Template:Did you know nominations/USS Ferret (1822)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Ashwin147 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
USS Ferret (1822)
edit- ... that the USS Ferret was part of a naval fleet that sailed to the Caribbean to subdue the occurrence of pirate raids on merchant ships that had increased to almost 3,000 by the early 1820s?
Created/expanded by Gwillhickers (talk). Self nominated at 04:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC).
Article length is okay. Article creation date is okay but slightly misfiled here (created May 29 not May 28). But hook does not include any reference to the article! The hook must be about the article subject itself, not the historical background of the article. Also, the article has multiple issues with WP:MOS conformance, including misplacement of bolded name of article, use of italics for a quotation, and odd, stylized bibliography entries. And the top image is inappropriate, since it is not a drawing of the ship in question. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Have tied in hook with article subject and have corrected most issues. Re: Ship image : If an actual image is not available for a given ship one that is generic and representative of the ship is often used in ship's articles. I can cite plenty of examples if need be, however, if you insist, I will remove the image. Re: Bibliography : I believe the stylized bibliography (list formatting) is common enough (Book titles in italics are generated by 'Cite book' template) -- such formatting was used in the Tadeusz Kościuszko article which was recently granted GA status, and conforms with bibliography project and bulleted list guidelines. However, if you insist here also I can remove the bold author's names, etc. (It makes for easier viewing of a list when the author's last name is bold and the title, name of publisher, year date, page number, ISBN, Url, etc are not all strung together on one continuous line.) If you still feel there are issues, could we invoke the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy in such a case? Imo removing the formatting in the Bibliography will run all the text together and would not improve the article. Again, I will conform to all requests if need be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was asked for a third opinion on my talk page. I think the article is DYKable now, all problems are minor and don't seem to go against DYK reequirements. That said 1) yes, there's excessive capitalizaiton - please remove all bold in bibliography. The hook could also use blue links. I'd pass the DYK once those two issies are addressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Add blue links in hook.
Done - Remove bold and excessive Caps in Bibliography. Done
- Add blue links in hook.
- -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Bibliography is still a problem. The reason that templates like {{Cite book}} are provided is that they provide a common appearance to certain standard sections across all of Wikipedia. If you want to make a case that all bibliographies would be better served by bolding the last name of the author, make it at Template talk:Cite book. Then the maintainers of that template will change it, and presto, all bibliographies will have the new appearance. In fact, this is unlikely – we generally minimize boldface because it naturally draws the reader's eye and we only want to do that for a few important items. Drmies did not like the Bibliography formatting in the GA review of Tadeusz Kościuszko and Piotrus and I do not like it in this article. While you have now removed it for authors' last names, you left it in for "Dept U.S.Navy" and for the initial letters of "Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships". Neither of those usages is appropriate. (You can however provide a link to Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.) The separate "Url" links after each entry are also a bit problematic, but we'll leave that for another day. Done
- You still have "Dept U.S.Navy" in bold twice. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Done
- You still have "Dept U.S.Navy" in bold twice. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Bibliography is still a problem. The reason that templates like {{Cite book}} are provided is that they provide a common appearance to certain standard sections across all of Wikipedia. If you want to make a case that all bibliographies would be better served by bolding the last name of the author, make it at Template talk:Cite book. Then the maintainers of that template will change it, and presto, all bibliographies will have the new appearance. In fact, this is unlikely – we generally minimize boldface because it naturally draws the reader's eye and we only want to do that for a few important items. Drmies did not like the Bibliography formatting in the GA review of Tadeusz Kościuszko and Piotrus and I do not like it in this article. While you have now removed it for authors' last names, you left it in for "Dept U.S.Navy" and for the initial letters of "Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships". Neither of those usages is appropriate. (You can however provide a link to Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.) The separate "Url" links after each entry are also a bit problematic, but we'll leave that for another day.
- Ironically, you are still missing the one place where boldface is required, in the first sentence per WP:BOLDTITLE. See any other ship article for how this should look. Done
- Ironically, you are still missing the one place where boldface is required, in the first sentence per WP:BOLDTITLE. See any other ship article for how this should look.
- Regarding the top image, show me some articles that do what you say. I just randomly checked ten articles in Category:Schooners of the United States Navy and none of them have a top image unless it's of the actual ship. My feeling is that this drawing is great for use in the Schooner article but not elsewhere.
- Well, I know they exist, and I was once informed some time ago by a WikiProject Ship member that inclusion of images in this manner was practiced, however, and admittingly, the only examples I can come up with off hand are articles (see page links at bottom) where I have done this. (I'll look for other examples) The image at least let's the readers know what the basic design of the ship looks like and doesn't leave them wondering if the ship looks like a Frigate, Ship of the line, Brig, etc -- while the caption clearly says that the image is only a basic sail configuration of a typical schooner. If there is no specific policy against it can we leave it for reasons mentioned? Otherwise I will be happy (sort of) to remove it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be difficult, but I really don't think this use conforms to WP:LEADIMAGE: "the selection of a lead image is plainly obvious: a photograph or artistic work of a person, photographs of a city, or a cover of a book or album, to name a few ... [they] should be illustrating the topic specifically ... Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." I understand that your caption explains what this is, but lead image captions are often lost in the other text of the infobox. I think the best solution here is to have no lead image, but move the schooner image down into the body of the article. There the caption will be more easily seen and the drawing's use as a general illustration rather than the specific ship will be clear.
- Regarding the top image, show me some articles that do what you say. I just randomly checked ten articles in Category:Schooners of the United States Navy and none of them have a top image unless it's of the actual ship. My feeling is that this drawing is great for use in the Schooner article but not elsewhere.
- Speaking of images, you might also consider replacing the current-day map of the Caribbean with a contemporaneous map such as File:1818 Pinkerton Map of the West Indies, Antilles, and Caribbean Sea - Geographicus - WestIndies2-pinkerton-1818.jpg or File:1827 Finley Map of the West Indies, Caribbean, and Antilles - Geographicus - WestIndies-finley-1827.jpg. The place names would match the usage at the time and the map would give readers more of a historical 'feel' when reading the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, those are much better map images -- Thanks! Done
- Hey, those are much better map images -- Thanks!
- Speaking of images, you might also consider replacing the current-day map of the Caribbean with a contemporaneous map such as File:1818 Pinkerton Map of the West Indies, Antilles, and Caribbean Sea - Geographicus - WestIndies2-pinkerton-1818.jpg or File:1827 Finley Map of the West Indies, Caribbean, and Antilles - Geographicus - WestIndies-finley-1827.jpg. The place names would match the usage at the time and the map would give readers more of a historical 'feel' when reading the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- In both the article and the hook above, I would change "[[pirate]] raids" to "[[Piracy in the Caribbean|pirate raids]]". This gives a link to a more specific article. The revised hook length is okay (192 characters) but the hook fact is not sourced in the article. Which source provides the "almost 3,000" figure? Done
- In both the article and the hook above, I would change "[[pirate]] raids" to "[[Piracy in the Caribbean|pirate raids]]". This gives a link to a more specific article. The revised hook length is okay (192 characters) but the hook fact is not sourced in the article. Which source provides the "almost 3,000" figure?
- Some more formatting issues. Two-letter abbreviations like in "Baltimore, Md." are generally not done - we either spell the state out or omit it if the city is well known enough (the case here). Decades such as "1820s" are written like that, not "1820's", per WP:DECADE. Done
- You still have one "Md" in the infobox. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Done
- You still have one "Md" in the infobox. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Some more formatting issues. Two-letter abbreviations like in "Baltimore, Md." are generally not done - we either spell the state out or omit it if the city is well known enough (the case here). Decades such as "1820s" are written like that, not "1820's", per WP:DECADE.
- The "External links" entries don't make much sense to me. The first is to an Answers.com page on the West Indies Squadron which is just a copy of the Wikipedia article West Indies Squadron (United States). Since you already link to that article in the text, the external link is pointless. The second is to a full text of one of the bibliography entries. That should be combined with that entry in the bibliography. Done
- The "External links" entries don't make much sense to me. The first is to an Answers.com page on the West Indies Squadron which is just a copy of the Wikipedia article West Indies Squadron (United States). Since you already link to that article in the text, the external link is pointless. The second is to a full text of one of the bibliography entries. That should be combined with that entry in the bibliography.
- There are also problems with some of the categories you have included. I don't think Category:Anti-piracy battles involving the United States is appropriate (you added it for this and another ship article). A ship is not a battle. If your approach were used, Category:Battles of World War II involving the United States would include every U.S. ship that fought in WWII, but it does not. Category:Pirates of the Caribbean is about the Disney franchise; unless the Ferrett is a model for one of the ships in it (which would have to be added as a sourced fact in the article text), this category is inappropriate. I think inclusion in Category:Caribbean-American history is not really what that category is meant for (as are a few other entries in it). I think Category:Anti-piracy is borderline. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Done
- There are also problems with some of the categories you have included. I don't think Category:Anti-piracy battles involving the United States is appropriate (you added it for this and another ship article). A ship is not a battle. If your approach were used, Category:Battles of World War II involving the United States would include every U.S. ship that fought in WWII, but it does not. Category:Pirates of the Caribbean is about the Disney franchise; unless the Ferrett is a model for one of the ships in it (which would have to be added as a sourced fact in the article text), this category is inappropriate. I think inclusion in Category:Caribbean-American history is not really what that category is meant for (as are a few other entries in it). I think Category:Anti-piracy is borderline. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Have resolved all issues but one, see above note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I believe all issues have finally been resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes they have, we're good to go. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
