Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Orizaba (ID-1536)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

USS Orizaba (ID-1536) edit

Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article consideration because I believe it meets all the requirements. It underwent a WP:MILHIST peer review here and successfully passed a A-Class review here — Bellhalla (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Very interesting read, references look good. Thanks for working on such a fine article. Dincher (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lengthy misunderstanding hidden
  • Comment could the unnecessary repeated links to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal be removed formthe references? Circeus (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that two WSJ article have the same title/headline but were published on different days and I'm not sure which NYT links you're talking about. Can you please clarify? Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm referring to the wikilinks to the article The New York Times (refs #27-32) and the WSJ one (refs #21-26). Certainly one link to each article is sufficient, especially where you have six of seven of them in a row? Circeus (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's wrong with having multiple references to the same newspapers if they reference different articles? - Jmsloderbeck (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be happy to address the concern, but I'm still stumped...? — Bellhalla (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I got a few of them. I simply changed New York Times in the refs to New York Times. C asked for the same thing at Black Moshannon State Park. Will do the rest if you want me to. Dincher (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You don't link an article every single time it appears (e.g.,you don't link all the instances of "United States" in the article), so why does it suddenly becomes useful just because it's in the references? First it "dissolves" the usefulness of the links (WP:CONTEXT: "A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following." In this case, it becomes--amongst other issues--less obvious that there are external links that can be followed) and makes the space cluttered with them.
            Second, they are identical links right next to each others, which further makes it obvious how redundant they are (also from CONTEXT: "there is hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section",as all these links are clumped under "references", it clearly applies here even though they are slightly separate in the wikitext, and even then...). Circeus (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now I understand what you were saying. You were talking about Wikipedia articles, not the news articles featured in the newspapers. I understand about overlinking and linking within context, it was your choice of a word that was ambiguous in this context that lead to the confusion. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The first reference to each newspaper (as of now, at least) has a wikilink to the newspaper's Wikipedia article. I also restored the correct newspaper name for The Atlanta Constitution that had been changed to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/22/22024.htm a reliable source?
    • I've always assumed by its wide use that navsource.com was considered a reliable source (through a de facto consensus, if through no other means). A google search of the text shows that "navsource.com" is found on over 3,800 wikipedia articles. While many of those are links to image galleries that navsource has for individual ships, a good many of them are to cite information.
      • Do other sources cite it or refer to the site as a reliable source of information? It it referred to in the media as such? Does it cite it's own sources? Is the author widely considered an expert in his field? Any of these can be used to show that a site is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The following appear to cite Navsource Naval History:
          • Gryniewicz, Paul (April 2005). "A tale of 2 tankers". Sea Classics. OCLC 60621086.</ref>
          • Sewell, Kenneth (2006). Red Star Rogue: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780743261135. OCLC 173165080.
          • Sturma, Michael (2008). The USS Flier: Death and Survival on a World War Ii Submarine. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813124810. OCLC 181335855.
          • Patton, Charles D. (2005). Colt Terry, Green Beret (1st ed.). College Station: Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 9781585443734. OCLC 57452804.
          • Tunander, Ola (2003). The Secret War Against Sweden: US and British Submarine Deception and Political Control in the 1980s. London: Frank Cass. ISBN 9780714682754. OCLC 52696134.
        • There are a good many other books that cite Navsource Naval History in some way, but the list above omits citations that were obvious photo credits and those where the nature of the reference was ambiguous. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks good with the two academic cites. It didn't give me bad vibes looking at the site, just needed something more than a "vibe" to call it reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise http://www.wardline.com/page/page/4557567.htm?
    • As a website, it may not meet WP:RS standards, but information I've found there has proven to be accurate, as verified by other sources. Nevertheless, I have eliminated the few bits that were cited to that website rather than fight it.
  • Granted the information isn't exactly controversial, but what makes http://www.timetableimages.com/maritime/index.htm a reliable source?
    • I recast the references to show I was citing material from the Ward Line itself rather than that of the website.
All links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Image:Hcrane.jpg has a depreciated tag. Additionally, a verifiable source is required per WP:IUP; what evidence do we have that this is in the public domain? Being available on "literally hundreds of website [sic]" is not a PD determinant.
      • I honestly didn't even look at the pic page; I saw the image on Hart Crane and just grabbed the link to it. I would imagine, especially if it was taken by Walker Evans, that it would most likely not be in the public domain and I have removed it from the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are flags needed in the infobox, especially when the country/line is stated immediately to the left? See Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The consensus practice with the ship infobox, {{Infobox Ship Begin}} (and related templates), is to show the flag of the operator, whether navy or commercial operator. In some cases—like the US and Brazil, as in this article—the naval ensign is the same as the national flag. In other cases—like the Royal Navy, for example—the naval ensign does not match the national flag, which makes it helpful to have the country listed. Furthermore, I believe that this would be an Appropriate use under the first bullet point that it's useful in a long table. And, yes, I know this is not a table of countries, but I believe it still applies here. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, I won't complain if this is standing practice for ship articles. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Fulgencio Batista, president of Cuba.jpg, the replacement for Crane, has problems as well. With a date of "8.III.28", it was published after 1923. Additionally, the author is anonymous, yet the PD claim is being based on life of author plus 70 years; how do we know it's been 70 years after death when we don't know the author? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Before giving up on Batista, what about a cropped version of either Image:1952Batista.jpg ot Image:Fulgencio Batista, president of Cuba, 1952.jpg instead? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, those may be even more problematic. The PD criterion used by the images appears unsupported by Decreto Ley No. 156 (and it's cute that both still have copyright watermarks). The context in the sources is that they are being used to illustrate events from 1952, not that the images themselves are from 1952. Although Cuban copyright durations are at the Berne Convention minimums of 50 years after publication for anonymous authors (Artículo 45 of No. 156) and 50 years after death for known authors (Artículo 43 of No. 156), without knowing either the author or the date of first publication, I'm not comfortable having a FA represent an image as PD when that status is uncertain. That's also ignoring that, as images hosted on U.S. servers subject to U.S. copyright law, the U.S. copyright duration for works with unknown publication and authorship is 120 years from creation. Long story short, I'd need more concrete origination information for the Batista images before being ok with their use. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, Batista image has been removed. Thanks for the assistance on the images. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see nothing glaringly wrong with this article other than what has already been mentioned above. --Brad (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Juliancolton (talk)
  • Comments
  • One of the biggest things I noticed is, because I have no knowledge of ships, the writing seems too technical. I think the shipping terms and words need to be explained better.
    • If you could list any terms that need better explanation, it would help in remedying it.
  • She was the sister ship of Siboney but neither was part of a ship class I had to read this sentence 4 times to understand what it is trying to say. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thinkit could be worded better.
    • That sentence was changed because of objections at the FAC for USS Siboney (ID-2999) for a similar sentence. Would the original wording of "She was the sister ship of Siboney but the two were not part of a ship class." be more comprehensible?
  • Orizaba, originally laid down as Vendado, made 15 transatlantic voyages for the Navy carrying troops to and from Europe in World War I, and had the second shortest average in-port turnaround time of all Navy transports. Same thing.
    • Reworded.
  • The whole article needs non-breaking spaces.
    • Where? For what? Can you give more specifics?
      • Between all numbers and preceeding or following text. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know about non-breaking spaces between numbers and units. Are we supposed to put a non-breaking space before the number (and unit?), too? Also, I've gotten conflicting information about non-breaking spaces within dates, with some saying they're necessary and other saying not. Can you, or anyone else point me to the relevant MOS sections so I can know for sure? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the MoS says it's ok to refer to the ship as "She", but I still don't think it sounds very encyclopediac. Is it possible to change around the wording, and cut down on the use of "She"?
    • I have no problem with the neuter pronouns for ships, but I stuck with the feminine pronouns because they were the style established by prior editors of the article. (To me, arbitrarily changing the style would be like just as arbitrary as switching from British English to American English.) What I've tried to do is vary references to the ship by using Orizaba, she, the ship (and variations like the liner, the transport ship, etc.), so as not to have too many of any. Using it and its would be out because of the MOS admonishment to not mix feminine and neuter pronouns. If you could you point out problematic areas that would benefit from rewording, I'll see what I can do.
  • Assigned to the Atlantic Transport Service, Orizaba carried over 15,000 troops, in six convoy trips, to France before the end of World War I. Too many commas, IMO.
    • Fixed.
  • Detached from that duty on 10 January 1919, she joined the Cruiser and Transport Force at Brest and in nine voyages returned over 31,700 troops to the United States. needs a comma to make it easier to read.
    • Done.
  • Crane had been drinking and had been humiliated after a clumsy pick-up attempt of a male member of the crew the night before ended with a severe beating. Same thing, took several times to understand what it's saying. Needs commas to break it up some.
    • Reworded.
  • In July 1934 Orizaba brought in 16 cases of Mexican gold, and in January 1935, 20 cases; in both instances for delivery to Chase National Bank. Again.
    • Done (I think).

Overall, good work so far. I'll give you some more things to take care of when these things are fixed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support. Alright, it looks like my issues have been addressed. I'm sure I could find other nit-picky things to complain about, but for the most part it looks great. You have my Support. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I just made a few copyedit tweaks. A few remaining questions:

  • "The ship completed 15 round trips with an average turn-around time of just over 30 days per trip, almost 10 days shorter than the overall average of 39.8 days." - the 39.8 days figure is an average figure for the whole Navy, yes? how about "...shorter than the overall Navy average of 39.8 days"?
    • Excellent suggestion. Done.
  • "After the divorce was finalized she and her travel companion, Laura Harding, were planning on spending a week in Havana and returning to New York on Ward Line ship Morro Castle." - How is this relevant? I thought perhaps it was a 'she was supposed to be on the ship that sank' teaser, but that was April and Morro Castle didn't go down til September.
    • Not particularly relevant, but "wraps up" the story of Katharine Hepburn. I can remove if it's really objectionable. Rephrased slightly. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To what does Note #5 (Crowell and Wilson, p. 321.) refer?
    • A phrase had been eliminated from the first sentence of that paragraph and the proper note was accidentally removed. Note 5 now correctly refers to the two sentences beginning "In mid-1917…" and ending with "…troop-carrying duties."

Maralia (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replies interspersed. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Support No remaining issues. Well done. Maralia (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Have watched this article matriculate and can see nothing that would lead me to have an issue with this article becoming an FA forthwith. -MBK004 04:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI should have commented earlier, because at Jack Kemp I am debating about the repeated publisher and works links. I don't think they should have been delinked here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not really getting what you mean, but I see negligible value in repeated links to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, etc. Maralia (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Good, well balanced article. Very rarely do I support on first reading. Just a suggestion: You could add the location where the ship was scrapped, and the callsign of the ship (is it ID 1536?). =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources I have don't say where the ship was scrapped. ID-1536 was its US Navy designation in World War I; its call sign in the US Navy (at some point in time) was "NUBY". If Navsource Naval History is deemed a reliable source (see discussion above), i'll be happy to add the call sign (plus its reference to Navsource) into the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Call sign added to World War II section on infobox; I found a WWII-era source that shows NUBY was the call sign during WWII (at least). — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I just found two minor issues, but I fixed them myself. Good work.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/USS_Orizaba_(ID-1536)&oldid=1138474681"