" the sand bar, since "due to" would be modifying "hazard". - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• "complicated route boats needed to take": route to where?

Thinking about this one - would probably need to completely re-arrange several sentences in order to clarify it properly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While you're thinking, I've clarified that it's the entrance to Padstow. If you've got any better ideas, I'd welcome them.Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Having re-read that a few times, I think it's fine (and probably better than the mass re-arranging I was planning to clarify it). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• "There have been many shipwrecks there through the centuries, and the sand bank had such a notorious reputation that vessels would risk being wrecked on the coast rather than negotiate the entrance to Padstow.": The shipwrecks are probably responsible for the reputation ... if so, then this would be tighter: "There have been many shipwrecks there through the centuries, and many more ships have risked being wrecked on the coast rather than negotiating the entrance to Padstow."

Thinking about this one - the proposed replacement sounds very wrong somehow, although the original could perhaps be trimmed a bit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there's no requirement to use my words ... suggesting something is the most compact way to point to problems. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, have gone ahead and used the wording. Demiurge1000, if you can come up with a better solution, be my guest. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the first occurrence of "many" with "numerous" to cut down repetition. I'm hoping it sounds a bit better and also still gets the sense across accurately. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• "A House of Commons report on the Doom Bar could not find any way to remove the danger, but safety measures included ...": Was the report directly responsible for the safety measures?

No. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• "capstans": Not getting how a capstan helps a boat or ship get past the sand bar.

I wondered the same about the bollards etc originally. However, I guess what's happening is that, this being the age of sail, a lot of shipwrecks aren't because ships run aground in a matter of minutes due to hurricane-force winds or faulty navigation. They basically drift slowly until they hit something (in this case a sandbar), and onlookers can appreciate what's going to happen for anything up to hours in advance. So there's plenty of time for a rowing boat to run a strong line from a capstan on the shore to the ship, and then the capstan can be used for motive power to gradually pull the ship in the right direction. The function of the rings and bollards are expanded upon a bit in the body of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right, the winds were/are temperamental there, they come from different directions due to the eddying, and can fall away all together. With no power and a quickly changing tide, boats could get beached by just floating onto the sandbank. Furthermore, in extra rough weather, there is no possibility of using an anchor to gain purchase and ride out the storm. Finally, even winds were behaving properly, sail power wasn't perfectly accurate, so the capstan was used to ensure the ship is running on the correct line. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• "eddying winds": winds that create eddy currents, maybe?

My understanding is that it's the winds that are eddying, not the water. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, any fluid (including gases) can eddy, and it's the winds which are eddying, by coming over the top of the cliff and circling back on themselves. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The bar formed in the 16th century, and is composed of sediment from the river and sand from the sea": The bar formed in the 16th century from river sediment and sand from the sea.

 Done - we're losing a bit of the sense here (the bar didn't just form in the 16th century then sit there - like the Ship of Theseus, the sediment and sand from the 16th century is almost certainly no longer part of the sandbar now.) But, the replacement is a great deal tidier, so happy with that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• "A Cornish folklore legend has grown around the origins of the Doom Bar; that a mermaid created it as a dying curse on the harbour after she was shot by a local man.": Three problems:
  • The semicolon creates a sentence fragment.
  • "legend", "origins" and "created" are triply redundant; better would be, maybe, "In Cornish folklore, a mermaid created the Doom Bar ...".
  • "Has grown" suggests the story is recent, but "legend" suggests it's old. It would be better to either be specific or not hint about the age of the tale. Also, with all fiction that's relevant to history, it's best to at least give the reader a clue why the fiction is significant ... does the story for instance have "notability" of its own? Has the story somehow affected the history? - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Will think on this one a bit more. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. These days, a few copyediting problems don't mean a quick death at FAC ... since it's already been peer reviewed, you and/or WTT can always put it up at FAC, where you'll (hopefully) get a range of opinions. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not certain about that one myself. Legend may not be the right word, I'll think about it too. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

How about something like "An enduring local and literary legend developed around the idea of a mermaid's involvement in the creation of the Doom Bar." ? (The alliteration is accidental rather than deliberate, and would be probably best avoided.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Some comments

I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with this article that would mean it would crash and burn at FAC, but there are a few things I've picked up on:

• I suggest you separate out the book sources (especially those you cite more than once). You can use the style at Iranian Embassy siege#References/Operation Barras#References (which I find easy to use) or you can get someone to do list-defined references (sfn) for you

   DoneI've played with the references as much as I can... I don't think sfn is a great idea because there is a large variety of references

• Make sure all references are properly formatted and contain all the available information. WP:CITE#What_information_to_include might help.

   Done per above

  • Books, for example, should have author's name, title, date/year of publication, and ISBN where available. It doesn't matter whether or not you give place of publication, but be consistent.

     Done

• Make sure all sources are reliable

  Hmmm. Difficult on that - I've pulled out any self published sources, so the biggest problem is the beer part. Will have a think.

• Be consistent in the format you use for citations

   Done Should be consistent now.

• The section headings are a little misleading—for example, the first paragraph of the history section is about geography rather than history and the first paragraph under "Dredging" doesn't discuss dredging

   Done

• Provide conversions for measurements (eg tons of sand)

   Done

• It has accounted for over 600 beachings, wrecks and capsizings since records began early in the 19th century,[15] with about 300 being wrecks—"with" is a pretty crappy connective. See WP:1a#Smoothly integrating ideas into a sentence

   Done

• and pushed the hapless vessels in the direction of the sand bank; "hapless" is a little flamboyant for an encyclopaedia

   Done

• What does as it would gain no purchase on the sand mean?

   Done

• According to one report, the Doom Bar was regarded as so dangerous that vessels would risk being wrecked on the coast in a storm, rather than negotiate the entrance to Padstow. You need to introduce Padstow before or immediately after that point

   Done It's mentioned and linked in the prior section, but I've added "nearby .. harbour" to clarify.

• I know "capstan" is linked in the lead, but a brief plain English explanation might be beneficial here

   Not done I can't see how it would, as it would upset the flow of the text. It's explained that it's a safety feature, and later points out that it would be used for warping (again linked).

• An example was the Towan, which was not in significant danger and did not need assistance. That's quite an awkward and abrupt new sentence

   Done

• the Life-boat Institution, a permanent lifeboat, a RNLI Silver Medal, and then in the next paragraph, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

   Done

• Are there any other notable shipwrecks on the Doom Bar?

   Done No - there's no other notable ships which were wrecked there. I'm hoping to write a List of wrecks on Doom Bar article when I've finished with this one.

• so a miner by the name of Pope was called in is one of those unusual phrases that don't match the surrounding text which make me suspicious; the sentence could also be easily incorporated into the next one

   DoneThat's what happens when you write an article in bits over the course of 4-5 years. Yes, that's awkward and I've sorted it.

• Watch out for overlinking—linking a term more than once outside the lead is frowned upon at FAC

   Done caught a couple

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)